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. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

  • 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?

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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. 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

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. stats.grok.se or 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 so 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

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

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

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For 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|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{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.
III.
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.

Contents

Current list

February 23

Apostrophectomy

Delete per WP:CNR. Someone searching this concept would be surprised or confused to end up at a MoS page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Death Wish (2014 film)

Delete as a faulty crystal ball. A remake never came to fruition in either of these years, so there's not a 2014/5 film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Event 15

This is an WP:XY. There's nowhere the film is discussed in any detail, so the best way for our readers to get information about the film is via the search engine. They'd be able to see who starred in the film and if they wanted, can select a specific actor to get more information about them, rather than be funneled into an arbitrary cast member. It's also mentioned at Stephen Rider and Christine Alderson. (Note: All redirects refer to the same film.) -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

John Ledger

Rather vague redirect as this can refer to a few non-notable people or a film still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Teresa May

Restore the twodabs page as per the consensus developed during the AfD last Summer.

  • Note that the page is protected, so an administrator will need to add the RfD notice to the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A content dispute has been going on since 29 January 2017, which is when I attempted to restore both Teresa May and Teresa May (actress).  A WP:TWODABS solution for "Teresa May" was the consensus at the time that the "Teresa May (actress)" article was deleted last Summer.  The AfD is at WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination).

    Currently, if a reader types in "Teresa May", the reader will be redirected to Theresa May (a large page with 120,000 characters), and then must determine that the hatnote is applicable where it states, "For other people with similar names, see Theresa May (disambiguation)."  This hatnote link will take the reader to the Theresa May (disambiguation) page, from which Teresa May (actress) is linked. 

    See also Talk:Theresa May#Hatnote to Teresa MayUnscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • User:KaisaL summed up the options at the AfD:

    I think it [a hatnote to Teresa May (actress)] would be necessary if Teresa May redirects to Theresa May. The only other options would be a hard disambiguation page between the two at Teresa May instead, or keeping that directed to the porn actress. If this is kept, those are the three options really, you can't redirect someone with an article's name to somebody else and not mention them anywhere, as you're essentially orphaning them in our search. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that there is a fourth option of a redirect at "Teresa May" to "Theresa May (disambiguation)".  There are two variations for "keeping that directed to the porn actress", those being (3a) redirect of "Teresa May" to "Teresa May (actress)", and (3b) retaining the "Teresa May" article in place.  (3b) is the default case as this was the case starting on 2009-07-01, so has been the case for 7.5 years on Wikipedia.  However, because of the edit histories, this should be done as a 100% merge with attribution, rather than as a page move.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an incomplete presentation at best. It cherry picks support that was voiced given one set of circumstances and attempts to apply it to a situation that has changed multiple times, often even as various discussions were in progress. There was no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (2nd nomination) for the to be two separate disambiguation pages. And to be honest it isn't even clear what options 1 and 2 are here for there to be a 3a and 3b. FWIW, I'd be fine with moving Teresa May (actress) to Teresa May with a hatnote to the PM and to Theresa May (disambiguation), though I don't have any problem whatsoever with leaving things just as they are. However, there should not be multiple disambiguation pages for the same content (the easily confused spellings of Theresa/Teresa/Therese May). olderwiser 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the better solution is to delete Teresa May (actress) for the same reason that the AFD closed as delete: there are no sources for her career. Her "notabiity" derives solely form a coincidence of name. Ans, as User:KaisaL wrote, the hatnote will "probably actually end up causing occasional blog and social media posts about it just by doing it." which is unfair to the politician." Have I missed some new argument for restoring Teresa May (actress)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22

Ramp (Disambiguation)

An error with no affinity, WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Because of the erroneous capitalization, this is never going to get used as a deliberate link to the dab page. And any search will find the target page without this redirect's help. — Gorthian (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/2nd nomination

Obviously malformed, and could potentially make someone think that the redirect stands for something else, such as the page Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates being nominated for WP:MFD. (The redirect has 0 incoming links, it is a {{R from move}}, butt he page was moved to its current title [the target] shortly after creation.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Very bad trip

I'm not sure about these two, so I'm bringing them here for discussion. Even though these words are in English, I am not sure if they should be deleted per WP:FORRED or not. So ... how could I be wondering whether or not these redirects qualify for WP:FORRED? Well, these titles were only used for their releases in France/French language. So, I'm not sure if that would mean that these redirect have affinity to the French language since from what I can find, these redirects are only used in conjunction with the French language. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists

CNR created from page move, no need for it to remain as there are no incoming links. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete slowly. There have been no views of the redirect since the day after it was moved so it seems unlikely that there has been any publicity linking to the original location. If we want to be really sure though, the event is scheduled for 25 February so holding off deletion until a couple of days after that would not harm anything (I would certainly advocate that if the redirect was showing evidence of use). Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete on Feb. 26 per Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting in case any discussion needs to take place after the event
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any real disagreement about deleting this after the event. The fact that we're not deleting it further suggests we're doing so for the benefit of people attending the event, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfD tag in the meantime, without closing this discussion in case anyone has anything else to say. For the rest of its life, this can at least be more helpful; the RfD tag is likely to confuse new users. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Simec

The Local currency article does not discuss specific local currencies, and it does not discuss this one, if it is a local currency. In the Local currency article, Simec is simply listed with a link back to the Simec article, which is thus circular and red. It is not apparent that Simec even is an actual local currency, and is not somebody messing around, since Googling "Simec" doesn't produce any useful information. Person54 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Giacinto Auriti#The experiment of SIMeC. Though poorly written, this section discusses the currency. — Gorthian (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak disambiguate I only found a few things that rise to a MOS:DABMENTION level. I've drafted a dab, but I can't really say this is going to be a great deal more helpful than search results. Neither do I see a case for steering readers to the currency over one of the other topics, though. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Professional interrogation technique

Not mentioned at the target article or at Torture, where the redirect originally pointed. The latter does make one passing reference to professional torturers, but it's not clear what this phrase would specifically refer to, even if it were taken as a likely search term. BDD (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When I created the redirect, 2006, information regarding the CIA using the enhanced interrogation techniques at the black sites had just begun entering the public domain. Neither "enhanced interrogation techniques" nor "black sites" was included in public discourse. However, at the time, there were scattered references to new CIA techniques, "professional interrogation techniques." The term was used by Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee March 17, 2005, see "Questions Are Left by C.I.A. Chief on the Use of Torture". However, as time has passed, the term has fallen somewhat out of use, though it remains as a redirect in some dictionaries. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When Mr. McCain asked Mr. Goss about the C.I.A.'s previously reported use of a technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown, Mr. Goss replied only that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques."

I think the best thing would be to include a note on the term in the article Enhanced interrogation techniques and place the term in its historical context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done that in the section Enhanced interrogation techniques#Public positions and reactions. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I still suspect this isn't a very likely search term, but this is definitely an improvement. I appreciate that readers will be able to see the phrase in context. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Transport delay

No hint of this term once a searcher lands on the dab page. There must be some better target for this redirect. If we can't find one, let's just delete it.Gorthian (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Amending my nomination to propose retargeting to schedule delay, which would cover all the meanings discussed so far. @Thryduulf and Notecardforfree: would you accept this proposal instead?— Gorthian (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment books use the term transport delay in communication systems, computer simulation models like Verilog, flight simulators, power systems, control systems involving feedback, and networks so the engineering definitions are primary topic. I don't see much regarding flight delays. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It might be what some books use this term to mean, but I still think that it's at least as equally plausible as a search term for the transportation related uses and I'd be WP:SURPRISED to end up at an article about communication systems, so I continue to oppose anything other than disambiguation here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Could be anything from actual transportation to logistics planning to network latency. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would someone who wants to disambiguate the term please list the specific articles that should be disambiguated? Remember, the term "transport delay" must be used and preferably defined in each article. I nominated this here because I could not find such articles. @Thryduulf, Notecardforfree, AngusWOOF, and Train2104: Pinging those who already commented. — Gorthian (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement for the term to be used, let alone defined, in the target articles. If the title of a listed article is not obviously linked to the title of the disambiguation page then the entry on the disambiguation page should make things clear. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Thryduulf, it need not be defined (though that would be ideal), but it must be mentioned, per WP:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. Dab pages are meant to be for navigation only, not for explaining anything. — Gorthian (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
        • We must use common sense here. Nobody searching for "transport delay" and landing on a dab page for that term will fail to understand why articles dealing with delays to a form of transport is included on the dab page, even if their search term is not explicitly mentioned. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct users using ambiguous search terms to the articles they might be looking for, not to list articles that include an exact form of words. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    Thryduulf, I always appreciate casting a critical eye on policies and guidelines in the interests of better serving readers, but I think you're advocating for something disambiguation pages simply aren't meant for. MOS:DABMENTION need not be followed slavishly—I think phrases like "transportation delay" or "delays in transport" would suffice here—but the resulting dab would have to function as navigation for readers regarding that particular phrase. It's not a matter of word association: if all we can do is list things that have to do with delays in transport, we're essentially just curating a list of search results. I can't imagine many cases where that is going to result in a superior reader experience than simply giving them the full search results. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Various forms of transportation get delayed all of the time, and the causes as well as the effects of such delays vary greatly. This is such a vague concept that I'd rather that we just get rid of the redirect. It seems like the most logical thing to do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as first choice, retarget to Schedule delay as second choice. Per my concerns above, I don't support disambiguation at this time. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College

It is Shri. It is not Sri. This title is neither all caps nor all small. The redirects exists for all caps and all small. See Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering College and Shri ramdeobaba kamla nehru engineering college Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • A search for "Sri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Engineering college" gets quite a few hits. Are you sure this isn't an alternative spelling? - Bilby (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I've combined three separate nominations with identical rationales into one discussion. Bilbly's comment was left for the second one only. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • comment. I see no issue at all with the capitalisation of the first two - if this is an alternative name for the college (or a misspelling of one, and "Sri" → "Shri" is plausible in this case I think) then initial capitals for each word of a proper name would be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


Wichitaflag

Unlikely elided search term. Originally created as a complete article which duplicated the current redirect target. Mabalu (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

T-Mobile USA 3G

Not a likely search term Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Terror attack

Terrorist attacks are not limited to non-state ones. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

January 20, 2004

Exact date not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Governor Veto

Vague phrase at best, not mentioned at target, the closest I could find was Veto session, but I'm still leaning delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - irrelevant redirect. DrStrauss talk 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a nickname that is used in the media. Less than a minute of searching turned up [1] and [2]. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Toothpaste principle

Toothpaste has nothing to do with the deletion policy. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Restore this revision. Seems like a misuse of WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. If need be, afterwards, the page can be tagged as an essay and/or sent to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, I really don't have an opinion about this, considering that this page's creator ended up becoming banned. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Close Enough (film)

This film is still in development four years after the redirect was created. -- Tavix (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Inside the Machine

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This film is listed as in development, so anything can change at this point, even the production company. No mention at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Lore (2015 film)

I was unable to find a 2015 film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Escape from New York (2014 film)

This remake is still in development, so it couldn't have been released in 2014 or 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both - This looks like an open-and-shut-case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Very creepy, disturbing children's cartoon, banned from TV

WP:NPOV violation, possibly untrue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete fails NPOV, also the film has a 82% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes Atlantic306 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the title of an excerpt on youtube, but an interview with the director claims that (a) it wasn't a children's cartoon, (b) the film was never banned from TV and (c) this segment was not cut from TV broadcasts. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Very cool illusion

WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague search term, bear in mind that WP:NPOV is irrelevant here due to WP:RNEUTRAL (i.e. non-neutral redirects are allowed in some circumstances). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Champion: In my opinion, looking at it, WP:RNEUTRAL is a redirect-specific guideline that is the equivalent of WP:NPOV... That, and since the redirect isn't an alternative name of the redirect's target, it probably isn't one of those exceptions. Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. I agree with Champion that NPOV is not relevant here, as non-neutral terms are fine as redirects in general - the only problem with this is its vagueness. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21

Important events in NHGRI history

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this is looking for a list of events in NHGRI history, which they will find. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • (this reply applies to all the nominations the nominator has left the above comment on) I disagree. "Important" in this case clearly means "selected" or what we would usually term "notable" - i.e. not an indiscriminate list. None of the targets are indiscriminate, and highlight only important (for varying definitions) entries. If someone does disagree with the selection of "important" there is nothing we can help them with, but this does not justify forcing everyone else to navigate via unpredicatable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important education facilities in Pokhara

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Someone searching for this will find a list of the education facilities in Pokhara at the target, including the important ones for whatever definition of important they choose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important viruses

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambig The target includes a "Comparison table of clinically important virus families and species" which is a suitable target for this redirect, however "virus" is ambiguous between biological viruses and computer viruses. Comparison of computer viruses seems to be a suitable target for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important Sikh Personalities

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. However one defines importance, the information sought can be found at the target page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important milestones in Kannada literature

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The word "important" was used not as a "peacock term" but rather to stress that these milestones set trends for future developments. However, the redirect to "List of milestones...." is okay and not an issue with me.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important Disasters Of 2009-2010

The word "important" is subjective. Also, the scope of the target page includes more than just "Disasters Of 2009-2010". Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. If this was Important disasters of 2009 I'd suggest retargetting to category:2009 disasters, and similarly for any other single year, but we don't have any content about disasters (or afaict any subset of type of disasters) covering periods other than calendar years or centuries. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The disconnect between what the redirect says and what the target is make this unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Important Events of 2005

The word "important" is subjective. Also, no other pages beginning with "Important Events" exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important Camorra arrests

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important Graphing Equations

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment per WP:RNEUTRAL "Important" is not a problem here if there is a list of graphing equations at the target, but I do not understand the subject matter anywhere near enough to state whether the information someone is looking for is found at the target or not. However Graphing equation and Graphing equations are both red. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Important battles in medieval Indian History

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn.

