Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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


Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and Modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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 do not need to 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. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" 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 proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes

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.

Additionally, 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.

Shortcut

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

Current list[edit]

November 19[edit]

Irish Rover[edit]

Should be disambiguation page. 173.166.74.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

VTGR[edit]

VTGR is no longer used in Very-high-temperature reactor and I can find no other target. There are no links to this redirect. Leschnei (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. My research matches that of the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Adaptive computing[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close. This redirect was just discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 9#Adaptive computing. If you disagree with the close, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Simulation[edit]

"The Simulation" should redirect to Born of Osiris, as there is no other article with this name, and The Prodigy has its own article. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. My research finds that, if anything, Simulation hypothesis is the primary topic but this is mixed in with sufficient variety of other uses that the very generic phrase is best targetted at the dab. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (version 2)[edit]

Now-unnecessary redirect after article merging/creation. -- AlexTW 12:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gealic[edit]

Unlikely misspelling. Does not get many views. Catrìona (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No strong feelings about this (creator) Bogger (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure where the nominator is looking but the stats show over 200 views so far this year which indicates that it is a very plausible search term, and every result on the first two pages of a google search (excluding one meaningless one) is a misspelling of "Gaelic" so there is no doubt the redirect is pointing at the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The target is honestly a somewhat confusing word to spell, and this redirect's spelling doesn't seem ambiguous with any other word or topic. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List from characters of Monsters vs. Aliens[edit]

Delete Does not make any sense. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Last thoracic nerve[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Last night took an L but tonight I bounce back[edit]

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

Last name stamp[edit]

Confusing redirect considering that there seem to be no other redirects that start with "Last name" that target surname pages, and someone could be looking up this term for an actual stamp of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Last eruption[edit]

Misleading considering its target, and if it targeted a specific eruption, the redirect would soon become outdated and need constant maintenance. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Maren Sanchez[edit]

No mention in target article. MB 03:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Maren Sanchez[edit]

No mention of target in this article or anywhere in WP. Searching does verify that this person was murdered in this school, but apparently NN. MB 03:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Jersey salute[edit]

No mention of this term in target. MB 03:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List fo current United States lieutenant governors[edit]

Delete Just because these three have the same typo does not make them likely. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. WP:COSTLY to keep, and "fo" could be confused with a slang version of the number "four". Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List friendly fire incidents[edit]

Delete Unlikely that someone would leave out the "of". UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely error. Catrìona (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, per WP:COSTLY, and also since there’s no precedence for this being likely. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hamburger categories[edit]

Unclear what “categories” refers to. (However, Hamburger categories is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not entirely sure that Hamburger categories should be an R with history, as it looks like a draft or an essay and likely does not need to be retained for attribution. Delete the lot. --Izno (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sosige[edit]

Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

Template:Category elections by year[edit]

Highly misleading redirect to Template:Category U.S. State elections by year. The template was created at this name on 5 March 2013, but was moved[1] the following day to its present stable title.
There are about 6,000 uses of the old title, which will need to be changed by a bot. But this trivial bot job will stop the ambiguous title being mistakenly used on categories for elections other than those in US states. If there is consensus to do this, a request at WP:BOTREQ will have it done easily. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • An interesting situation. I was the editor who redirected it in 2013. It looks like all uses of the template's old name are used for US states. I will suggest (at WP:BOTREQ) that this task be done. I suspect there would be little or no objection to the request. —GoldRingChip 02:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Processing (language)[edit]

The use of "(language)" for "(programming language)" is generally avoided as it can be confusing, but here it's even more confusing as the redirect can be taken to refer to any of the two topics known as "Language processing". – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pig (language)[edit]

Here "language" means "programming language"; the target, however, is not a language but a software platfrom (its language apparently called Pig Latin). And there's also the proper Pig Latin, which one could imagine as a possible target of this redirect. So there are two potential targets, the redirect isn't a correct name in either case, and it's quite awkward in both, so deletion seems best per WP:XY. Noting that retargeting to Pig (disambiguation) isn't an option as at least one of the two articles doesn't belong there.) – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me. --a3nm (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that since there isn't a language called Pig, this redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gorani (Language)[edit]

Not useful: miscapitalisations are fine, but not when they appear inside the disambiguator (note that Gorani (language) already exists). The second redirect uses an implausible disambiguator that doesn't disambiguate at all. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The mis-capitalized disambiguator is implausible, and the search bar will recommend Gorani language if anyone starts typing it, anyway. Cnilep (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Powerpuff Girls Lineup 11/23/2016[edit]

I don't see the purpose to this draft? Could someone fill me in on its significance? Paper Luigi T • C 09:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Harry p[edit]

Too vague. The series is not referred to as "Harry p", nor is anything else. Xezbeth (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete google shows no primary topic for this search term, the results are font, a Harry Potter fan fiction archive, a post on a tripadvisor messageboard by someone signing as "Harry P.", Harry P. Guy (a ragtime composer), Harry P. O'Neill (US representative from Pennsylvania), Harry P. Cain (US Senator from Washington), Harry P. Hatry (academic with no wikipedia article), Harry P. Koulos (lawyer with no article), and Harry P. Leu Gardens (house and gardens in Orlando donated by Harry P. Leu and his wife). Not suitable in the slightest for a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alistair Taylor(Surgeon)[edit]

Missing a space, miscapitalised, and uses the "surgeon" disambiguator despite being a fictional character. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Harvard Library Bulletin[edit]

No decision Closed discussion, see full discussion.

The hole (football)[edit]

I would suggest that, at a minimum, these should point to the same place. Editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120#Hole (association football) suggested deleting Hole (association football), since it's not obvious where the redirect should point. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shane Warwick[edit]

Non existent character, There's a "Shane O Hara" but not a Shane Warwick, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Well apparently according to this there is a character named Shane Warwick ..... the character appeared in one episode .... so the chances of him ever being remembered for 1 minor role in one episode out of 200 is slim to none, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's rightly not mentioned at the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dale Baxter[edit]

Non existent character, There is a "Dale Jackson" but no Dale Baxter, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Damon Reid[edit]

Non-existent character/person - Hector Reid was a character but this person wasn't, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fleur Grudgen[edit]

"Fleur Budgen" is a character but this person isn't, I'm assuming it's a play on "grudge" .... either way character's never been referred to as such, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahmad Masood[edit]

Not mentioned in the main article nor at List_of_Waterloo_Road_characters, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

November 17[edit]

AYX (language)[edit]

No connection to the target (the ISO 639 code ayx was retired in 2011). – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Watersportsgate[edit]

Novel or obscure synonym (WP:RFD#DELETE 8). Cute, but still. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The name was used in headlines in January 2017 by The Mirror, The Express, Huffington Post and The Sun, amongst others, so this is neither novel (in the sense of recent) or "very obscure", as the guideline suggests. As far as I can tell it is seldom used to refer to anything other than the current target, so there's no risk of causing confusion, and the number of news reports using the name suggests this is a similar case to the Attorneygate example mentioned in WP:RNEUTRAL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    The big difference here is that Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is a descriptive title unlikely to be directly searched by users. "Attorneygate" is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, even if it's not suitable for the actual title. By contrast, "Trump–Russia dossier" is itself a plausible search term, as are redirects such as Trump dossier and Steele dossier. "Watersportsgate", though a clever journalistic joke, is not commonly used as a name for the dossier. I can admit this isn't nothing—perhaps a user has just seen one of those articles and searches the term here, not knowing it isn't in wider usage. But this isn't a simple WP:RNEUTRAL case like "Attorneygate". --BDD (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term is not mentioned at the target so the connection is not clear unless one does additional research. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. I think the appropriate path here would be to get consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier to include this term before recreating the redirect. I have no particular opinion on the WP:RNEUTRAL/"novel or obscure" issue; I'll just note that there are sources using this term, but many of them are disallowed by WP:RSP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In terms of redirects, the reliability of sources isn't a principle importance - the key thing is whether readers will be using this term to find the article. The presence of this term in sources is a strong indicator that this is true. I don't think it is key that the term is mentioned in the article, as it's not ambiguous and so nearly everyone using it will know that it related to a specific incident related to Donald Trump (if not necessarily this one). Even if it is felt necessary to include the term in the article, all it needs is a sentence like "...referred to as "watersportsgate" by some media outliets." even notoriously extremely unreliable sources can be used to verify statements about what that source said. Ultimately this is a useful search term that is neither novel nor obscure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cocktail sausage[edit]

A cocktail sausage is not a Saveloy. There is a mention in the article Saveloy that in Australia cocktail sausages are like mini-saveloy's - but this information is uncited. But this isn't the common usage of the term Polyamorph (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. From a google search (which is tricky as I keep getting supermarkets and similar wanting to sell me them, and people offering recipes to cook with them) it seems that a cocktail sausage can be a saveloy, but at least in the UK isn't normally. Principally its a thin, short sausage that is usually pork. It's normally plain or only lightly spiced and contains a medium to low proportion of meat. Ultimately though it is the size, especially the length, not the type that defines the cocktail sausage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the moment, the article Saveloy says "A cocktail sausage is a smaller version of the saveloy". It is therefore appropriate to direct someone searching for information about cocktail sausages to the article where they are described. If the problem is that this description needs to be clarified, referenced, and/or reworded then the solution is to edit the information accordingly, not to delete the redirect that sends the reader to the information they are looking for. If you want to encourage an article to be written at the title Cocktail sausage, as Thryduulf recommends, there are much better ways to do it than to delete Cocktail sausage. Deli nk (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • See WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The uncited sentence in Saveloy that you mention is a local usage of the term. Common usage of a cocktail sausage is not the mini saveloy version. Better to remove the redirect than redirect them to the wrong thing. Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate To my American ears, "cocktail sausage" would mean Vienna sausage (well, Vienna sausage#North America). More often, I'd expect them to be called cocktail weenie (this was PRODded for hoax-like information; Cocktail weeny redirects to Hot dog variations#Australia). I hadn't heard of a saveloy before, but it sounds different than what anyone calls a Vienna sausage. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a saveloy and a Vienna sausage are different. Either could be a cocktail sausage (in the UK) if shorter but normally aren't. A cocktail sausage in my (British) experience is never going to be longer than about 1–2 inches (2.5–5 cm). Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Create set index along the same lines as Stuffed flatbread. Deletion is also fine. Deryck C. 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If someone wants to create a set index then that's a good solution too, possibly preferable to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WHITELOCK[edit]

