Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

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. or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Current list[edit]

October 23[edit]

October 22[edit]

Gertrud Schlesinger[edit]

We do not have an article on this person, and the only article that links to the redirect is the exact same short article that is the target so anyone following the link is not helped at all. I think a redlink here is the best thing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)}

Good cake[edit]

Implausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Spanish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Peanut butter swirl[edit]

Term is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Apple pen[edit]

I think Apple Pencil is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. SSTflyer 12:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that? 13:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • RedirectDelete per nom. No indication from the article that PPAP is shortened to Apple pen. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence of why Apple Pencil is the primary topic, e.g. um... WP:RS? I know I am in a minority here, but in my view because redirects live in reader space they are under the same rules as WP:ARTICLETITLE. I know that is a minority view and of course we have categories specifically for when redirects are useful but don't meet that standard (typos, other languages, etc etc ad nauseam). Those are fine. This does' masquerade as an article title, i.e. it meets WP:ARTICLETITLE, so I think it should also meet the standards of having an RS that says this is the primary topic, none has yet been presented, and I doubt will. Just because redirects are cheap does not mean they are free. They should not be created willy-nilly. (They are not free, cos they end up at RfD costing ediors' time.) There is a search engine, after all. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Changing my vote. As the song is really short, phrases like "I have a pen" "apple pen" "pineapple pen" are going to be proposed, and these would fall under WP:NOTLYRICS. On the flip side, it would be okay to add PPAP (song). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The article for the song has been kept. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote since the proposed target is not a pen, but a pencil, unless there's instances where it's been called an "Apple Pen". If there is, it could be retargeted and hatnoted to this song. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • An Apple Pencil contains neither a pigment core or ink, so though the official name is a pencil, it could as reasonably be characterized as a pen. A better name for the product would have been the "Apple Stylus" in my humble opinion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Apple Pencil. I feel that it's more reasonable for someone to be looking for a pen-like tool made by Apple over a partial title for this song. From a cursory search, I've noticed the mistake being made in a couple reviews for the product, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State for International Trade/short edits[edit]

Lizzie Woods trade unionist[edit]

Nobody is ever going to search for this, link to this, catalogue this or do anything else to this; looking at the history it rarely gets more than zero views per day and only once in recorded history got as many as two hits in a day (presumably both search engine crawlers). The only reason I haven't unilaterally deleted this under WP:R3 is that it's somehow lasted for six years so doesn't count as "recently created".  ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Being a trade unionist isn't a title such as 'Ph.D' or something like that. And, even if it was, this redirect is still clunky and not really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Talas (disambiguation)[edit]

No need disambiguation for "Typhoon Talas" N-C16 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Merbok (disambiguation)[edit]

No need disambiguation for "Typhoon Merbok" N-C16 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of tropical storms named Koppu[edit]

Informal redirects of disambiguation page N-C16 (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Set indexes aren't disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 35#Category:Set indices on storms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

List of typhoons named Koppu[edit]

Informal redirects of disambiguation page N-C16 (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Mujigae (2009)[edit]

Mujigae in 2009 didn't reach typhoon status N-C16 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Linfa (disambiguation)[edit]

No need disambiguation for "Typhoon Linfa" N-C16 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, there are sources that refer to the events as typhoons. bd2412 T 12:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyclone Haiyan[edit]

There is no Cyclone Haiyan. Only Typhoon Haiyan. Actually, Cyclone≠Typhoon N-C16 (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


(neelix redirect) (No I wasn't going through the list, just searching for redirects to School). They originally pointed to Schulhof but that is worse than the present target. Perhaps retarget to Campus. It is worth noting there is an article in Chinese at zh:校园 but links to Campus, even though the Chinese article only talks about school campuses, so I might remove the Wikidata entry. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Chinese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Singapore as a regional and global hub[edit]

This appears to be promotional. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Estaos Uníos[edit]

Implausible typo for foreign term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The missing d's leave the impression that this might be in the Asturian language (but then, the x is missing too). At any rate, I see no relevant of this particular form, so delete unless demonstrated that it's used by a substantial number of Spanish speakers within the US. – Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Unitesd states[edit]

Not a plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

UNited States[edit]

Who would ever search for this? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21[edit]