List of important opera terminology

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target, even though it is organised as concepts rather than terms there is large overlap. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the former title of the article, and it's been around since 2008 in the current form, not to mention however long the article was at this title. Including "important" isn't actively harmful, and we shouldn't delete old redirects unless they no longer work or unless they're actively harmful. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

N1 Bootis

This redirect should be deleted. N1 is not an abbreviation for Nu1. In the context of Bayer designations for stars, latin letters refer to completely different stars, so this redirect is confusing and misleading. Given that there is no actual N1 Bootis, there is no more appropriate target. Lithopsian (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't imagine why a bot was instructed to create redirects like this, especially since it doesn't seem to have done so for similar titles, e.g. there's no "Nu1" redirect to N1 road (Ghana). Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Death of Diana

Fairly ambiguous. Sure, the late Princess of Wales remains mononymously known in Britain, but I am sceptical whether that applies worldwide. --Nevéselbert 16:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is easily the primary topic, especially since she's known mononymously. Are there any other people named Diana whose death is notable? -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Found Murder of Diana Miller. If we decide to keep this redirect, there ought be a hatnote pointing to that article.--Nevéselbert 17:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure, I'd support a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Unquestionably the primary topic, but a hatnote is unproblematic if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime

An IP is trying to delete this one but it's not eligible for speedy but the result is redirect to Samsung Galaxy not deleted but it's protected by AustralianRupert lets take the RfD instead. Atorres50 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This is not a reason to delete a redirect, why should it be deleted? Also an AFD for this page resulted in the redirect. - GB fan 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Samsung Galaxy J, adding a sentence there about it (when it was released and what android version it comes with would be sufficient imo). Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment articles are a mess right now as J1 redirects to J, and only the general Galaxy page has all the J models. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Samsung Galaxy J is for one smartphone, not the series as Samsung Galaxy#Samsung Galaxy J implies. Since that's the case, it wouldn't make sense to retarget to Samsung Galaxy J unless the article is reconfigured to be a series article. One thing to note (NPI) is that there's no discussion of what the "Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime" actually is. I'm sure someone searching this already knows that it's a Samsung Galaxy, so they aren't really helped by the current target as they'd most likely want to know specific information about the J1 mini Prime. That leaves deletion, which makes the most sense to me and what I would prefer unless and until specific information about this device can be described somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lina Lansberg

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: redirect created.

Gold trade

There's no mention of the historic gold trade in "Gold as an investment". Most of the incoming links from gold trade are from articles about history. Prisencolin (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

President-incumbent of the United States

Not a likely search term, if this should point anywhere, it should go to incumbent. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Small Penis Syndrome

The target doesn't mention either "small penis" or any "syndrome", so the redir is misleading. 81.96.84.137 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Human penis size, which discusses small penises. One of the references (presently number 12), used several times, does contain "small penis syndrome" in the title, but the abstract suggests that it is not the formal name of an actual syndrome. Regardless, I don't think anyone searching for this will be surprised to land at the article about penis size even if it doesn't explicitly mention their search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to micropenis. I think that's a more precise target than human penis size. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No, they are very different: "small penis syndrome" is a complex (psychology), and micropenis is a physical condition. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with the IP. I looked at the micropenis article before leaving my comment above, and it is not suitable as more than a see also for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tau Booetis Ab

As per yesterday's list, this is another I found today. A bot-created redirect incorrectly treating a Greek diaresis as a German umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Morpheus (disambigaution)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted, G7, by GB fan.

🥙

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment all assigned unicode characters, outisde the private use space, should be articles or redirects as people will encounter them and look them up. This is U+1F959 which has a (possibly provisional, it's unclear) designation of "Stuffed flatbread". While the display I see (Firefox 51) does look like a kebab in a flatbread I'm not certain this is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SIA at Stuffed flatbread. I thought hard about this and realised that the English Wikipedia is somewhat unorganised about this category of food. Items to go into the DAB:

--Deryck C. 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Can it please be a WP:CONCEPTDAB instead? -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you wish. As long as it functions as an index of/disambiguation between the relevant articles people might be looking for I don't have strong opinions on what it should technically be called. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See Draft:Stuffed flatbread for my draft SIA. Now I'm hungry. I might actually get one of those for dinner. I don't mind changing the tag - would prefer something more specific than {{dab}} though. Deryck C. 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Deryck. (That's a great draft: see what good comes from RfD!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

🥅

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - While awkward, this is technically exactly right. Someone types in the code for a goal, and then they get the Wikipedia page for a goal. We should just leave this be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is "U+1F945 GOAL NET", Goal (sport) is the page where we have information about goal nets. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep by definition of the emoticon (per Thryduulf) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

🥘

Senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or retarget (but I'm not sure where). This is U+1F958 "SHALLOW PAN OF FOOD", so we should direct people to either an article about the character (it appears only in a table afaict) or about a shallow pan of food. I suspect that Paella is the primary topic for that, and other than Paella#Similar dishes (which deals mainly with similar recipes not necessarily cooked in shallow pans) I don't know of any other target. Cookware and bakeware (and Category:Cookware and bakeware) do not contain anything organised by shape. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The Unicode definition is rather vague. While most OSes implement this as a pan of paella, Samsung actually realised this as a Korean shallow hotpot which does fit the bill.[3] --Deryck C. 19:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget as above. Wonder if Deryck Chan wants to another fabulous dab page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

🤣

senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

🥂

Senseless Peter Rehse (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is U+1F942 "CLINKING GLASSES", which clearly refers to toast (honour), thus getting people to the relevant information for their search. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The meaning of this emoji is quite clear and fits pretty much exactly with the topic of toast (honour). Deryck C. 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: agree with previous comments Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT

Unused shortcut to a dead-on-arrival policy proposed a few days ago. It's usually better to propose something first and then add all the extras once it's been approved. As there is no such thing as preemptive salting, never has been, and it is explicitly disallowed by policy, this shortcut should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to that, this is entirely unused and basically unknown, and that target section already has two shortcuts and does not mention create protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the section in its present form doesn't mention creation protection, but it does mention page protection in a general sense. Since creation protection is a form of page protection, targeting this redirect to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism is akin to targeting a WP:PRECISE title to a more general/ambiguous subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or retarget per Thryduulf. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that we don't pre-emptively salt a title that has never seen a page. Having an all-caps shortcut gives the proposal undue impression of legitimacy. But please don't get to a situation where we need to salt this title... Deryck C. 11:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan: This is why I recommend retargetting to where we discuss preemptive restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay. Deryck C. 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Phoenixes

I feel like this should point to Phoenix (mythology), not Phoenix the DAB page. If it weren't for Phoenix, Arizona, the mythology page would certainly be primary topic, and obviously Phoenix, Arizona cannot be plural. If you look at the DAB page, very little of it consists of things that can be used plurally. When someone says "phoenixes" it's likely they mean the bird. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Phoenix (mythology) for the reasons already given. Narky Blert (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Even List of sports teams named for the phoenix somehow does not include any called "Phoenixes". – Fayenatic London 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The word "phoenix" refers to a variety of birds in the mythologies of various cultures. Many of them occur in the plural. Retargeting to Phoenix (mythology) gives the Greco-Roman phoenix undue bias. Deryck C. 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck Chan. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the nomination very little of it means some of it: there's no reason to change Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Our articles about similar birds in the mythologies of other cultures aren't entitled "Phoenix"; they have names such as Simurgh and Firebird (Slavic folklore). If our articles don't have "Phoenix" in the title, those articles shouldn't affect this discussion with its dependence on matters of primary use. Nothing on the disambiguation page appears be both known as "phoenix" and available to be pluralised, aside from Phoenix (mythology) and a few minor uses such as Phoenix (grape). Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Gorilla City (The Flash)

This is a case of WP:CNR. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete (owner) per R2. Brojam (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Brojam: WP:R2 doesn't apply here, as its only for redirects from mainspace. This redirect is from draftspace. -- Tavix (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then per Kailash29792. Brojam (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I mean, now that the draft has been moved to the main namespace, why still have the draft redirect? Besides, there aren't many pages linking to it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. @Kailash29792 and Brojam: The consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects was that redirects produced by a page move from the draft namespace to the main namespace should generally not be deleted. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Godsy. It's also worth pointing out that WP:CNR deals primarily with redirects out of the main namespace and points out that not all CNRs are inherently problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly valid {{R from move}} leftover from publishing the draft. Also, consensus in the past on similar "Draft:" namespace redirects has been to keep them, considering that it gives the draft creator a paper trail to find out where their draft ended up. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: I was about to strike out my vote and change it to "Speedy delete per G7", but then I noticed that the redirect's creator wasn't the only editor who edited the article back when it was in the draft namespace. Ironically, the other editor (when the page was a draft) is the nominator of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per the spirit of WP:G7 since those who created the redirect want it deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete on G7 grounds. When the page has been moved and the old title is nominated for deletion by the author, I think it's reasonable to say that the author's the only one who created substantial content — everyone else's contributions were made to the page that's now at Gorilla City (The Flash), and the only one who chose to do anything with making Draft:Gorilla City (The Flash) a bluelink is the one who now wants it to be deleted. This obviously wouldn't be applicable in all mainspace-to-mainspace pagemoves (we shouldn't trash a good redirect just because the creator doesn't like it), but this is draftspace, where basically nobody's going to need it if the creator doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Stretch Armstrong (2014 film)

Delete as a failed crystal. The plans to make this film were abandoned. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Manhunt (2014 film)

I'm not seeing a 2014 or 2015 film by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Beast (film)

This dab page doesn't mention any films named "Beast". -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget over to The_Beast#Films since there are multiple productions known as "The Beast" that someone can very plausibly mistake as titled just "Beast". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets. I'm tempted to add a see-also to this page from the Beast#Film and television section (and vice versa) given it's plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per CWM/Thryduulf (and those hatnotes are a great idea) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

IDKWTI

Nothing on the page resembling a reason for this, as far as I can tell. It's slang for "I don't know [who/what/where] [that/this] is". Possible BLP, even? Eh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete The explanation for this, given at [4] is "If you're not familiar with "IDKWTI", it refers to a certain shooting guard from Indiana who was verballed to Illinois for 10 months before flipping to Indiana. When asked about EG flipping from Illinois to Indiana, Deron Williams, who was in the NBA by then, responded with the very dead-to-me "Eric Gordon? I Don't Know Who That Is." As such, IDKWTI refers to Gordon.". This nickname was apparently formerly mentioned in the infobox but a talk page discussion agreed it should be removed. If it was to be mentioned anywhere, it would e in the "Recruitment" or "Aftermath" sections, but including that one quote would seem a bit undue given the coverage already there (but note I know essentially nothing about basketball). If you are using this nickname then you already know who it refers to, but if you see someone else using it Wikipedia's article will not make you any the wiser, so I'm leaning delete here. I'll ping the college basketball project about this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Opera basic topics

Project-to-mainspace redirects are not useful. The redirect has been here since December 2005. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

连词

The current target doesn't cover conjunctions in Chinese, so this may be seen as misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Deryck. I agree with the retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 to close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget. This is just like any other situation where we have a redirect from a foreign-language term to an article that covers a topic related to the foreign language. Congrats to AngusWOOF for finding an article that already covered the topic. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Theodora FitzGibbon (Cookery writer, model and actress)

This is an unnecessary disambiguator which is too unwieldy to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree. This doesn't appear helpful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep entirely harmless {{R from move}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't see a disambiguatior that WP:PRECISE being helpful as a search term, solely due to how unwieldy it looks. Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to advocate keeping because deleting R from Move pages is normally not a good idea, but (1) the page was at this title for 2½ weeks, so it likely didn't get a lot of links during that time, and (2) the very awkward name makes it highly unlikely that anyone would have linked to the redirect after the article got moved. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Camila Mendes

Actor articles should not redirect to a singular piece of their work, as it incorrectly represents them. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous 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. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Note Expanding per my talk page. Redirects of actors to articles of works of media are misleading, given that an actor/actress typically has starred in multiple works of media, and redirecting them to a specific one is misleading and gives undue weight to that particular work. This is why I request deletions for them. If it's going to be made into an article, then do just that. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have seen a few AFDs about persons which pass borderline notability and the consensus is to redirect now, as there is a chance that the article will be full notable in short time. This actress is popular for playing VERONICA in the Archie TV series, so the redirect is to the TV series. As I said in your talk page other editors creates many such redirects every week where they redirects the actor to the film. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep But only in this case since Mendes has not starred in any other works of media, apart from Riverdale, and will most likely take a while to get enough coverage to create an article. For actors with multiple works, it is misleading and should not be used. Brojam (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20

Booetes

Inappropriate bot replacement of Greek diaresis with oe thinking it was an umlaut. Lithopsian (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FOXNews