The icon is no longer a white lock. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 21:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The target page has over 200 redirects [2], a substantial proportion of which are variations on the colours in the old scheme. Maybe a cleanup will be warranted at some stage, but at the moment I don't think this redirect should be deleted: there's no requirement for redirects from shortcuts to be accurate with respect to the current setup, and this one has several dozen incoming links from within pages (which will need to be fixed if the redirect is deleted: that's not really worth the effort), and there might also exist links from edit summaries (which are impossible to fix). – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Uanfala, this has quite a lot of uses and is clearly still useful for anyone coming upon it. Lojbanist, I'm worried this is a WP:POINTY nomination on your part given your distaste for these new icons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Huron Packers[edit]

Page is redirected to an article it isn't even mentioned on. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Lynxmon[edit]

Back in the halcyon days of 2005, there were separate articles for all of these things. They were all merged/redirected into List of Digimon, which was deleted outright in 2015. As things stand, there is no information for this one or any of the hundreds of redirects that are inexplicably pointing to the main Digimon article, despite there being only a paragraph of relevant information that doesn't individually name any of them. I was tempted to mass nominate them all but that was too much work, so instead I might use this one as a precedent to boldly delete the others. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I got my history a bit wrong, most of these stem from other large list articles that were deleted before that, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1). All the more reason to delete these stray redirects that aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"""[edit]

Not sure that this title with three consecutive quotation marks (or, possibly, a quotation mark inside quotation marks) is useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Triple quotation marks are apparently used in Python (the usage is described in Python (programming language)#Expressions and there are some examples at Here document#Python), but I don't know there isn't something similar in other languages, and I'm not completely sure this is the kind of thing we would want to have redirects for. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. FWIW, this and some related articles were previously declined at AfC. The page was created by the blocked User:Xayahrainie43. It seems impractical and unnecessary to create articles for every possible character and operator, quoted or escaped in multiple ways. They seem unlikely to be searched for. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to String literal#Delimiter collision, which discusses the general reason why one might put three quotation marks in a row in various programming/scripting languages (there's other uses besides Python, e.g. Batch file#Quotation marks and spaces in passed strings.) Also, perhaps a bit of a WP:IAR opinion: I personally think it's useful for Wikipedia to provide results for these kinds of un-Googleable search terms. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 59.149 as the solution that is most helpful to our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gaelic(language)[edit]

Implausible because of the missing space before the disambiguator. Pings to creators: Themightyquill, Vgmaster. – Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep both - they're used and they're harmless. Deletion will bring no benefits to anybody but will inconvenience some. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. Catrìona (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fundamental principles[edit]

I can't see what they have in common. Perhaps retargeting the redirect to principle would make more sense, but I don't really see the point of this redirect in general. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to principle. Also happy with delete as vague. JZCL 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete To borrow a criterion from Wiktionary, this is what they'd call a non-idiomatic phrase. "Fundamental principles" doesn't mean anything more than "principles" which are "fundamental", and in that sense, we could just as easily point this at Fundamental (a disambiguation page). The phrase is used on Wikipedia, but in this same, non-idiomatic way. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD, effectively per WP:XY. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect could cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above—not a helpful redirect, and excessively confusing. Catrìona (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ekushe february[edit]

There are mentions in several articles of various works with this title, so instead of arbitrarily redirecting to one of them, it's best to let the search engine reveal them all. Given that the mentions are all in passing and so there's no substantial content about any of these entities, I don't see the creation of a disambiguation page as a viable option. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

PC Expert (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

This was promptly moved to Expert (Dungeons & Dragons generic class) shortly after creation, then redirected to the list. This leftover is misleading and should be deleted. I thought it was a joke redirect at first. Xezbeth (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - "player class expert"? Or opposed to NPC Expert? Seems harmless, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector - harmless and gets people to the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Bola de Drac[edit]

Spanish name for the series. Should fall under the inappropriate redirects part of WP:FORRED. Xezbeth (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - the Japanese series' name direct-translated to Spanish isn't useful for English readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Neoclassical poetry[edit]

Poetry is not mentioned in the target, so a reader who searches for this term is left none the wiser as to its meaning. None of the articles that mention this phrase seems like a better target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. This redirect is not as good as using Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Trooper (album)[edit]

This redirect as a search term is unlikely/misleading, considering that the target is not about an album titled “Untitled Trooper”. A similar helpful redirect, Untitled (Trooper album), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. This exists because the redirect target was originally created at this title, and then moved by me to the more correct form. At the time, the policy was that even if it was otherwise implausible, WP:GFDL still required us to retain the redirect created by a page move — but that's since been deprecated, so there's no need to retain this title anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as longstanding, well used and harmless. If there is ever an album by the name "Untitled Trooper" then this can be retargetted there, until then there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I’d say 43 pageviews in the last year is hardly “well used”. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • 4 views in the last year would be unused. An order of magnitude more than that is definitely a well used redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Possibly, though most of these page views could potentially be caused by readers who clock on this redirect when typing in the search bar. The erroneous title of this redirect, combined with other requested existing that are correct, leave this redirect’s existence WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Except it doesn't - the people clicking on this in search results are going to be looking only for the current target. This takes them there in exactly the same way that clicking a different redirect would. If it was in the way of something that would be a different story, but it isn't, so it costs us nothing and WP:COSTLY is as incorrect here as it most often is when cited in favour of deleting a harmless redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Untitled" subjects that now have titles[edit]

These subjects now all have titles, and thus are misleading/outdated. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, no longer of use. Technically, the Yoshi one wasn’t ever any good, just the by-product of a bad page move. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I do also believe that these pages are unnecessary to keep, since existing pages have content based on them. Cosecant57 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. While these redirects are useful for a while after the article is moved, that period has passed in all these cases. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled X-Men TV series[edit]

Unclear what this refers to, especially considering that it targets a “film series” article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Shadows Project[edit]

Unclear what these redirects refer to. However, Untitled Shadows Project is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete we don't seem to have any content about anything relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could this be restored to Shadows (2019 film)? There's been news coverage of the targeted release,[3] but not much else. Alternatively, retarget to Edgar Wright#Upcoming films, or draftify and wait for more coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

High strength[edit]

Too vague to refer to any specific subject on the target page, and unhelpful to target its current target since Strength is a disambiguation page and the redirect is not a spelling/plural/etc. variation of that word. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

भौतिक शास्त्र[edit]

WP:FORRED. The target does not have affinity for any particular language. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Research and discovery[edit]

WP:XY. Could also refer to one of many subjects listed at Discovery. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. It doesn't seem to have a specific use. If it is kept in some form there should be a hatnote to Research and development but I'm not sure that would be a good primary target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I could imagine someone intending to search for research and development mistyping this instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Graduate Certificate Research Commercialisation[edit]

Not mentioned in target, and the redirect is so WP:PRECISE that it is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Reskin[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Skin (computing)#Game development where the term in mentioned and add a hatnote there to Barbara Reskin. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I've put a draft under the redirect notice. We have more uses of "re-skin" in the (automobile) rebadging sense than in the computing sense. If this RfD is closed as disambiguate then also create Re-skin as a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Own label[edit]

This whole situation is a bit confusing. Own-label previously targeted Private label until I retargeted it to Store brand since Own label targeted Store brand. In all honesty though, in lieu of merging Store brand into Private label since my lack of seeing a distinction between the two is boggling my mind a bit, these two nominated redirects need to target the same page or not exist at all ... but if they should target the same page, I’m not sure what page that should be. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Private label credit card[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Stencil brand[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, third party search engines do not return any definite results for the definition of this redirect, nor does it make any connection to “store brand”. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No indication of what 'Stencil brand' means in this instance. An 'own label' brand or a synonym for store brand? In any case it is not mentioned in the target article. Google returns virtually nothing bar someone's 'scrapbooking' pinterest page. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

List of store brands[edit]

No such list at target. In theory, this list could contain almost any store that manufactured their own brand of products. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Category:Store brands which contains all the store brands we have articles about, which in the absence of a list of notable ones is the best we can offer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no such list. -- Tavix (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarian Festival[edit]

Suggest retargeting to Nine Emperor Gods Festival#Celebration in Thailand, with a hatnote to the list page. This was the original target before User:Huggi changed the target in 2015. I believe the Thai festival is the primary topic for the term, as evidenced by the sheer number of Google search results that are about it. Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Birmingham Legion FC[edit]

Professional soccer team is building roster and competing in new 2019 season. Needs redirect removing so their page can be built. deathgripz 15:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore article currently in the redirect's edit history and go from there. The team is now established, so there shouldn't be any reason for this team not to have an article. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore Not only was this a break in precedent, it was done without any sort of discussion at AfD. There was, and is, no consensus to redirect these and this should be restored in order to address it properly. The same should apply to all of the other USL Championship expansion teams this year i.e. Austin Bold FC, El Paso Locomotive FC, Hartford Athletic, Loudoun United FC, Memphis 901 FC, and New Mexico United, all of which were redirected without an AfD of any sort. Jay eyem (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore as above. GiantSnowman 11:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Seth Cummings[edit]

Spouse of a notable person. No notability themselves, and I do not think we should make redirects for family members without some indication of a significant tole. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Marie Marthe Augustine Mesange Lemaitre Brémont[edit]

Unlikely search term for Marie Brémont — JFG talk 11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is her full name, I cannot think of any reason why that would not be a plausible search term. Redirects from people's full names are as plausible as you can get. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Contrary to Spain and Portugal, France does not traditionally use full baptism names or maiden names to refer to people. The intermediate names are not even spelled right, and one of them belonged to her first husband (Lemaître). You'd be hard pressed to find any mention of this person using the full full full name outside of Wikipedia.[4] In fact, the only one I found is her "find a grave" entry; whoever wrote that probably decided it was cool to smash together her three Christian names, her maiden name and the names of her two husbands into the longest possible name they could conjure up. Not worth keeping. — JFG talk 11:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This search term indeed seems quite unlikely to be used and there is no need to spam redirect possibilities. A simple Marie Brémont is perfect for this encyclopedias search needs, not a proliferation of possibilities. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Newshunter. Catrìona (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Camille Louiseau Chadal[edit]

Duplicate of Camille Loiseau and Camille Loiseau Chadal, but with a misspelling, making this an unlikely search term and a possible source of confusion among search box results. — JFG talk 10:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems a plausible misspelling for English speakers to me and even if people do select this rather than the correctly spelled redirect it will take them to the article they were looking for, with the correct spelling, so there will be no harm done. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see this has been deleted by RHaworth with the deletion summary of "misspelling". That is not a valid CSD criterion since this is not a recent creation, so I have left him a note to restore it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no reason to keep this redirect, as it is a misspelling of the name of a person of minor notability. Few people are likely to even use a proper redirect and Wikipedia does not need to create countless misspelled redirects on every single topic for people too sloppy to use an accurate search term. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FYROM - Denar[edit]

FYROM refers to the country name only, not the currency - hence for similar reasons to the one below it should only be "Macedonian Denar" Macedonia (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - country name + currency is a plausible search term. It's an unusual string for that but it's unambiguous and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might disagree with the nominator – FYROM denar is a plausible search term, but I'm not sure I can see the point of this awkaward hyphen in the middle. There don't appear to be any similar redirects out there (example), and it's difficult to imagine a reader coming up with this way to search. I've added two more redirects to the nomination: FYROM - denar and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Denar. – Uanfala (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Scamway[edit]

It just sounds like an attack page. I get the whole subject is an MLM, but even so it sounds like it shouldn't be here. Yet, it has been around since 2004 and not deleted, so... startTerminal {haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc} 03:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to !vote delete, on the grounds that it doesn't serve much of a purpose. The redirect does appear on the first page of Google results for "scamway", but I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea to keep it. --Slashme (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of retailers' cooperatives.[edit]

Unlikely typo due to period at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely typo. Catrìona (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Cooling unit[edit]

Could refer to air conditioner or even fan. Probably best to delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Make a dab. It's a very common term used either for types of air conditioner, sometimes for fan or for types of refrigeration unit, which is the sense I originally used it. I'd disambiguate it to all three. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • However, none of the three seem to use the term “cooling unit” for describing any of them in a technical capacity though; calling any of them “cooling unit” is almost comparable to calling a cash register a “money device” ... it’s just vague. It would probably be better for the title to be deleted so that readers can utilize Wikipedia’s search function to look up “cooling unit” and locate whatever subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig. When I search google for "cooling unit" I get lots of products advertising themselves as such, these products are a mix of technologies including fan (machine), Air conditioner, Evaporative cooler, and refrigerator components. Someone looking for any of these may well search for the term on Wikipedia to learn more about the technology or product involved (it's the sort of thing I do when researching a purpose and I'd be astounded if I was alone). Chiller would also be useful as an entry or see also. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Single brand retail[edit]

Target is not clear on what this redirect represents. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Multi brand retail[edit]

The article is not clear what subject this WP:PRECISE redirect represents. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Retail sale[edit]

Could also refer to sales. May be best to just delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Between a rock and a hard place[edit]

Currently redirects to Dilemma. Seems more natural to redirect to the disambiguation page Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which links to both this usage and others. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Either retarget per nom or move the dab page to this capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Worlds biggest retailers[edit]

No such mention or list at target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete we have lists of largest corporations (usually by revenue) in several sectors inlcuding IT, internet, financial services, shipbuilding and travel, but I can't find any equivalent for retailers. We do have List of largest shopping malls but that would be a secondary topic linked from a hanote at the list of largest retail companies. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Tempest[edit]

I don't know how this relates to the animated series even slightly. Google doesn't have anything connecting this name with Dexter's Laboratory. Paper Luigi T • C 19:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yyhest[edit]

I haven't the faintest idea what this is supposed to be. I suspect I could have just deleted it as a G1, but maybe I'm missing something. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Tubgirl[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Not mentioned in article (except in a redirect template) funplussmart (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Tubgirl was mentioned there a long time ago, but someone had it taken out. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Added three similar redirects and pointers to previous RFDs. Apparently the target article hasn't had any content about this site for 10 years. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Scratch that, content about this site has been added and removed multiple times over the years. The most recent removal seems to be from 2014. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - no harm against keeping it, redirects are cheap. It's a plausible search term that takes readers to a relevant article. It's quite possible the entry is re-added later and then we'd have to remake these redirects. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. 4 years is definitely long enough to be called "stable". There has been no mention of the title topic in the target article for 4 years, so we shouldn't keep the redirects. Deryck C. 12:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth discussing more given previous discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop(song)[edit]

Unnecessary and unlikely "lack of space" typo, considering Stop (song) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WT/WB[edit]

Delete Does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment WT and WB are the status abbreviations for "Visa Waiver - Tourist" and "Visa Waiver - Business". See 8 CFR 214.1(a)(2). So some sources lump them together as "WT/WB status", e.g. various universities trying to explain this stuff to foreigners visiting for conferences [5][6], or Divine, Robert C. (2014). Immigration Practice (15th ed.). Juris Publishing. p. 7-84. ISBN 9781578233465..) Could be added to the target article, though there's probably lots of other things this abbreviation could refer to as well. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per 59.149, who showed that the abbreviation WT/WB is used by some sources to refer to the target topic. Until we have a competing primary topic, this redirect is useful and harmless. Deryck C. 13:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per 59.149. feminist (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the term to the target article would seem to definitively resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, and include some explanation of the "WT/WB status" usage in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Kulavadhu-film-poster.jpg[edit]

The "poster" label is incorrect, since this is a CD cover. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The redirect is not causing any harm, considering that name requirements for redirects in the “File:” namespace do not necessary have to be useful search terms, especially if the redirect is a {{R from move}}. In addition, the redirect does not shadow the title of a page on Wikimedia Commons, meaning that it’s not causing any technical issues that need to be resolved by deleting the redirect per {{Db-redircom}}. (However, the nominator of this redirect needs to be WP:TROUT-ed. This redirect was created after the nominator moved the file to a more appropriate title, but afterwards, did not update the incoming file link (I fixed the incoming file link.) Usually, that’s not a big problem, but since the nominator immediately broke the redirect by placing {{Rfd}} on it, a bot marked the target page as orphaned.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Average daily footfall[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to People counter#Business metrics where this usage of "Footfall" is explained. I'm about to create Footfall (disambiguation) (Footfall is a novel). Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Footfall" may be mentioned at Thryduulf's proposed retarget, but not "average daily footfall". -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Not in those exact words, but we need to credit our users with some intelligence and that includes understanding that "Footfall measures the number of people who enter a shop or business in a particular period of time." is relevant to "average daily footfall". The target is significantly more useful than a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Someone searching "average daily footfall" is going to want information on that term, and the suggestion you provide is too broad for that purpose. I can envision several reasons for searching this term, even if the term itself seems intuitive. Is this an industry standard or well-used metric for measuring footfall? Perhaps someone wants to know how to calculate it. Does this metric use well-defined parameters, such as a set period of time to average from? (a month? a quarter? a year?) If not, then would averaging two days be okay, or does there have to be a minimum length of time? -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sports Store[edit]

This originally targeted Store, a disambiguation page. Then, I retargeted it to Retail since Retail store redirects there. But, in all honesty, I don’t think there is an appropriate target for this redirect and it should probably be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget Category:Sporting goods retailers, which is effectively "list of sports stores". But this will be a main to category XNR hence "weak". Deryck C. 09:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Deryck Chan, I can't find anything better. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Bullying the third leading cause of suicide[edit]

Delete An unclear, unsourced, redirect. Where, globally? When, 2017? Though note the redirect was merged into the target and does have a edit history. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete and history merge per above. Catrìona (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from merge}}. A history merge is suitable only for fixing cut-and-paste moves not for merging the histories of two separate pages that were later merged. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf al-Shihr[edit]

Not mentioned in the article, and I can find no evidence that Said Ali al-Shihri is/was known as Abu Sayyaf. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Monica Gallagher (actress)[edit]

Unlike the nominations below, there is no actress called Monica Gallagher, there's only a fictional character (who doesn't appear to be an actress). —Xezbeth (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looking at the history, it seems it's left over from a move - "moved Monica Gallagher (actress) to Monica Gallagher (fictional character): Mistake to be corrected. Monica Gallagher is a fictional character played by an actress, not an actress". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Fisher (actress)[edit]