No affinity for this capitalization, note that there are a whole lot of similar redirects, not all of which I am sure of. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to it being harmless, in at least 2 of their logos found using google image search for fox news logo it's not clear how many words the name of the company/channel is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm inclined to just leave this be as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 80N (Pennsylvania)

No indication in the target page that the route was ever numbered as such. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually there was this, from back in the day when Interstate 80 ran along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The segment east of Harrisburg was Interstate 80S (Pennsylvania). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Zoom in on the map, and you'll see it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wet winter climate

No connection to the target Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wet season which is more general and discusses wet winter, wet summer, and other wet climates. If the search were dry summer wet winter climate or vice versa, then there's a match for Mediterranean, but as it stands, it doesn't particularly point to that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Having a particular pattern of certain seasons isn't the same thing as having a particular climate. Given the unhelpful ambiguity here, I'd rather that we just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Situation Room

Redirect to Situation Room (disambiguation). I see no evidence to suggest that the news show is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over either the actual Situation Room or Situation Room (photograph), both of which are often known as "The Situation Room". Cúchullain t/c 21:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

4664

What does 4664 have to do with Nelson Mandela? This number doesn't show up in his article, at least that I could see. I found it because I was going to propose that someone start it as a redirect to 4-6-6-4. I think it would be better if it were re-targeted there. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to 4-6-6-4. The current page is a "typo" of Mandela's prison number - 46664, but nonetheless, an unnecssary redirect. There is a hatnote on 46664 linking to Mandela's page. But I can't imagine anyone typing "4664" trying to get to Mandela's page. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that the current target is not suitable, but equally I don't think that this is a likely search term for the locomotive wheel arrangement either - I've never seen Whyte notation written without separators of some sort, and none of the articles about other arrangements I looked at have redirects from pure numerical strings. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm the nominator, just using a different network. The issue is that most locomotive wheel arrangements, if written without hyphens, will have names conflicting with years. For example, 4-4-0, minus the hyphens, talks about things that happened 1,577 years ago. If the locomotive has/had two sets of drivers, ten or more drivers in a single set, or no leading wheels, it won't conflict with years unless we're talking about the 2102 or the 2104. If you hear about a four six six four, and if you don't know about locomotives, will you know to put hyphens between the numerals? 2601:5C6:8301:32B0:51C0:A583:643D:88B4 (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Southpeakgames

Unlikely search term. Lordtobi () 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SouthPeak Interactive Corp.

Unlikely search term, as the "Corp." was never officially used by them or secondary sources, though their legal name ended on "Corporation" for a few years. Lordtobi () 18:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues

Old AfC page that was reformed into a redirect to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues", which itself was a redirect to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues". The last of those was then redirected to "SouthPeak Games", becuase of which all three link there now. The target page, however, includes no information on either of those. Lordtobi () 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: The Adventure Continues

Originally linked to "20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues", which was since redirected as well. No information available for either of those at target page. Lordtobi () 16:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

20,000 Leagues: The Adventure Continues

No information available at target page. Lordtobi () 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CAD model

This is an odd redirect. It points to 3D modeling#Models, but the #Models section hardly mentions CAD. I could see a redirect to Computer-aided design itself, but at that point there's not much difference between "CAD" and "CAD model" (since both would link to the same target). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to computer-aided design. The phrase is used a few times there and the redirect has been getting a few views a day, so it's a useful redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

I'm rather sure that users looking up this phrase may not neveccarily be looking for information about wiki markup. They might be looking up information about possibly article layout guidelines. I'd be inclined to say that unless there is a more helpful target, these pages should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK Retargeted to Help:Editing since this seems like a rather helpful title for a Wikipedia how-to guide. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: People are not likely to write any more tutorials of this sort (I'm not aware of any new ones in years), but the exact phrase is probably too exact for it to be something someone would enter as a guess (e.g. a noob looking for how-to info).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Wikipedia:Tips#Tips_on_editing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The odds are highest that a novice user following that link will want help with wiki markup. The generic advice about article content and layout is a much less likely target. By the time the new user is ready to worry about style problems, they are likely to also have a clue about how we name those style guidelines. I'll also note that this naming closely mirrors the Editing help link that shows up next to the 'save changes' button while you're in edit-mode. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per Champion as it at least covers "tips" (although I'll note Wikipedia:Editing tips is red). I'm also fine with deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Avengers (film project)

I was originally thinking of just WP:BOLDly retargeting these redirects to The Avengers#Media and entertainment to match The Avengers (film). But then, I noticed that Film project and Film Project do not exist on Wikipedia, rendering the disambiguator undefined here... Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete I wonder if these were created with Marvel Cinematic Universe in mind. It's a multi-film project centered on the Avengers. Either way, I don't think either of these are likely search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not a film project anymore so not useful to keep around. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect as serving the project and its readers by sending them to where they can explore the topic directly and in detail. Now that we have multiples Avengers films, we might better determine the best target, and not delete it because the best target has not yet been determined. Redirects are cheap and do not have to meet the notability criteria of their topics. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sean Sphincter

Created in good faith, but an obscure, one-off pejorative name not mentioned in the target article. Compare to Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, or Crooked Hillary. BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Google News claims 3500 results for the quoted phrase but of course, they're lying, because Google thinks that actually having the term in your search result is archaic 20th-century thinking, like democracy. Someday you'll just get a button "Where does Google want me to go today?" and there won't even be a place to type in irrelevant text words. Still, by now there are reasonably sufficient sources to pass the GNG for an actual article about the typo incident: [5][6] [7][8] To be sure, I don't think a separate article is needed, but I take it as a given that if something can exist as an article it can exist as a redirect. I assumed that the incident would be in the Sean Spicer article, given the publicity about it, so I'm actually kind of curious why it isn't. But that too is irrelevant - I can't tell you how many times I look up a science term and get redirected to an article that doesn't mention it at all! Which is frustrating but not so frustrating as not even getting that much of a hint. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Wnt. I and many RfD participants typically cite a term's not being mentioned in the article where it redirects as a reason to delete. When you've looked up those science terms, presumably you either do or don't already know about the relationship between the term and the target article. If you already knew, was the redirect helpful? If you didn't, were you confused or frustrated? Personally, I see this as a matter of "accountability" for redirects. Not every one needs explicit mention, but the relationship should be clear to a general reader. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@BDD: Per your suggestion, I've added a bit about the interchange in this edit. It's not exactly a high matter of state, but it's an interesting glimpse at the sort of small acorns from which great oaks grow. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Cultured Code

Unused. No page links to this title and its page view statistics are next to nothing. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep It's the name of the company that made the app, and the website points to this name as if they were synonymous for now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Verdurous

I have no clue what the correct target for this Neelix redirect is, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't it. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It is usually means a green fertile field. Redirect to wiktionary maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget to wiktionary nonsensical redirect; if we must retain, then redirect to wiktionary. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The metaphor makes it a very bad candidate for a redirect in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be informative. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wiktionary. Four settlements (three in Greece, one in India) and a county in China are described as Verdurous but obviously none of them make a good target for the redirect. The overwhelming number of uses of the word on Wikipedia are in relation to Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet, a 2013 Japanese anime, but I can find no evidence of this being known solely as "Verdurous" so it would not make a good target either. The redirect got 140 uses last year so it is something people are looking up, we have no relevant content so we can best serve these people by pointing them to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle Angel (2011 film)

This WP:CRYSTAL redirect is particularly egregious. The film is scheduled for release in 2018, not 2011. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a potentially misleading redirect. For the reader, it is either a surprise (if he/she is sure there is no such 2011 film) or a wild goose chase after a 2011 film. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete' per above. There is no 2011 film by this name, the closest being Battle: Los Angeles but that's nowhere near close enough for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Greys (film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Another film still in development. At this stage, anything can change, even the director, so a redirect of this nature is premature at best. Again, we do know that it wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a redirect that sends its reader on a wild goose chase. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Murder Mystery (film)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is another film in development. It definitely wasn't released in 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a redirect that sends its reader on a wild goose chase. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19

First Shadow Cabinet of Harold Wilson

Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Nevéselbert 23:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as there are similar redirects for other Shadow Cabinets and that there is the potential for a full article on this subject. --Sam11333 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Per WP:RED: It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. His first shadow cabinet is not listed at the target article, anyway.--Nevéselbert 23:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Married and Cheating

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. IMDb shows this still in development, so this is presumably still in development hell. No sign of this entering production anytime soon. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

15th Anniversary Music

vague search term. No mention of this at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. In the absence of anything specifically called this (which I can't find we have coverage of, if it exists) this is too vague to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete there are many partial title matches for this, none of which we have an article for. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Dance Dance Revolution lists

The only way I can see this making sense is if it redirected to a "list of lists". There's only two DDR lists that I can find, the current target, and List of Dance Dance Revolution video games, so there's really not enough to make a list of lists. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Dee dee are

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#En bee cee. Dance Dance Revolution isn't known with the letters spelled out like this. (note: DDR is a dab page) -- Tavix (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not worth retargeting to the dab either. czar 00:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Terminology dispute

I'm not sure if this is a helpful redirect. Terminology is a vague word that doesn't necessarily refer to article titles. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both - I agree. This seems too vague to be that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Caves of Steel (film)

This is misleading, the target is a novel, not a film. Television, radio, and a game adaptation are mentioned, but no films. -- Tavix (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Killer Crow (2015 film)

The target mentions an idea for a film called "Killer Crow", but it's still an idea, so it couldn't have been released two years ago. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hijr-e-Ismaaeel

Target page irrelevant, need page space for other purpose Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Rango 2

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable evidence that a sequel is even in development, much less production. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Smallfoot (2016 film)

There are no 2016 films entitled 'Smallfoot'. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Gigglecream

Created by troll IP user 12 years ago, has no context and seems pretty random, while the targeted article does not feature either of the two combined words even once. Lordtobi () 16:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Liposomal vitamin c

The vitamin C page makes no specific mention of liposomal vitamin C. If WP has no information on a subject, it would be better for the search to come up empty. Alternatively, someone could add a liposomal section to the Vitamin C page. (I honestly don't know whether the latter action is warranted.) Krychek (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This was previously an article, but Edgar181 redirected it with the edit summary "issues with WP:RS, promotion" in May last year without any apparent discussion. I'll ping WT:MED but I'm leaning towards reverting to the article without prejudice to a PROD or AfD if the article is that bad. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The liposomal vitamin C page should be deleted, as there is no such mechanism or cell location for making vitamin C in humans. It's possible the page was created to accommodate interest in liposomes as delivery vehicles for drugs, such as PMID 17979650, but this use is unnecessary for vitamin C which of course is ubiquitous in common foods and supplements. --Zefr (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In retrospect, I should have just deleted the page per WP:CSD#G11. It was just an advertisement ("cutting edge vitamin C") for goldmanlaboratories.com and scientifically the content was nonsense. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that content has been added to vitamin C mentioning the marketing of liposomal vitamin C, a redirect is appropriate, but I would recommend that the spam in the redirect's history be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per Ed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete but consider whether there should be Liposomal vitamin or Liposomal supplement to redirect to Liposome#Dietary_and_nutritional_supplements AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Why are we deleting? This is a think [9] it is simply one formulation of vitamin C and therefore should be redirected there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I have added text to support. This is of course little more than a marketing technique. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the prior content was a bit spammy, a cursory google search found several sources that appeared more independent. That said, I'm not sure the topic is meaty enough to stand alone so expansion of the current target seems best for now. The redirect will encourage other readers/editors to focus their efforts there until/unless a breakout article becomes appropriate. Rossami (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Have looked and there are no medical references really. It looks more like a marketing mechanism. Not really more than two sentences to say on the topic but people may still be looking for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Content was added to the target article after most of the comments were left so this bears further discussion I think
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:R from title

Propose retargeting to {{R from name with title}}, if you look at the incoming links, they clearly intend that rather than a more general topic,, e.g. Defense Secretary Carter, Governor Rick Snyder, Secretary Rice etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note I'm seeing a lot of uses where all sorts of alternative name redirects are tagged with this (I can't say whether properly or not). – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The term "from title" is a bit tricky because Wikipedia page names have also been called "article titles" or "page titles" or just "titles" since early Wikipedia days. It looks like about half of the redirects that use {{R from title}} could be more specifically {{R from name with title}}, and the other half are just {{R from alternative name}} generally (and are things that have nothing to do with personal honorary titles). If I had to go one way or another, I'd say keep it at {{R from alternative name}} because it's more general; an honorary title could be considered an alternative name, but not all alternative names are honorary titles, and I suspect {{R from title}} will continue to get used for both as long as it exists because it "feels" like the shortest way to express both of those concepts. --Closeapple (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Thank you for the ping, Uanfala!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or deprecate. Current uses of {{R from title}} are split between those that are better tagged {{R from name with title}} and those that don't fit the proposed retarget. Deryck C. 11:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm weakly leaning towards retarget to {{R from name with title}}, which makes the most sense to me. There's currently 186 transclusions, and there's a good number of them where "title" doesn't make any sense. They'd need to be cleaned up anyway so I might volunteer to do so unless there's any objections. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