This is an actress who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Degrassi. A reader looking for information on her is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. If we have any content about her at all, it's better for readers searching for her to be directed to it (or at least to what she's best known for if she's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about her. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    How is it better? Why would someone searching for an actress that appeared in [insert series here] be remotely interested in a list of characters for a different series? We do have nothing so a redlink represents that the best. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    And how is denying a person who *is* looking for an actress who appeared in the series that we direct to a solution to that? Just write a stub - you'll improve Wikipedia better that way than trying to get useful redirects deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    They're looking for an actress, not a character. The redirect is completely useless in all contexts. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    We don't know specifically what they are looking for - how do you know they're not thinking "What's the name of that character they played in...?" Btw, have I suggested you write a stub? You probably could have written it by now if you'd tried. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Why don't you? Your answer to that question will be the same as mine. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not the one complaining about the redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Retarget to Sarah Fisher (disambiguation), and do the {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sarah Egerton (actress), a notable actress who was known as "Sarah Fisher" before marriage. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Although she was born "Sarah Fisher", is there any evidence she was ever professionally known by that name? It doesn't say anything in the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    The article mentions her acting from 1803–1809 before she was married. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's true, but what's the likelihood people searching for her will be thinking of her as "Sarah Fisher"? I'm not sure how to decide the best primary topic here, or whether it might be better as a two-entry disambig page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's a good point. With no primary topic, the best solution would be to retarget to Sarah Fisher (disambiguation) and tag the redirects with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Craig Arnold (actor)[edit]

This is an actor who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Degrassi. A reader looking for information on him is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. If we have any content about him at all, it's better for readers searching for him to be directed to it (or at least to what he's best known for if he's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Andy Moore (actor)[edit]

This is an actor who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Emmerdale. A reader looking for information on him is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. If we have any content about him at all, it's better for readers searching for him to be directed to it (or at least to what he's best known for if he's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Void Stamp[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Postage stamp/how dispensed[edit]

Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like a speedy deletion candidate to me. --Slashme (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Creator has been community site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    If he wasn't banned when he created it, that is not relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and the redirect wasn't created by a banned editor anyway - he created this. Someone else turned it into a redirect later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
  • Delete Per nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unbiubium[edit]

This never-before visited redirect has existed for quite sometime as a typo that had been pushed under the rug, and the intent for the redirect is too unclear for whether it is a typo for Unbibium or for Unbiunium, two currently unsynthesized elements that happen to have similar names, leaving readers who might possibly make this spelling error (there haven't been any) on the wrong page, with it being a letter off of both. Left alone for 13 and some years, this redirect (which links to a page where it isn't mentioned, because Unbiubium with this spelling cannot exist) should finally be discontinued. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep . I just changed target into Unbibium (recently created; old target wsa sensible too). no harm, not in the way. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    Delete per YBG below: conflation of two correct names, and so countereffective. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as this seems IMHO to be an unlikely misspelling. But I could easily be persuaded otherwise by evidence that we have created other similar redirects or by evidenced that this misspelling is more likely than I think. YBG (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) But if it is kept, DePiep has landed on the correct target, as is demonstrated by the article history. YBG (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:XY for multiple typos but not the correct name of anything. However, content was merged from Unbiubium to Unbibium. So for WP:ATTREQ purposes, the history currently at Unbiubium should be retained somewhere else, e.g. by moving it to a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} title like Unbibium (element). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
About WP:XY: which are the two target articles? Since article ununbium exists, the target is clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this article name is a potential misspelling for either unbibium or unbiunium. YBG (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
this makes sense, YBG. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The content wasn't merged, but it was tagged with the merge tag, but afterwards just redirected. Christian75 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary for the merger says Add 2 sentences from Unbiubium, before turing that into a redirect to this. Those two sentences indeed came from the old version of Unbiubium. So it wasn't just redirected. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Where do you see that edit summary? I can't find it in any of the targets (looking for the years 2014 and 2015 when the subject was redirected). Maybe I'm looking the wrong place? Christian75 (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Long long ago in ancient history: Special:Diff/8695696 (sorry, I posted the link in my first comment, but it was a bit of a WP:SUBMARINE). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem. My mistake. When I said it wasn't merged I looked in 2014 and not 2004. Therefore, I couldn't find your quote either... I agree. The history should be wp:History merged if this redirect is deleted. Christian75 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:S (autocorrecting "fuzzy" searches); this could be one of a long list of unlikely misspellings that does not need a devoted redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete; WP:XY was my original motive for why I created the RfD, but I never explicitly stated it in the appeal. The redirect could point to either Unbibium or Unbiunium, and even if the version history shows that it was originally intended to be for Unbibium, it still is close to Unbiunium. All in all, it redirecting to Systematic element name was definitely NOT the redirect to make. And to refute the idea that it could be a possible typo; according to the Wikimedia pageview tool, it has received 0 views over its lifetime. I stumbled upon it while using the Wikimedia redirect viewer, and it baffled me that it existed. Not sure if the original poster can provide a vote, but I figured I'd weigh my two cents on the topic. I left more info on the redirect talk page if anybody want to see. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14[edit]

Jane Seymour (actress, II)[edit]

Nonsense IMDb nomenclature that is not used on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The nemnclature is not "nonsense" it's just not what is used on Wikipedia. That said it isn't a useful disambiguator here, and it doesn't get any significant traffic (four hits this year prior to this discussion) despite being the result of a page move (the article was created at this title and wasn't moved until about a month and a half later). The traffic stats show it has outlived its usefulness. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: What I meant by “nonsense” is that if the related page moves on IMDb, then this redirect will be wrong. Relying on the status of a name of a page on a site not connected to Wikipedia (such as IMDb) requires unnecessary maintenance on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree it's not useful, and those are good examples of why, but I still don't agree with the "nonsense" descriptor as it clearly conveys meaning and there is logic to it. It's not compatible with Wikipedia's article titling logic and may be an unstable reference to IMDB (I have no idea how stable IMBD titles are), but it's not nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
        • It’s just the word I chose to use, but okay. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gao Bo[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn/retarget both to Grace Gao (badminton).

Slice (online pizza ordering platform)[edit]

This is a new article I came across at NPP. I moved it to Slice (app). I don't think any articles are linked to this redirect but the AFC statistics template is. I wasn't sure about suppressing the redirect so I wanted to put it up for discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Evol Dev (journal)[edit]

Not needed and causes issues with the WP:JCW compilation. The (journal) disambiguator will always trump the non-disambiguated version in WP:JCW. This causes issues with link-dependent scripts and link recognition. For instance, the 'Evol Dev' entry in WP:JCW/E31 is not categorized as an ISO 4 redirect because the {{R from ISO 4}} template is located on Evol Dev, and not on Evol Dev (journal). It's also highlighted with the wrong color if you make use of link classifying scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The redirect seems unambiguous and useful to readers. Any issues with scripts used by some editors should be resolved by fixing the scripts not inconveniencing readers. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The script cannot be fixed, because it requires the category to be present on the actually page, likewise for the bot. The (journal) disambiguator is the override and exists so that something like |journal=Leukemia is recognized as referring to Leukemia (journal), and the information fetched from Leukemia (journal) rather than Leukemia. These redirects are actively harmful and make cleanup harder than it has to be. The redirect has literally zero value, because no reader would ever search for "Evol Dev (journal)" in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a case where the qualification is essential. It is no means obvious that this abbreviation refers to a journal. Most biologistswill recognizze that it does, but wikipedia is not written for specialists. (If it does not fit well into some particular list, surely a workaround can be devised). This is the exact opposite of what I think is appropriate for abbrevialions which do include the word or the abbreviation for journal. , as J endocrinol -- for thiese, it would be redundant. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's tools and scripts that should be designed to learn how pages are named not other way round. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike titles in print, titles of articles, and titles of categories, abbreviations in redirects don't necessarily need to be explained: if it goes to a non-abbreviated form of the title, as here, you'll get your explanation. And how does it matter that "Evol Dev" lacks an explanation of what it is? A momentary glance at the target will enlighten everyone who sees it. How often is that even an issue? You're likely to run across this phrase in context (e.g. an article's references section), in which the citation format shows that it's a journal, or to see it in search results, in which you can click it and immediately back up if you were expecting something else. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think we need to investigate further why the bracket breaks the WP:JCW script. @Headbomb: Is it possible to modify the script so that it follows redirects even when there is a "(journal)" disambiguator in the redirect title? Deryck C. 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf, DGG, and Ammarpad. We should fix the scripts instead of deleting valid redirects to make scripts work.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, to perhaps address one of the issues brought up by the nomination, I see no issue with applying the {{R from ISO 4}} template to redirects with a (journal) disambiguator, since it is that, just with a Wikipedia-style parenthetical disambiguator ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The issue is that Evol Dev is the ISO 4 abbreviation, is not ambiguous, and is correctly tagged as such. The abbreviation is not Evol Dev (journal), and should not be tagged as such, since there is no ambiguity to resolve in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sir Montgomery Cecil[edit]

Sir Montgomery Cecil was the fictional spokesman of a minor, joke advertising campaign in the mid-2000s. The "practical joke" article his name redirects to has nothing to say about this, nor should it. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, and though the ad campaign got a modicum of attention from reliable sources [7] we don't seem to have anywhere we could add content about it: neither the ad agency itself nor any of the people behind it have Wikipedia articles. Also added Montgomery Cecil to the nomination. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per 59.149 - we don't have any content about anyone by this name so there is no appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Pony Puff Princess[edit]

Implausible redirect. Title refers to a phrase used a handful of times in specific episode(s) of the series. Paper Luigi T • C 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Koosalagoopagoop[edit]

Not mentioned in parent article. Title refers to a fictional character. Paper Luigi T • C 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not sure how many episodes the character appears in, but I'd say that he's one of the more memorable minor characters from the series, and it actually might be a good idea to briefly mention him somewhere in the Dexter's Laboratory article. Per WP:RGUIDE, redirects are cheap; I don't see the harm in having this, even if it is a rather unlikely search term. --Jpcase (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dexter's Lab (TV Show)[edit]

Completely unnecessary as Dexter's Lab points to the same article. The disambiguation in parenthesis is also improperly formatted. Paper Luigi T • C 10:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep plausible accidental linking, redirects are cheap, and nothing harmful about this one. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Laboratory of Dexter[edit]

Unlikely typo. Paper Luigi T • C 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Professor Hawk[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. Page name is the name of a one-off character in the series. Paper Luigi T • C 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Koosy[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. Page name is a nickname for a minor character. Paper Luigi T • C 10:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete - The redirect using the character's full name should, IMHO, stay. But this definitely seems unnecessary. --Jpcase (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Allison Moore (voice actress)[edit]

Unnecessary redirect, as Allison Moore already redirects to same article. Paper Luigi T • C 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep as an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. The voice actor might be the the only noteworthy person with this name mentioned on wikipedia at the moment, but this is unlikely to be so forever. At the present stage, the redirect is useful at least for linking: so that incoming links won't need to be fixed whenever Allison Moore gets turned into a disambiguation page. – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2[edit]

Some time ago I removed this object from List of most massive black holes, because the measurement is likely to be spurious. See User:Aldebarium's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 for reasoning. Reyk YO! 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: to clarify some history that may not be immediately apparent to everybody. The outcome of the AfD discussion was delete. It was recreated a week later as a redirect to List of most massive black holes, then an attempt was made to turn it into an article and reverted. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Emotional disability[edit]

Pages about mental disorder/disambilities are interconnected in a variety of ways. It clearly doesn't make sense for these 2 redirects to target different pages. Given the page issues with Emotional and behavioral disorders, a better target for both might be the "index" page Mental disability, deleting the hatnotes at both former targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fennesz + Patton[edit]

There's no proper reason to redirect this to Mike Patton instead of Christian Fennesz. This collaboration from 2012 is neither mentioned at the Patton nor Fennesz articles. So, either this should be an article, or deleted; it should not be a redirect to Patton without a reason why it shouldn't redirect to Fennesz instead. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Originally this was a piped link (to Mike Patton) in All Tomorrow's Parties Festival lineups; I converted it to a redirect. I have no opinion on whether it ought to redirect to one person or the other - you'd have to ask whoever put the piped link there in the first place - but removing it will create a redlink in the source article, which will benefit no-one. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Other artists on that page with the "+" collaboration designation are separately linked, instead of as a group. There would be no redlink if they are separately linked. (Which I'll do now) -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Since that original list article has virtually zero footnotes, it's difficult to determine the intent of the original editor who created the redlink. Similarly, it's difficult to ascertain the thinking of the editor who created the piped link to Mike Patton. I completely understand Colonies Chris' intent on changing the piped link to a redirect. However, neither of the artists' articles mentions that they ever worked with the other. At this point, it is unclear that Fennesz + Patton even refers to these particular musicians (although I agree it is highly likely). I would delete the redirect, since the collaboration is mentioned in neither article. Onel5969 TT me 10:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Myspa[edit]

Unlikely typo. Third party search engines return results for day spas. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Faceborg[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Third party search engines return results for some sort of meme. Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Crackbook[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment its a not-too-rare slang synonym for Facebook, but also a derogatory slang for some versions of the Mac Book (which can easily crack the screen) , and a sliced up book to hide cocaine... Perhaps replaced by a set index with references? -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 financial performance of Facebook[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Per the edit history of the page, this almost qualifies for WP:G7 deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(Struck out part of my statement that doesn’t apply, given the following comment by the redirectms creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to exert too much effort fighting the redirect's deletion except to say I'd restore it as an article unto itself though if people think that would be more valuable than a redirect. The page was an experiment, I think it was relatively successful as a page on its own, mostly based on traffic. Interested to hear what others might think.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd have thought that a page covering the history of Facebook's financial performance would be much more likely to be a useful article than one for a specific year (but this is not my field of expertise). If such a page were to exist and include coverage of 2018 then this would be a useful redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Good point. Maybe the history of this redirect could be moved to a title such as Draft:Financial performance of Facebook, allowing the article to be rewritten to cover Facebook’s entire history. (This thought doesn’t affect my stance to deleted the nominated title as a redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That would be an elegant solution that is likely to satisfy most people. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bookmarklets[edit]

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

S0ny[edit]

Unlikely typo due to the zero. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I think I've seen that on Japanese IP media (in the visual images) that try to avoid brand names by modifying their names (so an intentional typo; also "Sany", "5ony", etc). Also, the 0-key is next to the o-key on QWERTY keyboards. No opinion on deletion. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible typo/search term per 70.51. It gets enough traffic that it seems useful to some people and isn't harmful at all. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega U[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Sports[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is a reference to their line of sports video games in the late 90s/early 2000s. It’s was a relatively major line in its day, so it’s be pretty reasonable to be mentioned in the article. It’s probavly more of an oversight that it’s not mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sergecross73: I do recall Sega releasing a lot of sorts games for the Sega Saturn around that timeframe. However, the only existing article of the such I could find is Sega Sports R&D, but I have a strong feeling that is not the same subject as the one described in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Project[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect’s history, it seems this redirect was previously a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega (which is now a redirect itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not appropriate as a cross namespace redirect and no good mainspace target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Wii accessories[edit]

Confusing redirects, considering that the Wii was made by Nintendo, and no such list exists at the target article. (Note: Sega Wii accessories is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

SERVICE GAMES: RISE AND FALL OF SEGA[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per earlier RFD on other variations of this title. Apologies for missing this one back then. It's a wrong title for a non-notable (self-published?) book that isn't mentioned at the target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Same here. Not sure how I missed this one, or the other two you found. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Play Button[edit]

I think Media controls would be the primary topic here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The problem I have with redirection to Media controls is that the hatnote there is already unweildy and I'm loathe to add anything to it. A dab page isn't a simple option though as it's due to being the primary topic for many different slightly ambiguous terms rather than one very ambiguous one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to media controls. Clearly, it isn't YouTube. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

97%[edit]

Insufficient correlation. 97% could mean anything. MB 00:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete vague, there is a film by this title, I haven't checked if it is notable, but it features prominently in my search results. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a plausible search term or link target. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Nerds[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Per http://www.seganerds.com, this seems to be a third-party company of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - it’s the name of a third party online fan site, not likely to warrant a mention in the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sega Mobile[edit]

Neither are mentioned in the target article. (Bundling since per the history of Sega Mobile, these two redirects may represent the same subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

San Leandro Police Department (California)[edit]

No mention in target, better to stay a redlink. MB 00:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Houston Premium Outlets[edit]

No mention in target article. MB 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Gujari language ()[edit]

Apparently artefacts of a peculiar process of page moves. Kwami: these don't serve a purpose anymore, do they? – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible, Looks like a bunch of programming (no pun intended) language functions to me. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete -- yeah, they serve no purpose, have no incoming links. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[edit]

Answers from Wikia[edit]

Neither of these are mentioned in the target article. Also, the section “Questions and answers site” does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Superdadsuper removed this section (and others) in this edit: "Removed obsolete/outdated/irrelevant info, added headings". Given the number of defunct Wikia projects I wonder if there should be a separate article combining the small amounts of info about each - they seem to have been notable at the time and meet GNG, but didn't go anywhere so they would overwhelm the main article and there isn't enough to sustain a full article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikiasari[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, but the redirect is a {{R from history}}. Also, the section “Search engines” does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wikia. It appears from my research that this was a pipeline project of the company at the target. --Bsherr (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In the current state of the article Wikia, unless information is added to the article regarding the subject of the redirect, readers searching this term will be sadly disappointed to find nothing about this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Delete. Fair enough. Okay. --Bsherr (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Bsherr: I’ve been thinking, and considering ... is the research you found notable enough to tag this redirect with {{R without mention}} and keep it in existence even without mention in the target? Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think so. [8] (btw, I'm watching this page). --Bsherr (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikia Search, which seems to be about the same thing although "wikiasari" is only mentioned in the title of a reference. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikia Search. Per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikia Green[edit]

Not mentioned in target page, but the redirect is a {{R with history}}. Also, section “Wikia Green” does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete no content from the former stub exists in the article, and this specific Wiki is not notable. There isn't a list of Wikia wikis to target it to, and nowhere else we have coverage either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Central Wikia[edit]

Not mentioned in target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Central[edit]

Not mentioned in target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete It is mentioned in some of the citations in the target, but there doesn't seem to be any primary topic given the vague wording, My searches turned up several non notable organizations, thus it's not useful for anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Champion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Memory Gamma[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. The closest retarget option I could find would be Memory Alpha, but the redirect isn’t mentioned there either. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Various Wikia-page redirects[edit]

Various Wikia pages (either existing or not existing) not mentioned at target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

OpenServing[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and section “OpenServing” does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: OpenServing is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Here is the edit where mention of OpenServing was removed from the Wikia article. Angela (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • See my comment at #Answers from Wikia. The removal appears to have been done boldly rather than following any discussion on the talk. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Munro[edit]

Not mentioned at target page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. This person was apparently an employee in the "Community Team" at Wikia, but they weren't even mentioned in the article when the redirect was created. As CatherineMunro they were also admin here, but haven't edited since 2015. IMDB knows of two different actresses with this name, neither at first glance notable enough for an article, and multiple wives of various minor Scottish nobles. There is nowhere suitable to target this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Elements of Peace[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a very common phrase used in many different unrelated contexts related to various studies of and theories about "peace" in at least two different senses. This is one of those occasions where search results really are the best thing we can offer someone. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

DePaul Hospital[edit]

No specific hospital named "DePaul Hospital" in article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