DILLIGAD

Unnecessary list-entry redirects when no other acronyms redirect to this page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as precursors to stubs, especially DILLIGAF, which Kevin Bloody Wilson has embraced by using it to title his biography, album, tour, and merchandise. I would like to see the deleted article Dilligaf, as well.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, "delete per WP:REDLINK" seems like a good course of action. Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943: the only links that exist for acronyms in these lists are for those acronyms notable enough to have either articles or disambiguation pages at their titles. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilligaf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the only non-vandalism, non-spam versions of Diligaf have been a dictionary definition and a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Tone deleted the latter and replaced it with the current salted page, without discussion I can find. A 2005 AfD closed as redirect to List of internet slang, a page that has evolved into the prose article Internet slang. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note Any content at this title (any capitalisation) needs to be semi-protected because it will attract vandalism otherwise (based on the history), but this is not a reason for or against any course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now - Added two sources to the list near the entries. However, before this discussion, statistics say that both are the least searched acronyms. If kept, protection might be needed. If deleted, the pages might be re-created over and over. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft-redirect both to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I see no hope that those two entries will ever be more than what you would expect in an unabridged dictionary. Failing that, keep as is because at least the redirects to the acronym lists minimizes the damage. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Jeff G., what do you want to see at Dilligaf? When nominated for deletion, the contents were DILLIGAF is acronym for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck?" or "Does It Look Like I Give A Fuck?". A phrase too often used by people in the cyberspace. Because of it being so long, this acronym is used. Usage Eg.: Harry: "Do you think Moon has water on its surface?" John: "Oh.. Dilligaf!" There is also a 50 odd foot Boat on the St Johns River, Florida with the name Dilligaf. He def. does not give a fuck. After being redirected to the List of Internet slang, it was soft-redirected to Wiktionary via {{wi|Appendix:Internet slang}} after the relevant content was removed from the list. Aside from the addition and then the expansion of {{Short pages monitor}}, it got no positive changes for a long time (lots of edits, but they were all vandalism or vandal-reversions) until finally it was deleted because it wasn't as useful as create-protecting the page. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that research. When I or someone else feels the need to create a stub or article for this subject, this conversation should suffice. Note that the only remaining mention on Wiktionary is the slight expansion wikt:DILLIGAFF, which inserts "flying" before "fuck" (not an easy task unless you have an airplane to yourselves).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:DILLIGAF as the acronym has nothing to do with the interworkings of this project. I'm neutral on the other two as I understand the arguments for deletion and keeping and I'm unsure which is better. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet

Let's delete this Redirect, which I created. After discussion with fellow Editors, I reached the compromise of adding a "Modern Russia" Section to Soviet (council), concerning the Soviet Federatsii (Federal Council, the Upper House of Parliament in the Russian Federation). The same goes for The Soviet (disambiguation). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I merged The Soviet (disambiguation) into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is for everything redirecting over to Soviet (disambiguation), which probably needs to be expanded. I may be wrong, but I recall there existing various songs, albums, books, magazines, and the like that just had a title of Soviet or The Soviet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

History of Bush Family

Unlikely search term without "the". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Reade

No mention in target, search results do not show any connection to the Bush family. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Edmund Reade – he apparently was a distant ancestor of both the Bush and the Kerry families. Redirecting to either would be inappropriate. Keep or retarget Elizabeth Bush. The article history makes it clear that she was married to Prescott Bush, Jr.. Both had articles that were later redirected to the Bush family article. Prescott Bush Jr. may be notable enough to have his article restarted – if so, Elizabeth Bush can be pointed there as an {{r from spouse}}. In any case, she should probably be mentioned at Bush family, like the other spouses. - Eureka Lott
  • Delete - I agree that 'Edmund Reade' shouldn't exist. I've no opinion on the other one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18

Cinema (TV-channel)

According to page histories, this was a Scandinavian channel owned by Modern Times Group and closed down in 2004. But it is not mentioned in that article now, if it ever was. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment is there anything in the page history or talk history worth keeping? Delete the hyphenated one. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Lots of category additions and removals; nothing substantive. — Gorthian (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Leslie Parsons

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

David Lauer

A case of a mistaken name; the article was moved to the correct name Bruno Lauer nine years ago. No mention of this name is in the target, and I cannot find anyone on Wikipedia by this name. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

'http

The beginning apostrophe seems like an unlikely typo. — Gorthian (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Tetiais

Delete with the same rationale as WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#TETIaIS. Gorobay (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as machine nonsense. — Gorthian (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sevastopol'

I think the apostrophes (one is straight, the other curly) make these unlikely search terms, and therefore unnecessary redirects, but I'm not sure. I know the apostrophe is a transliteration of the "soft sign" (ь) in Ukrainian and Russian (see WP:UKROM and WP:RUROM). But whether or not these are useful redirects is what needs to be decided here. — Gorthian (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - They are highly unlikely to be used as search terms as they aren't used in the Anglophone world. The WP:COMMONNAME is Sevastopol, and these are transliteration technicalities. I don't see any comparison between Rus and Rus', for example, as the apostrophe (soft sign) has become part of common usage in scholarly texts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search terms. The English-language name is Sebastopol or Sevastopol. I've never seen either written in a Latin alphabet with an apostrophe for the myakiy znak. I agree with Iryna Harpy's point about Rus/Rus', which is another matter altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the first one as it's the most common way of transliterating the Ukrainian/Russian name, and as such is a likely search term (over 90 views last year), even if it doesn't see use in proper publications. – Uanfala (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Man 2

Redirect that was created after an AfD about the original dab page was closed as "delete". In the AfD discussion, this redirect was proposed but objected to because there were no sources supporting the use of the term in the target article. — Gorthian (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I asked for WP:RS evidence for this usage in the AfD. None has been provided: "common usage in police drama television shows" (see the target article) doesn't cut it, and is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete could be connected to acting credit roles like Soldier A. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Streetlight Social

Delete. The redirect is broken (the target section no longer exists although the page does). Streetlight Social is not mentioned on the target page. The redirect has a trivial edit history. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. There appears to be exactly zero instances of "Streetlight Social" (other than this redirect and discussions of it) on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Singam (film)

The IP user 42.111.169.217 retargeted this redirect to evade a G8 speedy deletion, which I do not think is right. Singam (disambiguation) was deleted per WP:CSD#G5 as a creation by a blocked user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17

Polypogon(moth)

Not a plausible search term; receives no views. Page never was at this location for more than an hour, back in March 2009. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete housekeeping for the lack of space between Polypogon and (moth). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. While all the statements above are true, none of them are reasons to delete a redirect. There is literally no benefit to the encyclopedia to deleting the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible typo. It's not WP:R3 because it's not "recent". Keeping would set a bad precedent for keeping every typo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. We should just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Category talk:Association football fullbacks

Wikipedia:Sexuality

Currently it redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies (I think it was meant to be redirected to the section about sexual orientations). But we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I don't know which is better, if kept to LGBT, retarget to WP:SAS or to create a dab page. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Selective assassination

PBS and I hare having a good-faith disagreement about this redirect. We both agree that the phrase is a tautology—assassinations aren't random killings. On that basis, I had re-retargeted it to Targeted killing, but I was reverted. The redirect probably needs to be retained in some form because of a merge that happened, but the phrase isn't used in either Assassination or Targeted killing. Thoughts? --BDD (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The redirect has been to assassination for most of the time it has been a redirect. targeted killing is chiefly used as an euphemism to get around the Ford Executive Order 11905 (either by the Israelis who court American public opinion, or more recently by the American government itself). BDD why do you think that a phrase with assassination in it is better redirecting to an euphemism for assassination rather than assassination itself -- which at least contains one of the two words in this redirect? -- PBS (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Loquacious

Is there any reason to have this redirect to Wiktionary? Largoplazo (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete was recently created within a day of this RFD with the purpose of redirecting to the Wiktionary, so it is not useful. No potential for article, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Was it recently used by someone to make it popular? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the third independent creation of content at this title: A one-sentence 'article' in 2007 that was speedy deleted as nonsense; and from May 2008-May 2016 a Neelix-created redirect to fluency speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6. Also in 2007, Neelix created Loquaciousness as a redirect to the same target, but that was quickly speedy deleted as R3 (implausible). user:SMcCandlish independently created Loquaciousness in 2010, this time as a redirect to Prolixity, which is now itself a redirect to Verbosity (a bot updated the Loquaciousness redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Verbosity to match Loquaciousness. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. We already have an article on the concept, and it is not some dicdef article. PS: Back in that day, we did have multiple articles on the topic; if I recall correctly, one was literary-focused, the other psychological, but it's been a long time, and WP:MERGE is a good thing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dothideomyceta

Dothideomyceta includes multiple classes and Trichochophyton is one genus of the class Eurotiomycetes. Leotiomyceta is a better target. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Leiotomyceta for now. It's probably worth turning Dothideomyceta into an article at some point, although there isn't a whole lot to say about it yet (it's a relatively recently defined clade and there aren't many publications that mention it). Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Math, Science, and Technology Center

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete per WP:SNOW.

Monday Massacre

"Monday Massacre" originally redirected to "Monday Night Massacre" although no source has called it that. Recently Monday Night Massacre has been renamed to Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale per consensus in a move request. Accordingly I checked the incoming links and updated the pointers where necessary. I stumbled on this redirect and noticed that it is only used in a totally unrelated subject, the In-Fest music festival, being apparently the name of a band that performed there. Accordingly, this should remain a red link. I see no strong reason to keep this as a plausible alternate name for "Monday Night Massacre" or to set up a dab page between a nonexistent article on the band and an unused-in-sources title variant of the Yates dismissal article. — JFG talk 07:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous and allow the band to be a redlink Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Retired NHL players

The target does not contain a list of retired NHL players. -- Tavix (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no such list or category for former athletes or most occupations. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it's not an implausible thing to look for, we don't have any suitable content related to it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Memorial Day (2014 film)

Delete, here's a faulty crystal ball. There's no 2014 film by the name. The closest is an unrelated 2012 film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The Long Green Shore (film)

Another film in development. No mention at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sydney Unplugged (film)

Delete, film appears to be in development hell per IMDb. No sign of this going into production anytime soon, so this is WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete or weak retarget to John Polson who conceived of the idea. There's also a photography book by Vasil Boglev but he isn't Wikipedia notable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16

Anti-Trump

Vague, does not exclusively refer to the protests. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So, what's your suggestion? Change it to a disambiguation page? Anti-Trump was created as a redirect page on 23 March 2016‎, redirecting Stop Trump movement (redirected by Anti-Trump movement at that time). Anti-Trump movement and Anti-Trump were changed from redirecting Stop Trump movement to redirecting Protests against Donald Trump by Marxistfounder at 12:11 and 12:12, 16 February 2017. Should Anti-Trump movement also be listed as Redirects for discussion? --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I do not support a dab page because of the WP:PTM issue. I support deletion overall, I have no opinion currently on Anti-Trump movement, but feel free to nominate it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Champion: But Anti-Trump, like Stop Trump, Dump Trump, and Never Trump, is the main name of the movement. And currently Stop Trump, Dump Trump, and Never Trump all redirect Stop Trump movement. So I think that Anti-Trump at least can be changed back to redirecting Stop Trump movement. Are you suggesting Stop Trump, Dump Trump, and Never Trump be listed as Redirects for discussion? Another solution is to keep Anti-Trump as redirecting Protests against Donald Trump and add a disambiguation hatnote there. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Should remove these titles all.Marxistfounder (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

National Highway 2A (India)(old numbering)

Mike Bell (Disambiguation)

Samsung Galaxy Note

This targeted Samsung Galaxy Note series for the last few years until retargeted to the original last December by TheWikiContributor. I would imagine that the series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but seeing as it would be controversial to re-retarget, I'm taking it here. (Also: it may be better to move over redirect, but I'm unsure.) -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Revert the change; redirect to the series. There have been many models in the series, all of which are known as Galaxy Note "something". Just as Microsoft Windows or Volkswagen Golf does not only refer to the original release, it refers to the whole series of releases. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expand citations

I think that this redirect should be retargeted to a guideline in regards to when to expand citations (possibly in regards to bare URLs), but I am unable to find such a target at the moment. The redirect's present target is a "how-to" about installing a specific script to expand citations, but if I recall, the most-used tool of the such is "reFill". Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Are you thinking of maybe a section link to someplace on Wikipedia:Citing sources? Though the only sections I could find on that page seemed to talk more about the virtues of shortening and avoiding clutter rather than expanding.
    I did find a few other potential targets but all of them were already prominently linked on Citing sources so that seems like it might be the best hub. None of the other targets seemed to have much about the specific sub-topic of citation expansion. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ExpandTemplates

From my experiences, there usually are not redirects that directly target the "Special:" namespace due to possible technical issues. Also, the standard seems to be for "Special:" talk pages to be in the pseudo-namespace "Wikipedia talk:Special:" ... for example, see Wikipedia talk:Special:ExpandTemplates.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Convert to soft redirect, because {{Soft redirect}} will be less confusing on the technical side of things, and it helps to have a project title for this subject. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Explaining NFCC

I'm thinking these redirects should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as Wikipedia:NFCC does. However, Wikipedia:Explaining NFCC was the former name of a page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in non-free image discussions) that was merged into the redirects' current target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Retargeting to Wikipedia:Non-free content is okay as well. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Non-free content which is the page that explains the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC consists only of the criteria with no explanation and is transcluded to Wikipedia:Non-free content). Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retargeting is fine with me. I'm the primary author of WP:AAFFD, and I frankly do not remember having created this redirect, even though I did. I think it's no big deal if it stays as is, and no big deal if it gets retargeted. I think that Thryduulf's analysis of the proper target, just above, is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget; the proposal makes more sense than the current arrangement. If we merge page A into page B, page A must be kept for attribution purposes, but it doesn't have to remain a redirect to page B; as long as its page history is visible, the attribution requirement is satisfied. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Graph (IA collection)