3Apes[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArmchairGM[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and section “ArmchairGM” does not exist at target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: ArmchairGM is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Armchair was an important part of Wikia's history. I don't know why it was removed in this edit. Angela (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore content and keep. The removal was done boldly as far as I can tell, so there is no reason why it cannot be restored. If anyone does want it deleted then it can be discussed and the redirect evaluated again if required. See also my comments at #Answers from Wikia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Captain(1900s magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with The Captain (1900s magazine) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirects with “(magazine)” and no space targeting page with space[edit]

unlikely typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I auto-created this ages ago by moving a typoed page creation to the correct title and it just stuck around. --Delirium (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    Comment: The aforementioned “delete” vote applies only to Flying Saucers(magazine). Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Systematic biology(journal)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with Systematic Biology (journal) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, this redirect is a remainder of me correcting the page title a long time ago. MichaK (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Starz(magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with Starz (magazine) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ManC(magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with ManC (magazine) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Empire(magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with Empire (magazine) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Chief Priest Say(magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo, redundant with the correct Chief Priest Say (magazine) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

1984(magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

10 Magazine (magazine)[edit]

unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

/Billboard (magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Proletarian" (journal)[edit]

unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use of quotation marks and disambiguator an unlikely search term or link. --Bsherr (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Aquila(children's magazine)[edit]

unlikely typo Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. — JFG talk 10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated in nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Dragon Lineage[edit]

An ambiguous phrase that isn't mentioned in the target. It doesn't look as though any content from the article that was at this location in 2006–07 was ever merged in the target, so there are no attribution-related concerns. None of the other articles that mention this phrase strikes me as a better target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

DJ redirects to DJ Mag[edit]

full list of DJs

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 5#DJ Proteus, the same rationale applies. -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all, the reader is much better served with a redlink rather than a tangentially related article that doesn't even mention what they were looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason explained in the mentioned DJ Proteus nomination. -Delirium (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the abovementioned reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gujarati language (Kashmir)[edit]

Misleading: Gujari is indeed spoken in Kashmir (among other places), but Gujarati is a different language from a different part of India. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Ping to creator. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Gujarati language. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is helpful: Gujarati isn't spoken in Kashmir, at least not any more than it is spoken in any other part of the subcontinent outside of the Gujarati-speaking areas. – Uanfala (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems like a perfectly plausible misnomer likely to be made by someone who has misheard or misremembered the name of the target language and confused it with the name of a much more widely known one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't recall why I created this rd. But there was presumably a Kashmiri "Gujarati" mentioned in a linguistic or ethnographic source, maybe one that said something like this. I might have an opinion to 'keep' if I could remember what that source was. But retargeting to 'Gujarati' is definitely inappropriate -- there would be no purpose to such a rd, except to mislead anyone reading whatever source was its motivation. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

List organisations in the United Kingdom with a royal charter[edit]

Delete Very unlikely someone would search without including the "of". UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't completely understand what's going on with the article history but it looks to have been an error made and quickly fixed by Mais oui! in July 2006 and then fixed again somehow in February 2007 by Smurrayinchester, but whatever it was certainly an accidental creation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Have removed the inbound links (somehow there were still some a decade later). Smurrayinchester 12:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete. For the abovementioned reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Anne Matthiesen[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Denmark got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete this (and all the below) since not in the target article. Can anyone please combine all these nominations into a single one since the rationale is the same? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Danish supercentenarians where she is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. – Uanfala (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is not in the target article and is not notable enough for a redirect elsewhere. They are just a random name on the List of Danish supercentenarians, so a redirect there would not be appropriate. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Johanne Svensson[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Denmark and Sweden got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of Swedish supercentenarians where they are mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is not in the target article and is not notable enough for a redirect elsewhere. They are just a random name on two other lists, so there is no proper redirect choice either. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethel Booth[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from New Zealand got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Marija Bandelj[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Slovenia got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete They are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Emilie Doležalová[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other Czech people got older since she was listed in 2008. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete She is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Bengt Helldal[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Sweden got older since the he was listed in 2006. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reason given in the nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete He is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Csiki Sándorné[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Hungary got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete She is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rozália Földes[edit]

This person is no longer on the target list of oldest people by country, as other people from Hungary got older since she was listed in 2005. Therefore the redirect is unnecessary and misleading. — JFG talk 11:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete She is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

.[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close. This is not a redirect, and one cannot be created at this title

Fayetteville Highlanders[edit]

Not the same minor league franchise. Two teams 30 years apart. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Same town, and 30 years is a long time, but minor league teams change names and affiliation all the time. Including both under the town with the redirect seems reasonable, especially if there isn't a Highlanders page now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skilgis1900 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
They aren't the same franchise. A problem this editor has shown on at least one other occasion here[9] where he put a totally different team's players on a page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:WP8T[edit]

Nonsensical redirect. 8T = album? 8-track? 80? Those can't be it. Nothing in 8T would suggest this to have anything to do with albums. Why use something nonsensical when {{album}} exists as an option? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [this redirect], I don't see [it] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{WP8T}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Typical copy/paste argument from Jax, who has done this countless times and doesn't address the concerns of the nomination. It's not about confusion but about not making any sense at all. There haven't been 8-tracks for this use in over 30 years and were only popular for a short time and no one has ever called an 8-track "8T". This implies Template:WPCD would be just as obvious a choice (it's not). This one makes less sense than all the others that you created this year which have been deleted. Maybe I should create Template:WPSTAN as a redirect to {{WikiProject Comics}} or Template:WPMM to {{WikiProject Disney}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to imply there is a WikiProject specifically for 8-tracks. Since such a WikiProject does not exist, neither should this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this is supposed to be shorthand for 8-track tapes, why is it only being placed on albums released in the current decade (e.g. Talk:Ticket to L.A. and Talk:Joni Was Right). Recent albums are extremely unlikely to have been released as 8-tracks. The redirect is only being used by it's creator (and sat completely unused for two weeks until after this discussion started), isn't being used as for 8-tracks as it's name would indicate, and the difficult to comprehend name only saves one character over {{album}}. Plantdrew (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

Variations of planking[edit]

Until a few months ago, the Planking article was a dumping ground of various "variations of planking", a rather dubious term used to describe other poses regardless of whether or not they were based on planking. These terms have since been removed from the target article, leaving this group of redirects orphaned with no mention. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Not sure on Owling (internet meme) as it's the only {{R with history}} and content seems to have been merged to the target. Maybe {{wiktionary redirect}} it? (Though it seems a bit odd to put a soft redirect on a title with a parenthetical disambiguator.) Delete the rest per nominator; the removal was suggested on the talk page long in advance and has gone unchallenged, and there's no other potential targets either here or on Wiktionary (see collapse box). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes about Wiktionary
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owling (Game) was closed at AfD with a consensus to "merge to Planking (fad)" on 22 July 2011. Here is what that Owling article looked like at that time and here is what the Planking article looked like that day. Pretty much everything that could be said about Owling is there, and it looks nothing like that Owling article before the "merge" consensus. Owling (internet meme) (a different article) was redirected on 22 August 2011‎ and the section still looks the same on the planking article, again not showing any signs of merge. Fast forward to the last diff before the section removal and the Owling section still looks similar (a little bit more detail about making owl sounds, but not the same detail from either article), leading me to the conclusion that a merge never occurred. (CTRL+F "merge" on the page history also didn't show anything). -- Tavix (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Got it, thanks for the detailed timeline. In that case, delete all per nominator. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Child's Play (2019 film)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Islamic Republic or Iran[edit]

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

Elliot Soto[edit]

Player is not with the Isotopes and is not mentioned on the page. Should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No reason to delete. Just update the redirect with the team to which he has been assigned. StrikerforceTalk 16:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
MiLB.com shows him currently as a free agent, which is not unusual for this time of year. Suggest leaving the redirect alone until he either signs with a new team, re-signs with ABQ or makes some other determination about his playing future. StrikerforceTalk 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
He is not a notable player in any respect.. plus it is not standard practice to redirect minor leaguers to team pages. Spanneraol (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. He is not mentioned at the target article, leaving the searcher none the wiser. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not standard practice to re-direct to minor league team pages. Not notable enough to re-direct to one of the teams minor league players page either even if signed.-- Yankees10 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hospitality prostitution[edit]

Delete. Term does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete A Google Books search shows it's a real term for a phenomenon in some societies, which may deserve a mention in other articles, or even in its own article. But it doesn't have any mentions right now, and there are zero sources which equate it with modern Western swinging lifestyle. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. A red link seems most appropriate until an article is written. --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sexy Dancers[edit]

Sexy Dancers is both a NN band mentioned in a couple of articles and a NN 1980 Filipino movie mentioned in a couple of articles. MB 15:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Social libertarian[edit]

Both of these articles should redirect to the same place. I'm neutral as to what that should be. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget both to Libertarian socialism where the term is discussed with the most context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Neither is mentioned in either target, nor discussed in any depth in any other article. The term is too ambiguous for a redirect to be of any use if the target doesn't contain a definition: are we talking about libertarianism with socialist characteristics ("social" in the same sense as social anarchism)? libertarianism in the social sphere (as opposed to the economic sphere)? libertarians who like to socialise? Accordingly, the terms are rarely used in scholarship (283 Google Scholar hits for one, 284 for the other). @Smartyllama: do you want to add Social Libertarian and Social Libertarianism to the nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

PARTRANS[edit]

cross-namespace redirect, redundant to WP:PARTRANS. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary WP:XNR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not something that needs a cross-namepsace shortcut. While this is getting a lot of hits, the pattern of them does not match WP:PARTRANS or the target (although that gets several orders of magnitude more hits so it's difficult to be sure) so it's unlikely to be people looking for the target. There are American, Belgian and (possibly) Polish companies and function in the R programming language with this name that could be what people are looking for. I don't think we have any content about any of them (but I haven't looked too hard) so there is nowhere obvious to retarget to, and I have no evaluated their notability or whether they have any significant association with all-caps. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I suspect I intended to create it in the WP namespace and just messed up, but can't be sure without spending some time on it. Subsequently, another editor did create the WP namespace version of the same shortcut. Dovid (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete it is clear from Special:WhatLinksHere/PARTRANS that it isn't really being used anyhow. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unuseful crossnamespace redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Public Law[edit]