The word "graph" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems wholly irrelevant to its target. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - This doesn't seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Additional Collections from Internet Archive

Unclear what this refers to since the section no longer exists. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems wholly irrelevant to its target. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:European Union Frequently asked questions

WP:XNR. However, after it was created, it was retargeted by an established administrator, so ... I advocate delete on the grounds alone that it's a cross-namespace redirect, and to an article talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Also, this redirect's talk page has a considerable amount of content... Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's the result of a page being moved to the wrong namespace. The retargeting by an established administrator was merely to prevent a double redirect after the target got moved. We can move the talk page somewhere else or convert it into a redirect; maybe it could be retargeted to Talk:European Union/FAQ and we could add a note to the bottom of that page saying "For additional older content on this subject, see the history of Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions". Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect (1st choice), move FAQ back to Wikipedia space (2nd choice) or keep (3rd choice). The issue at hand is to preserve the discussion log that is stuck at Wikipedia talk:European Union Frequently asked questions. Since the FAQ itself is now at Talk:European Union/FAQ we do need somewhere to have meta-discussion about the FAQ... Deryck C. 12:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Favouritism

It seems odd that different spellings of the same word should have different targets. Originally (circa 2005) both pointed to Elitism, but User:Tim bates retargeted the American spelling to Ingroup in 2011, noting "populists are routinely convicted of favoritism". Elitism is probably not the best target, but I'm not certain what is. Perhaps Favourite (companion of a ruler) or Favorite (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally I think Ingroups and outgroups works best, for both spellings. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ditto I think Ingroups and outgroups works best for both spellings. Did a check to see if people use favouritism to mean elitism and it doesn't seem to be common (i couldn't find an example). The companion of a ruler page is too specific, IMHO. So I think favouritism should redirect to ingroups and outgroups, until someone makes a favouritism disambiguation page if more reasonable alternatives emerge Tim bates (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to favorite, add the in-groups and such as See Alsos or hatnote. Note "Favored" goes to Favor. Also note "preferential treatment" doesn't redirect anywhere either. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi: To favour is to prefer - I favour democracy. Favouritism is preferring one's own over other kinds. So I think either favo[u]ritism need its own page, or should stay redirected to in-group out-group. Probably the best answer is its own page, with brief notes on usage. I worry that if everything goes to favorite, along with favorite icecream, favoritism (which one doesn't show to ice-cream) will be lost and not readily re-found. Tim bates (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • How about a retarget both to In-group favoritism? As AngusWOOF notes, that article features a hatnote to Ingroups and outgroups, which in turn features a 'Main article' link to In-group favoritism. Cnilep (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Or alternately, this (though I still think I prefer retarget to 'In-group favoritism'). Cnilep (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to in-group favoritism, which seems the most likely subject. When people think of royal favourites, they're not generally doing so with the word "favouritism". It's not really synonymous with elitism (many elites does not favo[u]r each other but are in competition, they just happen to have a lot of money/power).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The main options on the table so far are 1) retargeting to in-group favoritism, 2) disambiguating (draft dab page is available), and maybe 3) retargeting to Favourite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I like the proposed dab page. Deryck C. 12:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be moving towards disambiguating. I'd like to see if anyone else has any more comments for or against doing so before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - Well suitable to most readers, I hope, by reading the draft. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per the draft - a good compromise. And Elitism could be added to the See also Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Democrat Party (United States)

Since the consensus last decided on 18 Feburary 2007 (nearly ten years ago) to redirect the page to Democratic Party, a dabpage, there have been attempts to change the redirect page's target to "Democratic Party (United States)". The page has been switched back and forth a few or several times. As of now, it redirects to "Democratic Party (United States)" without official discussion. I would have switched the page back to the dabpage, but my common sense tells me to have the discussion first before doing so. Shall we follow the consensus from 2007, retain "Democratic Party (United States)" as the present target, or redirect the page to another target? George Ho (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The current target (the Democratic Party disambig) might have been chosen in the mistaken belief that the US party is the primary topic, but I don't believe it has ever been. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is tagged as a misspelling, and there are currently five links flagged for correction at the Linked misspellings list. The rationale for redirect to dab is that between Democrat Party (epithet) (which is a "correct" spelling), and Democratic Party (United States), there is no primary topic for the 'misspelling'. I don't mind redirecting to the disambiguation, and making Democratic Party (United States) the primary topic is fine with me too; the only option I object to (strongly) is making the epithet primary. Though I understand that some right-wing POV warriors might support that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think your history is a little off. The 2007 decision was closed as redirect to Democrat Party, the disambiguation page. That discussion appears to me to have been a compromise between the US party and the epithet. But in my opinion, the epithet has always been a weak claim. The misspelling is much more common. So let's make it official and leave the redirect as it currently is. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at Democratic Party (United States) as with Democrat (United States). Discussing whether it's Democrat Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) is more for an RM than a redirect discussion. But I would side with keeping the primary topic article Democratic Party as cited on their own website's About Our Party. [16] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Democrat Party (1st choice), or keep (2nd choice), although I would oppose a hatnote saying something like "Democrat Party (United States)" redirects here. For the epithet.... per WP:WEIGHT, people looking for the pejorative would not likely type "(United States)" as a search term. I see no evidence that either is a primary topic. (By the way, I support Trump). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Found other similar redirects: Democrat Party United States, Van Buren Democrat Party, Democrat party usa, Democrat Party (US), and Democrat Party (U.S.). I've not listed them yet. I just mention them. George Ho (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FARC/Christmas

Unclear why this WP:FAR (WP:FARC at the time) discussion list needs to have a shortcut when no other such shortcuts exist. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Middle Way Meditation

Propose deletion, because term is hardly used as synonym of Dhammakaya meditation anymore. S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

S Khemadhammo, I take it that this term has been used as a synonym for Dhammakaya meditation in the past? Is it used nowadays to refer to something else? – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala:, no it is just hardly used anymore. It was formerly used widely by Wat Phra Dhammakaya, but not anymore. These days the temple mostly uses Dhammakaya meditation.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala:, so what is the verdict? Delete or keep?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the term isn't ambiguous, then I don't see the point of deleting. It might not be much used anymore, but if it has been used in the past, then it is something that readers are likely to encounter in a book or other text, and when they come on wikipedia looking for more info, they should be able to find it. So that that means keep. – Uanfala (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Kremlingate

The article makes no use of the term "Kremlingate", and there is no mention of it at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. However, the media is beginning to refer to the Trump/Flynn/Russia saga with that name.[17][18] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I am deeply skeptical of the recentism bias that google counts and news searches produce. Kremlingate was a fairly common name for the Bank Menatep scandal when it was occurring in the late 1990s. See, for example, here. That said, perhaps this title would best serve our readers by being converted to a disambiguation page. I'll throw a draft under the RfD template but it could probably use expansion. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page. As long as the post-Soviet Russian government plays around with various foreign shenanigans, a practice has gone on for years and years, we'll see various events attracting either this label or something like it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Digital television remote control

user:fmadd#disambiguating, why redirects seem so useful I'm trying to refactor to make more sense. the structure is locked down with 100's of pages pointing at3-5 possible places that aren't always right. (with overlapping (and sometimes contradictory) connotations of what 'remote control' means). For example it says 'wireless', and some remote controls are WIRED. Fmadd (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
what seems to have happened is remote control started out talking about ALL types of remote control, then got narrowed down to basically mean TV remote. Other 'connotations' of "remote control" are better handled in the article teleoperation. All over the place I've found places where the context is clearly talking about the latter, but it's linked to the former. Fmadd (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What i'm trying to do is - instead of having 100s of articles pointed at 3-5 places that might not be quite right, we have 10 or so redirects in the middle (things like "TV remote", "IR remote", etc) which help narrow down the context. Then it's much easier to fix the article structure (either move remote control to remote control (consumer electronics), or rework the lead section to mean all kinds of remote control, including wired remotes, and drones, and RC cars. Fmadd (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
anyway in this instance I can see you might aswell replace the use with digital television remote control, which is more common. It just seemed messier. What surprises me so much is the intense culture here of deleting things. why not leave the structure open? I've explained above why linking remote control doesn't make sense to me. I think it would be safer to have remote control (consumer electronics) etc, and then we see what people want to do with the article structure.Fmadd (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jsharpminor and Fmadd: It's unclear what is being sought here, particularly given the lack of nomination statement. Please can you be specific about what you would like to see happen to the "Digital television remote control" redirect (deleted, kept as is, retargetted to a different page (which?) or converted to a disambiguation page). If there are other redirects you would like to discuss, please explicitly nominate them in this or a new discussion being specific about what action you are proposing and why. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no digital television standard for remote controls. The signaling used in remote controls hasn't been modified to deal with digital television standards, or if it has, it hasn't been explained in the article at all. There's always wireless network and Wi-Fi if someone wants to get complicated stuff related to digital, or Home network and how to program your DVR using the Internet. Otherwise adding "digital" to "television remote" is a bit of an WP:XY as with "HD remote". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Gefängnis/Gefaengnis

February 15

HITMAN

Changed redirect from Hitman (2016 video game) to Contract killing (where hitman redirects to), as the cover style of the latest Hitman video game is not a style used by reliable sources. Not a sensible redirect that a user would type HITMAN, looking for a video game. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The game is officially called “HITMAN.” Why would someone type “HITMAN” in all-capital letters when looking for the article about actual hitmen?
    PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A reader who didn't know about MediaWiki's strict capitalization rules might well type in all caps (or all lower case) and expect to get that page.
    Both targets appear plausible and neither is obviously primary for the all-caps version. Be bold and just disambiguate retarget it. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I didn't know that existed. That is better. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation). I agree with Rossami's reasoning that this is ambiguous, but we already have a suitable disambiguation page that covers both targets suggested here (and others that are equally plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) since that appears to be fairly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) per Rossami --Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) since the video game is all-caps, and the dab page has several video game versions as well as a feature film based on the game franchise. The comic book looks like it goes by all-caps but it's not clear whether it uses lower-case when referring to the character itself. It should not point to the regular contract killing with all caps. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

TBW

Redirect is ambiguous, and could be used as an abbreviation for Total body water, etc. Interestingly, some have used it to abbreviate "That Bloody Woman". --Nevéselbert 19:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

the ''date'' vowel

Unlikely such term. Should be deleted. Fish567 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep because it's been around for over a decade and deletion would almost certainly break links. Retarget to Close-mid front unrounded vowel because the page history shows that's almost certainly the page the original author really intended. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as the redirect contains now blacklisted wiki-markup. Besides, even if it was quotation marks, I don't think they make sense in that context. Just use The date vowel if someone truly believes it's a useful term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't really see the use of keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real use for this. The vowel is referred to as long a, not the date vowel. Fish567 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the markups that may cause issues. It is also confusing --Lenticel (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What Kind of Man Would I Be? (song)

A confusing disambiguation which is about Mint Condition's song with that title from 1996 but redirects to the album it comes from, Definition of a Band. The redirect may be due to its lack of notability, and I hesitate to move it to a more precise title at this time. While it peaked at #17 on the Billboard Hot 100, it is not the only song with that title to make that chart (and not the highest peaking either). The band Chicago had a song with that title that peaked at #5 in 1990 (their final top 10 on the Hot 100), from their album Chicago 19. When I came across this title in the Wikipedia search, I was thinking it to be that Chicago song, not a redirect to a Mint Condition album. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Political assassination

I'm not sure about this one. Taken literally, the phrase is redundant—if a murder is apolitical, we don't call it an assassination. Alone, that's not a great reason to delete. But the phrase also has a metaphorical usage: for example, see these two articles I came across today. This was tagged with {{R with possibilities}} over 10 years ago, and I wish I knew whether the metaphorical usage was what was on the tagger's mind (he's inactive now). I'm leaning delete but wanted to see what others think. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep first one correctly spelled one as useful, getting consistent numbers of hits over time. The misspelled one, not as much. It does get used, but it wouldn't be missed. There's also Character assassination and there are assassinations of religious leaders. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The first is a useful search term (and there are a-political assassinations, e.g. of business leaders and as AngusWOOF notes) so it's arguably an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and the second is a very plausible misspelling of it and so could be tagged as {{R avoided double redirect}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • An assassination by definition is still political—it's not necessary for the victim to be personally in the realm of politics. If I murder a CEO or a priest because I'm mugging him, it's a regular murder, but if I'm murdering him so I or someone else can exploit a power vacuum, it's an assassination. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Whether it is tautological or not people are using this search term and sending them to the clear primary topic seems far better than requiring them to navigate search results (or in some cases first invite them to search, then navigate search results). Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both - Technically, the term "assassinate" has two meanings, only one of which is generally political. See here. Historically, I can think of multiple deaths or near deaths that attract the "assassinate" label despite their lack of political intent; how Arthur Bremer, an apolitical loner who called himself "An unemployed malcontent who fancys (sic) himself a writer" rather than anything profound, almost killed George Wallace comes to mind. I can't see these redirects as being harmful, so I'd rather that we just leave them be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Communist era