Sample usage

Retarget to Act of Congress. In my experience, the capitalized "Public Law" is always followed by numbers indicating which specific law we're talking about: it's only ever used to refer to a specific Act of Congress. If my experience is representative, and the capitalized form doesn't really have much of any use outside US federal law, it's a bad idea to treat it as a mere capitalization variant. But is my experience representative? I don't know, and that's why I brought it here instead of boldly retargeting it. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, see the image at right, in which an Act of Congress appears under the title "Public Law 86-90". This is the standard manner of usage in this context. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • No objection to the proposed retargeting. I can see good arguments for it going either way. bd2412 T 23:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

J Endocrinol (journal)[edit]

Not needed and causes issues with the WP:JCW compilation. No idea why this even exists since J Endocrinol exists and works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Why" Probably someone wasn't sure what "J" was (or feared that someone else wouldn't be sure) and thought to create it to be helpful. Technical issues aside, I can't see how this could potentially be a problem; it looks like an ordinary example of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Meanwhile, could you explain briefly the technical issues it's causing with WP:JCW? Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The (journal) disambiguator will always trump the non-disambiguated version in WP:JCW. This causes issues with link-dependent scripts and link recognition. For instance, the 'J Endocrinol' entry in WP:JCW/J3 is not categorized as an ISO 4 redirect because the {{R from ISO 4}} template is located on J Endocrinol, and not on J Endocrinol (journal). It's also highlighted with the wrong color if you make use of link classifying scripts.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case, delete. [Thank you for the details]. "Unnecessary disambiguation" should be kept if harmless, but if it's unnecessary and harmful, there's absolutely no reason to keep it. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Except this redirect is harmless. "Harmful" in context of a redirect means that it is obstructing searches, unnecessarily offensive, discouraging the creation of a desired article, or things of that nature. It absolutely does not mean "causes problems with tools some editors use" - if redirects are causing such problems we fix the tools. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
"Causing problems" is by very definition, harmful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The only "problems" it causes is for a minor tool used only by editors, said tools can and should be fixed. It is helpful for, and not harmful to, readers therefore there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, unambiguous and useful. I think the minor inconvenience to editors apparently caused by keeping this is outweighed by the greater inconvenience to readers caused by deleting it. (From a cursory look at WP:JCW/ALPHA, which I've never encountered before, the list appears to contain primarily items that are not journals, so this redirect is the least of its problems.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The link is useless. There is no legitimate reason that a reader would ever search for 'J Endocrinol (journal)' (it gets something like 10 pageviews per year, likely mostly coming from a 'what links here'). That you don't personally use WP:JCW does not mean that it is not used. Whatever issues exists with WP:JCW, it is not a reason to actively resist making the list more more useful and work as intended. As a side note, it is patently false that most items on the listings aren't journals, and listing only journals isn't the point of the listing in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The claim that "There is no legitimate reason that a reader would ever search for" this is both silly and somewhat concerning: who on earth are you to determine what is or is not a "legitimate reason" to search for something? The word "legitimate" appears nowhere in any of our policies or guidelines in relation searches or any other kind of reader behaviour, nor should it. This is a plausible search term, one of tens of thousands of redirects from unnecessary disambiguation, the utility of which is acknowledged by a well-established consensus. That WP:JCW "is not used" or that there exists any "reason to actively resist making the list more more useful" are not claims that I've made; what I have argued and will repeat, however, is that any marginal inconvenience to that project page and editors who have found a use for it is outweighed by the harm done by deleting this or any other plausible search term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What could possibly be confused with "J Endocrinol"? Nothing. No reader would ever search for "J Encocrinol (journal)" because there is nothing that would be confused by this (hence the under ~10 views/year). And if they were to, somehow, search for it (akin to say "J. Appl. Physiol. (journal)", they would get the journal as he first result. This is not a plausible search term, and there are demonstrable drawbacks to keeping it. Delete this horror. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Existing redirects from unnecessary disambiguation are most often useful. But a redirect does't automatically become useful by virtue of being from an unnecessary disambiguation. In fact, most possible such redirects aren't useful at all (for any article you can imagine at least two (and often more than two) plausible disambiguators and then for each redirect to the article create a new redirect with each of those disambiguators. That would be madness, wouldn't it?). For such a redirect to be useful, there has to be some conceivable potential for ambiguity. This is not the case here: it's very difficult to imagine a reader who types the string "J Endocrinol" would believe that it could possibly also refer to anything other than a journal. This redirect is well, unnecessary, and so if it turns out that it causes inconvenience for some project work, then it should be deleted. But Headbomb, there are redirects out there for which the unnecessary disambiguation is plausible (like Synthese (journal), or JOSA (journal)). How do you intend to work around their existence? – Uanfala (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Those don't cause issues normally. For JOSA, the acronym gets classified as a journal (correct behaviour) and still gets classified as a generic redirect (correct behaviour), and for Synthese, the bot can figured out that it can just use Foobar [i.e. Synthese over Synthese (journal)] since the non-(journal) version points to the same page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Many journals are disambiguated with "(journal)" so it is plausible that someone will search for any journal, including this one, using that search term. It doesn't matter if it isn't actually ambiguous - we don't require readers to know the entire contents of the encyclopaedia before being able to find the article they are looking for. None of the "demonstrable drawbacks" you claim are actually anything of the sort they simply evidence of bugs in the tool. We do not delete plausible redirects just because they cause inconvenience to an internal tool, rather we fix the tool. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
And how do you propose to 'fix the tool' exactly? Have a J Endocrinol (not journal) redirect created to tell the bot that J Endocrinol (journal) shouldn't be used? Again, the journal isn't disambiguated (that would be fine), the issue is that the abbreviation is disambiguated, when it should not be, which is harmful.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The tool should be able to cope with situations like this. How it copes is a matter for those who develop/use it not for those of us who don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The tool should not be made to cope with GIGO crap when GIGO crap can be simply fixed at its source, or have 'solutions' that require mistagging redirects as a hack, or creating a bypass of a bypass redirect like J Endocrinol (not journal) or similar (J Endocrinol (don't use this)). No one uses J Endocrinol (journal), many use WP:JCW. Delete the pointless redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that argument is that this is not "garbage" it is a perfectly plausible redirect that is potentially useful and gets uses. We don't delete plausible redirects just so editors do not have to fix bugs in their tools. And yes, if the existence of a redirect is causing problems for the tool this is a bug with the tool, not evidence of a problem with the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this redirect useless and confusing. The same argument that justifies us would justify adding a redirect of this sort to every journal abbreviation. I agree with making such a redirect for every title which might conceivable represent something other than a journal, and every such abbreviation, but ffor the majority of all journal titles, titles which do contain the word journal ,it makes no sense whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why there would be any issue with adding this sort of redirect for every journal abbreviation? For many of them it is quite plausible that they could be ambiguous J Ethol could be a person and J Energy a pop group as just two examples. Given this is it is not the slightest implausible that a standardised naming scheme to guarantee that a link will always take you to the correct article will be desirable to someone. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Because every of those redirect would create more headaches than they solved. This has been explained multiple times now. If some abbreviation is ambiguous, then it can be turned into a proper dab page (e.g. Ann. Phys.). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
        • No, you have attempted to explain why some redirects currently cause headaches for a small number of editors. You have completely failed to explain why the encyclopaedia should (let alone must) be modified for the benefit of a tool used by some editors. From my understanding the tool would have exactly these problems if the abbreviation had one another use but the journal was the primary topic, when neither a disambiguation page nor deletion of a redirect could be justified. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment is the source code for the relevant bot available on Github or somewhere? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a good example of a WP:COSTLY redirect. I don't buy the argument that it's a plausible search term and I do not think there is harm to deletion per Headbomb's second reply to Arms & Hearts. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have a "J Endocrinol" where "J" doesn't mean "journal", so this disambiguation is completely redundant. Given that it also makes WP:JCW difficult I think I agree with Tavix above on the WP:COSTLY point. Deryck C. 13:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Brrr(Onomatopoeia)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted by user:Writ Keeper. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11[edit]

Kailee Morgue[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: article created

Thousnad sun[edit]

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

Pontic linguistics[edit]

The current target is the unexpected outcome of a recent RfD discussion. I still maintain that deletion is best: there doesn't appear to be such a thing as "Pontic linguistics" (just try looking it up anywhere), and we don't have any content on wikipedia for anything that could reasonably be construed as being referred to by this term. But if we must keep this, then the previous target, the disambiguation page section Pontic#Languages and peoples, seems more appropriate as there are three distinct language-related meanings of "Pontic". And if anything, Pontic Greek is the least "linguisticky" of them all. – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep per the outcome of the just closed RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There was nothing in the previous RfD that addressed the ambiguity of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The other terms seem to refer to language groups as opposed to a language. I think, whatever it's target, it should be the same as Pontic language, right? --Bsherr (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • "Linguistics" doesn't have any more affinity for "language" than it does for "languages" (though it can be argued that the reverse is true as any article about a linguistic grouping of languages would sound more "linguisticky" than an article about an individual language). For a redirect like Pontic linguistics, if it is to exist at all, there's no reason for its target to be the same as Pontic language rather than Pontic languages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • That's fair. I suppose any doubt should be resolved in favor of the disambiguation page as the target. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • And I guess there might be differences in the background assumptions here. On wikipedia there are altogether fewer than ten redirects that contain a language name followed by "linguistics" [10]. Most of these go to articles that have some content relevant to the discipline (rather than the language), and in the best cases that's a different article than the one about the language: for example, German linguistics redirects to German studies and Russian linguistics redirects to List of Russian linguists and philologists. It's from this vantage point that the redirect Pontic linguistics appears harmful: it leads you to expect content that isn't actually there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, I read that argument in the prior discussion, but it seems to me that until there is an article on the field of study, redirecting to the object of the study is an acceptable alternative. Though I think quite reasonable people can differ on that issue. Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pontic#Languages and peoples per the above. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

AUJ (language)[edit]

I'm more inclined to see this as plausible typo for AUI (language) rather than as an attempt at using the current target's ISO 639-3 code (which is "auj", in lower case). Noting that this redirect was kept as part of a recent batch nomination. These are the kinds of situations we have to deal with when we go too far conjuring up reasons to keep every sort of redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and add a hatnote. A correct usage (and this is correct, as there is no specification I can find that ISO 639-3 is case sensitive) will almost always be more useful than a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should be adding hatnotes to accommodate redirects from alternative disambiguation, even if they aren't as wonky as this one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If a search term is plausible for multiple targets then we absolutely should have hatnotes or disambiguation pages, anything else is a disservice to our readers. The consensus of the previous discussion was that there is nothing "wonky" about this redirect at all. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The redirect is wonky at the very least in the sense of being unprintworthy. Such a redirect could be useful for readers, but that's not the kind of thing that should get incorporated, via hatnotes, into the top spot of our articles. As for turning this into a disambiguation page, I can't get too excited about the idea, but it certainly is the lesser of the two evils. – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This doesn't seem like a plausible typographical error for AUI (language). --Bsherr (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. "AUJ" is a code for the Awjila language, not a synonym or acronym. As far as I can tell, this language isn't referred as "AUJ" and a Google search for "AUJ language" didn't reveal anything relevant. I do agree that I do not think it is a plausible typo for AUI (language). -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

PUS (language)[edit]

One can imagine this might relate to either the current target (whose ISO 639 code is "pus"), or to the Mpus language (where "Pus" is apparently an alternative name [11]). In neither case is this all-caps redirect plausible. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and a hatnote. ISO-639 is not case sensitive, so even if the canonincal form is lower case the upper case is entirely plausible. It is certainly more likely that someone will search for a language code in all upper case than they will search for a language name in all upper case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote with link to Pus (disambiguation). An all-caps input is much more likely to be the ISO code per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is reasonably confusing and not particularly helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

PUE (language)[edit]

An implausible miscapitalisation that could apply to either Pue language or, presumably, to the current target (whose ISO 639-3 code is "pue"). – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and a hatnote. ISO-639 is not case sensitive, so even if the canonincal form is lower case the upper case is entirely plausible. It is certainly more likely that someone will search for a language code in all upper case than they will search for a language name in all upper case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote. An all-caps input is much more likely to be the ISO code per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is reasonably confusing and not particularly helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ARC (language)[edit]

An WP:XY situation: this is an implausible incorrect name that one could equally well attempt to connect to either Arc (programming language), or ARC Macro Language, or, apparently, to Aramaic language (whose ISO 639-3 code is "arc"). Just noting that this was kept after a recent batch nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep or disambiguate. ISO 639-3 is not case sensitive to ARC and arc are both correct, if kept then hatnotes can be added. This is nothing to do with WP:XY. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Uanfala that this is a situation in which the disambiguator "(language)" doesn't sufficiently disambiguate between the potential targets, and it is better to delete so users find ARC instead. --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That is an argument for disambiguation or retargetting to ARC (the dab page) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} not an argument for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it could be if someone were likely to search for or link to this term with the disambiguator, but that seems unlikely. Bsherr (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I've explained on other similar redirects the use that these redirects have, which apply equally here: Language code plus disambiguator to guarantee a link to the correct article, as neither language names nor language codes are guaranteed unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Except that here, language code plus disambiguator could justifiably link to other targets, as set forth in the nomination. While that kind of uniform scheme might be nice, it needs to yield to the regular practice of how we use redirects and disambiguation, no? --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
          • It does - we do not disambiguate programming languages or macro languages using "(language)". Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

AXX (language)[edit]

This was part of a recent batch nomination which resulted in "keep", but I'm not seeing any relation between the redirect and the target. – Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Xârâgurè language whose (case insensitive) ISO 639-3 code is axx. There are no other targets at AXX (disambiguation) that could plausibly take a (language) disambiguator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete "AXX" is a code for the Awjila language, not a synonym or alternative term. You wouldn't find a report saying "there were 760 native speakers of AXX in 2009", so saying that this is a language called "AXX" wouldn't be accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That's both true and completely irrelevant. Language names are inherently ambiguous but language codes uniquely refer to a single language. Given that some language codes, such as this one, are ambiguous then linking to AXX (language) is a way to guarantee that the link leads to the correct target, whatever name we've used for our article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If you want to link using the ISO code, ISO 639:axx can be used. This redirect implies there is a language named AXX, which isn't accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Except it dosn't imply that any more than Deimos (mythology) implies that there is a mythology named "Deimos" (Deimos is a deity). AXX (language) simply means that there is an article about AXX related to language - which there unquestionably is. That other redirects exist is not relevant to this one - we create redirects from titles that people will plausibly use for searching, we don't require them to use only the arbitrarily-sized subset that an arbitrary group have editors have decided are the most plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Except that AXX is not the name of the language but Deimos is the name of a character in mythology. I also disagree that people use this term for searching as well. If someone wants to find a language, they will use a name for the language to search for it—and use a natural search term, not one that has an awkward disambiguator like this one. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • The "arbitrary group of editors" here is the group of people who read and write about languages and everyone (except for Neelix) who's ever been involved in the creation and maintenance of ISO 639-3 redirects. Yes, this group is arbitrary, in the sense that any self-selected group of volunteers is, but if anything, it is less arbitrary than the small sample of regular participants in a generic discussion venue that we have here. And yes, we should judge individual redirects on their merits, but we can't completely overlook the fact that there's always a system they're going to be a part of. And the proper system here is made up of redirects of the form "ISO 639:xxx". These are clear and unambiguous, unlike redirects of the form "Xxx (language)", which would occasionally clash with the actual name of a language: of the 33 existing redirects, 3 turned out to be ambiguous, and if this sample is represenative then this means that about a thousand of the possible redirects of this type would be ambiguous. That's a lot of work to sort out, and one that doesn't really have any benefit: the ISO redirects exist mostly for backroom use: they're behind the look-up tool on the ISO 639 articles (like this one), and they're used by external databases (like the one maintained by the ISO 639-3 registration authority) to link to wikipedia. Language codes aren't likely to be used by readers as they're almost never used in actual human-readable text (and when they are, they're normally prefixed with "ISO 639:" or something similar); they don't have the general visibility that say airport codes have. – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Xârâgurè language per Thryduulf. Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any point to this. What possibly use could such a rd serve? BTW, the ISO code is [axx], not [AXX]. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Girl Meets World (season 1) episodes[edit]

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

Sapiosexuality[edit]

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

WP:ONESENTENCENOTABLE[edit]

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

Anyone can edit Wikipedia[edit]

Not useful. MB 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete – there are no uses of this redirect in main space, nor should there be. So get rid of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2018
  • Delete. Indeed, there ought not to be cross-namespace redirects for this. Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget. These redirects have significant value for new and potential editors searching for information about editing Wikipedia and/or how to do it. The lack of links is completely irrelevant to their purpose, a purposes which is explicitly provided for in all the information pages about cross-namespace redirects. Indeed the very point of generally avoiding CNRs is that internal project-space pages are unhelpful to those not explicitly looking for them, but both current and proposed targets here are explicitly related to what people using these redirects are looking for - people who will probably not know about namespaces yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. or retarget. The first nomination was created just last month in October, so as a new CNR, that one's value is in question; however, I don't see anything wrong with keeping it since it is much like the second nomination, which has been around for over a decade and is "grandfather'd in". Keep both as an aid to new editors. Either Help:Editing (present target) or Wikipedia:Introduction is acceptable. As noted by IP 59.149.124.29 below, the target should have information about, or link to an explanation about, editing restrictions. Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) 10:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep these seem useful to me. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep well known credo useful site moniker, worthy of blue-link. If crossnamespace redirects are such a concern that some find offense, re-target to land at Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit.--John Cline (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (or retarget to Wikipedia#Openness if there are objections to having a cross-namespace redirect). All potential targets (Help:Editing, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia#Openness, Jimmy Wales#anyone can edit) are permanently semi-protected. On that ground, we should pick a target that explains to the reader who doesn't have an account (the most likely person to click a link or search for anyone can edit Wikipedia, since people with accounts already know that) why they can't actually edit the page they've arrived at. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, or retarget to Wikipedia:Introduction. There is no apparent notable meaning of the phrase "anyone can edit" that does not relate to the editing of Wikimedia projects. bd2412 T 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should never have redirects like this out of mainspace unless the phrase itself has come into usage in sources (other than as a direct quotation) and always in reference to Wikipedia. Even in that case, it is better to write an actual article, as at Citation needed. Redirects like this are a WP:SELFREF problem and confuse readers about the distinction between the encyclopedia's content and internal, editor-facing materials. By way of comparison, even the Five pillars disambiguation page does not mention WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia except as a hatnote, despite it being central Wikipedian doctrine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And yet, aren't they still good search terms? If someone were to want to know about the term "anyone can edit Wikipedia", wouldn't they most likely be looking for those "editor-facing materials" rather than encyclopedic content? Isn't it actually hoped that by virtue of them landing on a project page rather than a mainspace target, they might actually consider registering and helping to improve Wikipedia? (not just articles but the project, as well) Just a thought. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

O=C=C=C=C=C=O[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=869499179"