Potentially ambiguous, as an entity is not given. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambig. This is a plausible search term for articles like Socialist Republic of Romania, History of Poland (1945–89), People's Republic of Hungary, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–89), People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and others. List of socialist states#Marxist-Leninst sort of fills the role but doesn't have any introduction to explain the ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no such era, and I'm not finding any subjects listed at List of time periods that could be referred to specifically as "communist era". There could potentially be an article created at this title to describe the term (WP:BROADCONCEPT), but since there seems to be no subjects that are specifically called "communist era", a disambiguation page at this title could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Many countries have had a communist era, for example all the ones I listed above, even though the article does not use that title. Template:History of Bulgaria, Template:History of Czechoslovakia, etc. use the term, Communist era of Czechoslovakia exists as a redirect, History of Hungary has a section using the synonym "Communist period", etc. This redirect got 519 views in 2016 so it's obviously something people are searching for, and search results are not helpful, finding mostly articles about communist parties rather than periods of history. This is a classic case where disambiguation is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and my own opinions, your idea wouldn't be a disambiguation page since the articles you have mentioned this far are not title matches or synonymous with the phrase "communist era". I get what you are trying to point out, but this is more of a case where a WP:BROADCONCEPT article is needed. And if it can't be created at this time, best help readers find what they are looking for through Wikipedia's page search function. Also, Communist period doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that Wikipedia's search function will not help users find the article(s) they are looking for, and there is not really a lot that can be said in general other than that many countries which are or were formerly communist describe that period of their history as the "communist era" or "communist period" in relation to events, policies, architecture, societal attitudes, etc. This is exactly the same as how phrases like Victorian era, Reconstruction Era, Plantation era, etc, just that they happen to have been chosen as the names of articles. It is an artefact of our article titling conventions that we seem use dates or the formal name of the country to name these articles rather than descriptive phrases, that doesn't make the term "communist era" any less likely a search term or any less ambiguous. So what we need to do is decide whether the WP:DISAMBIG guideline or what's best for our readers should take precedence - for me there is no question that it should be the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf laid out a good argument why an article on the topic should exist, but this is not a case where "communist era" is a ambiguous term that needs disambiguation between multiple articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't see any scope for an article here as there is nothing to say beyond what is at the first paragraph of era#Colloquial use but using "Communist era" as the example rather than "Elizabethan era", followed by a list of periods in the history various countries that are referred to in this way. If the articles were named "Communist era of <country>" rather than "History of <country> (dates)" or "<official name used during communist era of country>" there would be no question about this being a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Even if the articles were named "Communist era of ...." they would all be partial title matches and so, at least in the standard model of dab physics, a dab page wouldn't be warranted. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
        • This is an example of where IAR should be used - the purpose of disambiguation pages is to assist users in finding the article they are looking for when they use an ambiguous search term. "Communist era" is an ambiguous search term that people are using, so we should have a page (call it a "set index" and move it to "List of communist eras" if you prefer but the outcome is the same) that lists the articles that they could be looking for. In most cases partial title matches make poor entries on disambiguation pages, but not in every case - for example when the articles use natural disambiguation or where alternative titles are used to avoid an ambiguous name by which the subject is also known. The point is that this is an occasion where following the guidelines that work in most cases will actually make things worse for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to set index - Periods of communist regimes belong to the "communist era". "Dabify" would be possible, but the terms are too related. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to set index of links to articles about various countries' communist periods. As pointed out above, this is a plausible search term. — Kpalion(talk) 21:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This redirect is not ambiguous; it's generic. So is the current target. There is no doubt that "communist era" refers to a past period of communist government. If it is linked to from an article, the context makes it clear what country is meant. The current target, communist state, is an overview of communist governments in general, not any particular country's version. There is also a template there, History of communist states, which contains a list of previous communist countries in a clear, clickable list. There is no need to write an article on the generic topic (that's handled at the target), nor is there any need for a list article—there's already a complete list of "communist eras" at the target. — Gorthian (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian Harmon

REVERT to version 258062515. This article was first redirected to a redlink, then the redirect was "repaired" to point to an article about a completely different person. If the original article doesn't pass notoriety criteria, perhaps the article should be deleted; either way, the redirect should not be in place, as there are actual Brian Harmons in the world, including a published author. Morfusmax (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Do not revert. The last article revision at this title, from 23 December 2008 was nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of Brian Michael Harmon, which at that time was at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Brian Harmon) but deleted 3 days later. The version at this title is identical to the version that was deleted, except that it has fewer references, and so would be speedy deletable under criterion WP:CSD#G4 as a repost. I will happily provide the content of the deleted article to anyone who wants to write a draft about this person, but that draft will have to show that he is more notable now that in December 2008 to survive as an article (I have not looked and so have no opinion whether they are or not). In the mean time, this redirect is clearly plausible as a {{R from misspelling}} but whether that is better or worse than a redlink I'm not presently sure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Danny Webb (voice actor)

This is confusing. There's Danny Webb (actor) (might need further disambiguation) and Danny Webb (child actor) (might not be notable), but neither are known for doing voice acting. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I can only find one source discussing the voice actor. That source is not nearly enough to support an article. The source does suggest that all (or mostly all) his work was for Warner Brothers. If someone can find better sources to suggest that an article could be created, redlink it. But until those sources are found, leave it as is. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why leave it as is? There's no discussion of any Danny Webbs at the current target, so someone searching for information on him won't be helped by the target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Behind the Voice Actors doesn't show a checkmark for Danny Webb's voice acting, so it can't be used as a reliable source. Still it implies he might have been the very first voice of Elmer Fudd / Egghead. Here are some better sources Cartoon Research - Woody Woodpecker, Warner Bros. backup in general but it's unclear whether enough can be written up about him for him to get an article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion will appreciate more help to figure out the situation of this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The other way of deception

The redirect is a {{R from incorrect name}}, but even as so, it is potentially ambiguous. It's "prequel" is By Way of Deception. In fact, most results for searching the redirect via third-party search engines returns results for By Way of Deception. And also, the redirect doesn't have proper capitalization to be a proper title of a proper subject, so that may need consideration as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. While you have a point about the ambiguity, the two possible target articles are closely related and prominently link to each other. I have no strong opinion about which target should be primary or even if the title should be turned into a disambig page but returning nothing seems like the worst solution. Remember that not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as this is needlessly confusing and unused. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. unclear which of the two articles it could refer to AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management – a division of Pembroke Management

Delete. Implausible redirect left behind by a page move in 2010, so it doesn't qualify as "recently created" for WP:CSD#R3. Pageview tool shows only 13 hits since July 2015. Anomie 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. It is an artifact of a pagemove almost immediately after the article was first created but it's harmless so there's no good reason to delete it either.
    Note that this would not be a CSD:R3 candidate even if it had been found immediately. It was neither a typo nor a misnomer. It was a sub-optimal title but that does not automatically make it a speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not useful dab either. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • keep (and allow creation of the alternately dashed version) per Rossami. This is equivalent to the title and subtitle of a work which we would routinely keep. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gefangnis

Seeking deletion. It is unlikely this foreign-language redirect will ever be used. HapHaxion (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi HapHaxion. Since I do not have permission to delete articles would you be able to delete it now? Or if you think the deletion should hold off for a few more days or with more delete votes that is fine also. I am also asking this cause in the closed discussion you even mentioned nominating it for speedy deletion. --Necip Necipoglu (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Since this process has already started, I'll wait until it is completed before trying speedy deletion via WP:A2 or WP:NAD. If the end result of this discussion is Delete anyway, there will be no need for it. HapHaxion (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@HapHaxion: WP:CSD#A2, like all the A speedy deletion criteria, do not apply to redirects (only the R and G criteria do). Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons as Gefangnis. An unnecessary redirect that is a translation from German.

--Necip Necipoglu (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Copied the above rationale from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Gefängnis/Gefaengnis. George Ho (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 14

History of the English penny

Per the redirect's history, apparently, the redirect is ambiguous. This redirect was the former name of Penny (British pre-decimal coin), but the redirect currently targets Penny (English coin). Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • A redirect from a move that is now ambiguous? That's so obviously disambiguate I wonder why you brought it here? Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's that obvious. English penny redirects to Penny (English coin) so its logical that this redirect would be in sync. I'm assuming it's the primary topic? Maybe it'd be better to discuss both redirects together. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Penny (English coin) is the broad-topic article about the evolution of the English penny throughout history. Subtopic articles about the history of the coin in various eras is linked from the article. So if a reader wants general information about the history of the English penny, the current target is the right place to send them. Deryck C. 12:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: See the list of pages that begin with "History of the English penny". Okay, so maybe disambiguate it then? Wasn't sure before. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    • All of them are already linked from the "pennies by period" section towards the bottom of the article though. We can refine the target there so that disambiguation could be achieved without creating a separate SIA. Deryck C. 15:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Penny (English coin) is a fairly broad article with multiple links all through its lead section, all of which seem helpful enough. I feel like readers will find what they're looking for pretty much immediately. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A1 Capricorni

These are not valid abbreviations or synonyms for the components of alpha Capricorni. A Capricorni is an entirely different star. Since A Capricorni is single, these redirects should be deleted to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Inappropriate redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. A is the correct uppercase form of α, so this is a simple change of capitalisation. They're plausible search terms, so is best served by a disambiguation page listing α1 Cap, α2 Cap and A Cap. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Α (upper-case α) and A (upper-case a) are different characters although they look almost identical in most fonts. Thus Α1 Capricorni and A1 Capricorni are different articles (the confusion is exacerbated because Wikipedia usually does not respect the {{lowercasetitle}} tag for redirects and still shows the first letter as uppercase). The redirect being discussed here is A1 Capricorni, which does not start with an upper-case α. Greek and latin letter Bayer designations for stars are not synonyms and should not be redirects to eachother. In this case, A Capricorni and α Capricorni are two different stars and we shouldn't have redirects crossing between them. Lithopsian (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Azidoazide azide

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

Scattering event

Propose deletion (or point it to scattering). This is a reasonably common two-word phrase with many meanings outside of the target. It should be sufficient to wikilink just the first word. Dukwon (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"with many meanings outside of the target" ... If true, thats exactly why I like making redirects. it could become a disambiguation page linking to the different meanings? then it would guide other editors to replace the instances with something more specific. Other than that I would per perfectly happy if anyone can find a better target. I'm surprised people dont like doing this. Surely grouping surrounding words for context allows wikipedia to yield more precise, relevant information in the hovercards, and when you click. 'scatter' itself has meanings outside of physics. 'scattering event' is more specific. You might think you know the context, but isn't the whole point of a resource like this to explain things to people who DONT yet understand what is going on. And what about foreign language speakers / autotranslation. The links can give a head start for translation, surely. natural language is hugely ambiguous. Fmadd (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Put it this way: if scattering is sufficient, why not delete 'event' every time it's used? Evidently pairing up with the word 'event' adds some significant context. So thanks to the power of hypertext, we should be able to get a clear direct explanation of exactly what that is. One surprising thing i found with other links like this is other meanings.. 'astronomical event' (an event in the sky).. 'astronomical event' (a conference on astronomy). Fmadd (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
It is not sufficient to replace the phrase "scattering event" with "scattering" because it loses the meaning of "a single instance when scattering happened". As an analogy, take the phrase "railway journey": the key concept is railway, but to replace all instances of "railway journey" with "railway" would change the meaning. Similarly, to create a wikilink to a redirect page for "railway journey" would be absolutely unnecessary. Dukwon (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
as well as event (particle physics)#SCATTERING_EVENT i made an anchor scattering#SCATTERING EVENT. I didn't know which would be best. Fmadd (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
see talk:Scattering event Fmadd (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
How about disambig: scattering event (particle physics), and scattering event, phonon scattering events (and whatever else). By listing all the possible meanings at this page, anyone who inquires about this in future will be guided more accurately. Ll928 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Strike sock vote. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete.The target has been changed by the creator to point to "scattering", and so we have "scattering event" pointing to "scattering" which is just unnecessary, especially since it's the scattering (and not the fact that it's an "event") that is important. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary staffing

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus, default to keep.

Extra embryos

For one, the word "extra" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Better to redirect to In_vitro_fertilisation#Leftover_embryos_or_eggs. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • AngusWOOF, you should be careful with linking usernames; I initially saw "'Retarget and Mikael Häggström and thought you were suggesting a retarget to an article about Mikael Häggström :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplemental angle

Probably not a likely {{R from incorrect name}}. 0 views in the last 30 days. Steel1943 (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as used in some book searches concerning surveying, astrology, and AutoCAD. But the tag about incorrect name can stay or be converted to an alternative name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even if the term is rarely used, it seems like a plausible typo that somebody would make, especially given that the average person doesn't have that much understanding of geometry and could mishear things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary question

The use of the redirect in the target article (it is mentioned a few times) makes the term not an official alternative name or subtopic of the target article. In fact, whenever the term "supplementary question" is used in the target article, the phrase could be replaced with "additional question" and the meaning would be the same. With that being said, unless the term in the redirect can be defined, the redirect is vague and is not exclusive to any part of its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Question time as more general, covering use of supplementary questions in multiple countries. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Supplementary question has a specific meaning in the UK Prime Ministers Question's, namely that while the initial question must be provided in advance, the supplementary is not and need not be about the same topic - thus requiring the Prime Minister to provide an answer "off the cuff". Thus supplementary questions are a major tactic for HM Opposition to try to embarrass HM Government and contain the real substance while the initial question will often be something innocuous. I'm not sure if other Parliaments follow this scheme. Pretzelpaws (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate The term is also used in Canada's parliament and is mentioned in Question Period which is about House of Commons Oral Questions in Canada. (If disambiguate is the closing decision I'm happy to do it if you ping me) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary oxygen

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: retarget

Supplementary budget

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Wikipedia:Garbage

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget so they're both redirecting to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Poorly written article.

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus

List of alternate history United States Presidents

Not clear if all of the fictional presidents on the redirect's target's page portrayed a United States president in an "alternate history" role, considering that "alternative history" is considered a sub-category of fiction. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as useful gathering point to find POTUS in fiction. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm not thrilled that this is going to make readers take further steps to find what they're looking for, but the phrase is ambiguous in a sense. Readers may specifically be looking for outright fictional characters or actual historical figures with fictional presidencies. I don't know that we'd ever have a list that distinguishes "alternate history" portrayals from other fictional presidents, so I think I can live with this. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@BDD: Unless I misunderstood you, wouldn't actual historical figures with fictional presidencies be listed at Lists of fictional presidents of the United States#Historical Presidents? -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other media for 24

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

List of other South Park residents

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

Argyll Ferries LTD

No-one (well, almost no-one) would ever write LTD rather than Ltd. PamD 13:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as superfluous: the common name is Argyle Ferries, generally used in its branding. On the few occasions where the full title is used, it appears as Argyll Ferries Limited.[19] . dave souza, talk 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Argyll Ferries Ltd already exists and is how the phrase is used in news articles. No such usage of all caps in any logos or literature. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that, officially, limited companies in the United Kingdom may use any of "LTD", "L.T.D." or "Limited" in any of all caps, all lower case or first letter capitalised (and similarly for PLC). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This redirect came into being from an inappropriate page move which I reverted. While retaining the redirect probably isn't strictly necessary, given that Argyll Ferries Ltd also exists, it also isn't doing any harm by being there. The initial move and comment above suggest that some people might use the unusual "LTD" format. Jellyman (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't look unusual to me as an American. If all caps here are especially rare in British usage, I could see a weak MOS:TIES argument, but Thryduulf's comment suggests that that's not the case. No harm here. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as a valid alternative form. -- Tavix (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Phone connector

Tionne Watkins

February 13

Alphington A.F.C.

Delete – per rationale #10: the redirects could plausibly be expanded into articles [if they passed WP:GNG], and the target articles contain virtually no information on the subject. These are non-notable football clubs being redirected to league articles which contain no information on those clubs, and will become outdated when these clubs are promoted or relegated. NB: the redirect Vospers Oak Villa F.C. was recently retargeted to another article; whether other editors would like to retarget these redirects somewhere, I don't know. Some might be possible, others not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: What about retargeting them to List of football clubs in England? This would avoid it becoming out of date. Jolly Ω Janner 08:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with retargeting them to List of football clubs in England is that they're not on that list, and can't be on it because they play at too low a level. There's no point in directing readers somewhere if that club isn't in the target article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the 'town#sport' article sections as applicable. GiantSnowman 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to reveal the search engine as there's a couple valid articles these could redirect to and a prospect for an article at these titles. I oppose retargeting to the list as they aren't mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort frolic

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: retarget

Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Israelo-russe

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Zenti-

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete. With a lack of English language sources, the WP:RFOREIGN argument prevails.

Organic dye

Submultiple

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus

General Belgrano

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: disambiguated

Upper-atmosphere impact

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Bicycle rider

1st Presidential Inauguration

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Does not have an article

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

22 Things I Learned This Year

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

+1.202-456-1111

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

List of United States First Ladies by Longevity

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Politics of Taiwan

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: keep.

Http en.wikipedia.org w index.php search gazi paita

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: Delete

Nigerian prince

redirect to Nigerian traditional rulers, advance-fee scams are an allusion to the traditional rulers in Nigeria. People looking up a specific title like "Nigerian prince" is probably looking for information about the exact thing. Prisencolin (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I concur - retarget. Rossami (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget while people pretending to be a Nigerian Prince is popular version of this type of scam I'm confident that people looking this type of scam up would be far more likely to type something like Nigerian Prince scam.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the IP above. A hatnote or link from the article can be added if desired, but I don't have a strong opinion whether the former is justified or not (and no opinion at all about the latter). Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all per nom. Nigerian princes(ses) really are traditional rulers, and seeing that these emails feature all kinds of fake dignitaries, it's not helpful to single out the princes(ses) redirects for "special" treatment; a hatnote will suffice as an acknowledgement of the scam as a minor meaning. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Nigerian prince scam already exists in case people want to find the scam. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep most. If any Nigerian traditional rulers are called princes or princesses, the article doesn't say so. "Nigerian prince" is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a better known term for this sort of scam than "advance-fee". I might just search "Nigerian prince scam" if I were looking for the topic, but I would certainly use "Nigerian prince" before "advance-fee scam". Works on the scam predominate even in Google Books and Scholar searches for the phrase. "Nigerian princess" is obscure enough that I don't feel as strongly about what happens to it. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per the others above, it just isn't appropriate to redirect these actual titles to a scam. Someone searching for the scam would most probably search for "Nigerian Prince Scam". Anyone searching for "Nigerian Prince", is hoping to see actual related articles on Nigerian Princes.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Jamie Tubers: a user wanting to find out about the scam is very unlikely to just type "Nigerian prince". Although "princes" aren't mentioned at Nigerian traditional rulers, this is a possible synonym and a reasonable search term. Also adding that only about a half of the results I see on google books have to do with the scams. – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite strongly in fact for the "prince" redirects. My searches that include News and Books overwhelmingly result in the scam being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Nigerian Prince". -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Travix. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the "prince" per Tavix; retarget the "princess" one The hatnote is sufficient for readers who want the article on Nigerian rulers. Princess doesn't seem to have that usage though, so it should be retargeted---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) (updated 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC))
  • Keep per Tavix. The article about Nigeria's traditional rulers doesn't have "prince" or "princess" as titles for rulers --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Violent Talent

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Age of Reptiles (film)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Harker (2014 film)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

KellyAnne Fitzgerald

WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists

Additional Economical Information and Dates of Empire of Japan

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

February 11

My Bootis

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

O Bootis

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: keep O Bootis; delete the rest.

The Man on Carrion Road (2014 film)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Citizen Hughes: The Power, the Money, and the Madness

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion.

P Booetis

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete both.

U Booetis

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

N1 Booetis

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

N1 Bootis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#N1 Bootis

Marovac (disambiguation)

Had enough of experts

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus to delete, but it will be retargeted to Michael Gove#Views on the EU as the alternative to deletion as no one is satisfied with the status quo.

Simec

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Simec

Bathmophobia

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Death of Diana

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#Death of Diana

Congrefs

The Soviet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 19#The Soviet

George Bush III

Pre-Islamic

Article does not say anything about Pre Islam Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The term means little in itself, could be a disambig page at most, referring to parts of the world before they became Muslims, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Partial title matches aren't disambiguated. See WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Tavix, that's a fair point. Nevertheless, I think this is one of those cases where you have a somewhat ambiguous term that appears fairly frequently in the real world (see, e.g., this book and this book); I don't think we should make a WP:CONCEPTDAB for this term, but I do think that it would be most helpful to readers to create a DAB with the dozen (or so) articles about "pre-Islamic" topics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. This will most effectively ensure that readers are taken to the content those linking the term intended and help anyone who searched directly for this get to the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pre-Islamic calendar as primary topic, but a dab page may be just as helpful if the calendar only applies to Saudi Arabia, and the wiktionary box can be placed on the dab page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This can refer to thousands of different things depending on context, and it's infeasible to attempt to list them all on a single dab/list page. It's also best if this is a redlink so editors linking the term will know they need to find a more specific referent. As for the likely targets that have been proposed above, these should come up fairly prominently in the search results. I don't see the point of linking to wiktionary as the definition there doesn't and couldn't possibly give anything more than what a user with enough grasp of English to read wikipedia wouldn't already have figured out by themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The term has been used often by reliable sources, yes, but it's just too vague a concept. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, seems like a very useful search term, there are many societies that define their history in terms of the introduction of Islam.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pre-Islamic Arabia, which to me seems like the most overarching topic for "pre-Islam", or delete. Yes, technically we could talk about anything that was around before the 7th-century from a "pre-Islamic" perspective, but I think Pre-Islamic Arabia is the best single choice, based on its presence in the hatnote at History of Islam#Islamic origins. Too PTM for me to want to disambiguate, though. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

USPE, 2008

Not a valid acronym. I have created USPE as a redirect to European Police Achievement Badge. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I could not find sources that use "USPE" as an acronym for "United States Presidential Election." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
How is the acronym invalid? United States Presidential Election. This is a navigation tool to avoid having to type in the full title. How does it interfere with the redirect to the European Police Achievement Badge? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
William S. Saturn, per WP:RFD#DELETE, we generally do not keep redirects if the title involves a novel or obscure name. I could not find the acronym "USPE" in reliable sources (with the one exception of this study). If you can show me reliable sources that use this acronym, then I will change my vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Look at #5 on reasons not to delete a redirect. I find the redirect useful as do others. USPE, 2016 is often used (especially from September 2016 to December 2016). USPE, 2012 is used somewhat less but still in use. The USPE acronym is easily deduced from United States Presidential Election --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are easily deduced from the target, apparently not ambiguous so they are at minimum harmless, and at least one person has explicitly stated they find them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#K5 and attestation via NCFF's link. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete USPE12. I didn't notice earlier that one is ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete USPE12, neutral on rest I don't see any news articles in front of the Google searches for news articles and books that use this acronym, and with a comma in between either. So this will be based purely on convenience for the Wikipedia user. USPE12 is not useful though, could refer to 1912, and not a notable hashtag AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) updated 18:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the first 3, which are unambiguous as to what election they refer to. Delete the last one per AngusWOOF because of uncertainty. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, why was this relisted? It's clearly WP:R#K5.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as novel or obscure synonyms, with ambiguity in at least one case. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Handbagging

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Del (letter)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Obama Foundation

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: keep.

February 10

FOXNews

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#FOXNews

Template:GGAV Media Corporation

iota Ursae Minoris

Interstate 80N (Pennsylvania)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Interstate 80N (Pennsylvania)

Wet winter climate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Wet winter climate

Miguzi

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion.

United States capital

Move United States capital (disambiguation) over redirect, perhaps? Nominated via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_25#Georgia_capital, note that there is a hatnote at target, but the disambig isn't linked. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Regardless, United States capital (disambiguation) should be linked from a hatnote at Washington, D.C. if it is to exist. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move over redirect. I don't think there's a primary topic. WP:SMALLDETAILS might be a case for the status quo, but they're homonyms. If I were to aurally hear the phrase "United States capit[a,o]l", I would instantly think of the United States capitol. When referring to the capital city, "Capital of the United States" would be the most common phrase. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep readers are looking for Washington DC, but yes, a hatnote could be added if they want variants. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move over redirect. A reader searching for this phrase probably wants a quick answer to the question "Where is the capital of the United States?". The disambiguation page answers the reader more directly than the article. Alternatively they might have thought "Capitol" was spelled "Capital", which is also served succinctly by the disambig page. Deryck C. 17:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep DC is the United States capital. The hatnote is sufficient to deal with confusion. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Move disambig over redirect. I would personally think that United States Capitol is slightly more likely than Washington, D.C. but not sufficiently for it to be a primary topic - especially considering the range of views in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - The status quo seems reasonable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 21#Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT

Love trumps hate

February 9

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate

Doesn't appear to have a lot of usage, delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep; whether or not something gets usage isn't hugely relevant to retaining old titles. Nothing wrong with it, and as was previously noted at RFD, this is a permitted nickname based on the old name for this page, "Votes for deletion". Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • keep per Nyttend and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Ugh, this is just awful. Who in their right mind thought this redirect was humourous, let alone appropriate. I'm sorry, but I can not and will not tolerate a redirect that promotes Wikipedia's processes as "violent". Just read WP:VIOLENCE to figure out that violence on Wikipedia is a real problem, and we should not diminish this by laughing it off with "humourous" redirects like this. That issue aside, if someone finds it appropriate to label one of our fora as violent, there's a case to be made about all of them, so it's technically ambiguous. Please don't marginalize this important issue. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This redirect was created in 2005 by User:Radiant!, who has not edited in several years, as a backronym for the target's then name of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I disagree completely that humour of this sort does anything to promote or encourage real world threats of harm, particularly when "violent" here is being used to mean "passionate" or "strident". Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • You're not going to get me to back down from this, it's a matter I take very seriously. I hope your cheap laugh was worth it, because violence is not a laughing matter for me. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It's not my "cheap laugh" and I really rather resent the implication you make that I am laughing at violence. Violence is not a laughing matter, but this is not violence, it is not promoting violence, it is not encouraging violence, it is not trivialising or normalising violence (I'd be aruging delete if it were any of those things) it is simply a very old backronym created for presumably humorous reasons that happens to use the word "violence". Failing to make the distinction between the word and the action does the cause of making Wikipedia a better place more harm than it does good in my opinion - fighting battles over harmless trivia such as this reidrect distract attention and effort from fighting the battles that actually need fighting such as that against harassment (of all sorts and against all targets). We may have to agree to disagree about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
          • If you really want to take a stand against violence, then !vote for the deletion of this redirect. Violence takes many forms, one of which that is popular on Internet sites like this one is Cyberbullying. If even one person sees this redirect and they even think for one second that AfD is a place where they could be cyberbullied or any other form of violence, then this redirect simply isn't worth it. It's that simple. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
            • I really do not think it is remotely credible that someone will see this redirect and come to the conclusion that you seem to think they will, even in the extremely unlikely event that they come across the redirect out of all context with no prior knowledge of what AfD is. I'm sorry but I simply cannot the legitimising of reductio ad absurdum as reasons for deletion. I will defend to the hilt all constructive attempts to eradicate harassment in all its forms, but I will not condone the tilting at things two steps removed from windmills on the offchance that someone somewhere might find a way to be offended by it if they squint hard enough. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
              • On the other hand, "it's a funny joke, lol" is not a reason for keeping a redirect that labels a discussion forum as violent. That is NOT something we should be standing up for, and the fact that you are digging in your heels and calling my argument absurd for something like this is frankly ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
                • Except it doesn't label a discussion forum as violent because it's a joke. It deliberately exaggerates the sometimes heated discussions that were more commonplace in 2005 than perhaps they are now (it's a while since I frequented AfD) for the sake of a backronym. You may like or not like the joke, it may be a good joke or a bad joke, but whichever it is does not change that I find your characterisation of it as supporting violence to be absurd. If I found the argument that this was harmful to the project and/or it's users credible then I would be supporting deletion (I have done so for at least one redirect in the past) but I simply do not. You have the right to your opinion, and I have an equal right to think that it is way off base (just as you do with my opinion). Unless you have new arguments to present it's probably bests to leave it here as I don't think it likely that we will agree on whether this is, as I believe, a harmless in-joke from earlier times (in which case it should be kept) or an inexcusable promotion of a Wikipedia process as haven of violence, as my interpretation of your arguments implies is your belief (in which case it should be deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect and mark as {{historical}} - @Tavix and Thryduulf: I think a good compromise here would be to treat this like WP:STALK, WP:VANITY, and WP:AN/K. It is potentially confusing, especially as the target is now named AFD not VFD, another reason why deprecation is a good way to go. A {{humor}} tag could also be considered.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We do that for redirects that get use and have a lot of links that would be broken. This redirect isn't like that and it isn't worth that trouble, just delete it and remove all official connections between this redirect and AfD. This is not an issue I will compromise on. The only way this will be solved is via deletion. - Tavix (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with either the soft redirect idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this necessarily merits deletion, but the concerns Tavix brings up are real if users are redirected without any explanation. I feel that soft redirecting and tagging as historical is a sufficient solution, though I wouldn't be opposed to deletion, since it's not linked much. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Okay, but that still leaves an official connection between a redirect that labels one of our discussion boards as violent. Do you really think that's a good idea to have that connection? -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that a redirect, even if not explicitly marked as humorous, puts any "official" labels on its target. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure it does. Anyone typing "Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate" will be taken to AfD. Why is that a good idea? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thruduulf's comments above. Moreover comparisons to "wikistalking" terminology is invalid, because that term was formerly very widely used, but this redirect has only five incoming links. By the time anyone finds it, they will likely be an experienced user who understands the humor, not (as with STALK) a frightenable newbie. BethNaught (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you think labeling AfD as violent is humorous? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly it is a joke. Whether it is humorous is a matter of personal taste. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect and tag as humour. A bit of dark humour is allowed, okay? Deryck C. 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to say soft redirect and tag as historical, but... five incoming links, really? That's one link from here, one from the previous RfD, and one RfD notification on the user's talk page. No one even uses this! No wonder: the "humor" or allusion is obscure, since we haven't had "Votes for deletion" in many years, and the acronym itself seems pretty tortured. I don't share Tavix's concerns that this will promote real violence, and I have no problems with WP:ROPE, but honestly, this is just a trivial little thing that one person thought of one day. Some people will vote to keep anything! --BDD (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    WP:MADEUP is a content guideline, so it only applies to articles. Also, redirects are cheap. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    I know the context of MADEUP, but I believe the same spirit applies here. Every sort of meme is "made up" at some point, but we usually only call it such when it doesn't catch on, as was the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I find Tavix' reasoning that this "simply isn't worth it" convincing, although I will note that their linked page VIOLENCE doesn't really say much about the extent of violent behaviour on Wikipedia. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Our responsibility for maintaining a civil environment is far more than doing any less than deleting it. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an old in-joke from years and years ago. It's not doing anybody any harm, nor is it inciting or promoting violence. This, and a recent spate of RFD nominations to delete old, harmless in-jokes strike me as extremely POINTy and ridiculous. Aren't there some more important things that need doing? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - harmless joke. No benefits from deletion so the default is to keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd imagine in 2005 it wasn't a very big place like it is today so it's no wonder it's not linked anywhere, We should preserve everything around the 2005 era - not delete it, There's no benefits to deleting something that's been here for well over 10 years. –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:COSTLY There is no need to redirect from obscure terms, which this is, keeping this just encourages creation of other similar redirects, I simply don't see how this could be useful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, The redirect isn't hurting anyone and as I said we should preserve things like this - Deleting this just means we're deleting a part of history - This may well have been widely used when VFD was around but either way it should be preserved. –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This may well have been widely used when VFD was around. FWIW: it wasn't. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I said "This may well have been widely used when VFD was around" - Ofcourse it's not going to be linked now because VFD doesn't exist however my point was it could've been widely used when VFD was around, On the otherhand it may not of been used at all, No one knows really. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Upon further reflection, I think I understand what you were getting at. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly: its extant links are all from meta-discussions about deleting the shortcut, other than Radiant!'s original tongue-in-cheek suggestion to rename VFD which could easily be piped, and an entry in Ritchie333's list of shortcuts which already includes redlinks. It was never used by Wikipedians as a reference to the policy page at all, ever, and it has had a total of 37 hits recorded over the entire period that the new stats tool maintains data, prior to its nomination here. There's no good reason to keep it at all, and there is a very good reason to remove it as Tavix expressed above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree, for the reasons I've given above, that Tavix's comments represent a good reason to delete this redirect. To summarise, there is no actual evidence of harm having been caused by this redirect, or any evidence that it is plausible such harm would occur in the future. There has been plenty of time for someone to find and present this evidence if it exists, but nobody has actually done so. We don't delete redirects because some people don't like them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A specific potential for damage to the project has been identified, and I'm disappointed by the repeated characterization of such things as "I don't like it". I don't like that our dollar-sign glyph uses one horizontal rule instead of two and you can go ahead and dismiss any argument I make based on that wacky opinion, but when an editor identifies specific harmful language on the project we have a duty to give that due consideration, and not to wave off that concern by saying "oh you just don't like it". The harm is that any future use of this shortcut has a chance of characterizing one of our most important content review venues as one in which violence occurs or may occur, and the potential for users to be dissuaded from participation as a result. You argue this is implausible and I tend to agree. The thing is, we normally weigh potential for harm against benefit to the project in these situations, and in this one there is a tiny prospect of harm weighed against no benefit at all. Every use of this shortcut to date is a self-reference: it's not referring to the policy, it's referring to that one time an editor used it in a discussion. And it was one time. Every future use will be a self-reference (because VFD no longer exists and this doesn't make any sense as a pseudoinitalism or backronym or whatever for AFD) and will also carry with it that implausible chance of some new editor being turned off by it. All of these little implausible things add up; it is better for the project to remove them. As far as "preserving history", pipe Radiant's original link and then the entire useful history is preserved: there's a record (the same record, actually) of that one time someone called VFD the "Violent Factualizing Debate" forum without needing the redirect to actually exist, nor really without the redirect having needed to exist at all in the first place. There's no chance of breaking old discussions here, like there was when we deprecated WP:VANITY and WP:STALK and when we keep talking about deprecating WP:ROPE, because there aren't any old discussions that used this. Not even a single one. This should be an easy decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist purely to allow Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17 to be taken off the main RfD page. I have already participated in this discussion; any uninvolved editor may close this discussion without waiting another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why Radiant! created this Redirect on July 13th of 2005 is not entirely clear. The reasons finally to delete it on February 13th of 2017 are much clearer. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I don't object to including humor and levity in discussions. Still, this doesn't seem funny. It seems just pointless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidential and Vice Presidential March

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: retarget

Georgia capital

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: keep.

Sean Sphincter

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Sean Sphincter

.NET Rocks!

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete

Alternative set of procedures

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete

Professional interrogation technique

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Professional interrogation technique

Microwave refrigerator combo

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Cazeneuve

Revolver (album)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Revolver (disambiguation)#Albums.

FATCA privacy Controversy

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: retarget as proposed.

Journalist hoax

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete both.

Template:Vg

Second Lincoln Administration

Staatiline elekter

Wikipedia:Vandalismo

Offside (football)

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: retarget to Offside#Sport.

Aveilim (mourners)

Dance Dance Revolution MegaMix

February 8

Petira (passing)

Wikipedia:Definition of famous

At this moment, this redirect is a WP:CNR to an article talk page. I'm thinking this needs to be retargeted to some sort of guideline related to WP:GNG. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia:FAMOUS currently targets Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If retargeting is not the best option, how about dabifying the page? George Ho (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to suggest that we're very concerned with the "definition of famous". --BDD (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per SMCCandlish. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Winter of 2010

WP:XY as we also have Winter of 2010–11 in Europe, 2009–10 North American winter, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Winter of 2010 and 2010 winter are needed as useful short easily-remembered redirect names for typing in by people who cannot be expected to remember a lot of long page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless it's the title of some media, we don't have dabs or articles for "winter year" and it messes with MOS:SEASON so the redirect isn't helpful. Letting the user type in "winter of 2010" and picking from the suggested search options which list both 2009-10 and 2010-11 possibilities is more useful. Similarly typing in 2010 Winter will give lots of possibilities including "2010 Winter Olympics" which would be what I'd look for instead of weather in Europe. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - this is a useful search term, and as such should not be deleted, but could be either of two winters so we need to resolve the ambiguity. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. This is a reasonable, but ambiguous search term. In addition to the three articles listed by Tavix, we should probably add Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia to the dab list.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 00:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have started the page as a draft here:

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That dab might be useful. I just don't know if that means we should start adding (season) (year) dab articles in general. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. I'm concerned that if we flout the MOS's advice here, we'll open up a can of worms and create a large maintenance headache for little benefit. In some cases, this is really stretching disambiguation too. Neither Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia nor 2010 Winter Olympics, for example, would be referred to as "2010 winter" or "Winter of 2010". --BDD (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with BDD. I don't think an SIA is helpful here because that opens a big can of worms. Deryck C. 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Naruto (season 6)

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 6th–9th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 6, that could be Shippuden S1, which followed Naruto S5, and Shippuden S6, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 6). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Ugh, no. The Shippuden series is named as such in Japan and restarts with series 1, does not continue numbering where it left off. It certainly does not need ones beyond 5. If you want to keep season 6 that'd be fine, but delete everything above that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 6", etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I still think that retargetting is best. AngusWOOF's reasoning seems to be based on an assumption that everybody looking for this will know and remember the numbering restarted. While some people will, I do not think that we can rely on everybody doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No. "Naruto (season 6)" is functionally the same as someone searching for the sixth season in the Naruto franchise. Unless someone can show that either that the 1st-4th seasons of Naruto Shippuden are not the 6th-9th anime seasons in the overall Naruto franchise or that Naruto Shippuden seasons 6-9 do not exist, I stand by my vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is there is NO continuation of the series numbering from Naruto to Naruto Shippuden anime in neither the Japanese nor the English published versions. Note that in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z those TV series also start over in numbering. This isn't Initial D where Second Stage does continue the volume and episode numbering of the anime show from First Stage on the DVD packaging. So it does not serve anyone to keep a chain of these around. How many extra seasons do you want? All of them? Given that Naruto Shippuden goes out to 15+ seasons, does it really make sense to keep redirects to Naruto (season 15) and create even more as they append more seasons? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Naruto (season 10)

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. It redirects to Part 2 of the series instead of the original. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 10th–15th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 10, that could be Shippuden S5, which followed Naruto S5 and Shippuden S1–4, and Shippuden S10, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 10). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all as with the 6-9, there is no continuation of numbering for the original Naruto seasons in Japan or in Viz Media (English version), so this would be confusing. Japan treats Naruto Shippuden as a separate series, and even if it were combined, it wouldn't start with season 10 pointing to NS season 1 but season 6 pointing to season 1. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 10", etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Per Patar knight's comments here and my additional comments above, I still think retargetting is best. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No, per above comments, with the numbers switched to the analogous seasons. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
See above comments. Naruto (season 10-15) is getting ridiculous. There is no media that continues the numbering scheme for Naruto and Naruto Shippuden series. Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Z for episodes and TV series volumes does not do this either.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

BMW motorcycle clubs

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion.

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 20#Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks

Wikipedia:EDITASAP

Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN

Wikipedia:EARLY

Wikipedia:DUP

Wikipedia:Disabling

Closed discussion, click here to view full discussion. Result was: delete.

Devonshire