There is no mention of this school at the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - There appears to be an article on the Chinese Wikipedia about this school. I don't see adequate sourcing there, however, and it may be that the school itself isn't notable. I'm not sure about this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@CoffeeWithMarkets:I don't think it is worth an article here. I have tagged the article on zhwiki for notability. Over on zhwiki, if the notability tag remains for 30 days, it will automatically get AfDd. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. That's like adding "school" to every region article as a redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - It seems like the best move is to just go ahead and be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

9th Grade Annex[edit]

Term not mentioned in target, it is mentioned in several articles about specific schools, but we don't have a general article and I doubt it is worthy of one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete Annex appears to be just a general term for buildings or structures that are added on to the institution. [1] [2] So it can be a school annex, hospital annex, but it's a bit of an WP:XY like staff parking lot. There's no particular 9th grade annex that serves as a primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


I don't think so Potential Vanity is COI? ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

St. Hans[edit]

Not mentioned in article. Not a valid WP:FORRED. SSTflyer 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • KEEP. WP:FORRED is an essay, and not law. In most of Northern Europe, particularly in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries but also elsewhere, the traditional midsummer celebrations on "midsummer eve", the day before St. John the Baptists day in the calendar (see Saint John's Eve and Midsummer), are next to Christmas the most important celebrations of the year, and a decidedly non-religious holiday, having long since lost their connection to St. John and returned to their pagan roots as a night/weekend of partying and fun. The only connection to religion now being the fact that it in some countries (primarily Denmark and Norway) is still commonly known as Sankthans or St. Hans, a disconnection from religion that is so complete that most people probably don't even know where it got its name from (St. John the Baptist is known as Johannes Döparen/Johannes Døberen in Scandinavia, a name that was shortened to St. Hans since Hans is a common short form of Johannes), making a redirect from St. Hans to John the Baptist totally logical. In my opinion at least... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (sorry for the longwinded comment, but I felt there was a need for a thorough explanation for why I feel the redirect is logical...)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. This is the English Wikipedia. You didn't even tail your <small> properly, and made a (edit conflict) while doing it, so why should I beleive you have WP:COMPETENCE? Did you follow the instructions at right at the top of RfD "before listing here. Right at the top. Do your homework. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Que? Who you talking to? If it was me I want to point out that I didn't list the redirect for deletion, or create the redirect for that matter, I only !voted here. And neither the link to WP:COMPETENCE nor the comment about "do your homework" was called for, no matter who your comment was directed at. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (And what on earth has an edit conflict got to do with competence?)
I wasn't talking to you, or really to anyone, I was just grumbling generally. Sorry if it seemed that way. I am going through a bit of a hard time for various personal reasons and let my anger vent. I shouoldn't have, because I should have kept it all in. I can only apologise. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Midsummer. "St. Hans Day" is a common name for Midsummer, especially in Norway, but also in other Scandinavian countries. On Wikipedia, it seems the most common usage. There are four article links to the redirect; I've fixed one of them, but the other three are all references to Midsummer's Day. — Gorthian (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Digital Highway[edit]

Retarget to New Jersey Digital Highway, perhaps, not sure what else it can refer to, if not delete per WP:R#DELETE 10 (vague synonym). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Do you remember the Information Superhighway we were all promised? I think it is rather WP:XY as Champion says. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original redirect was based on a 2008 AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Highway; my bad for not logging the AfD on the talk page. I have no strong feelings about the redirect. However, it is a somewhat vague term, so retargeting to the NJDH doesn't strike me as the best option.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Information Superhighway and add hatnote for the New Jersey one. Term is still widely used for Internet infrastructure. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


The primary use for this, at least in the UK, much to my chagrin, is Strictly Come Dancing. This is not as it claims {{R from longer title}} it should be if anything {{R from adverb}}. But I don't imagine most people searching for "Strictly" want to be told about "Strict" in a mathematical sense (and I know what it means in a mathematical sense, i.e. it means vague, because a strict set in one branch of maths is not the same as a strict set in another branch of maths). No mathematician or semi-competent mathematician is likely to search for "strictly" or even "strict" to find out what it means in a mathematical sense, like most adverbs, it qualifies, so we have a strictly ordered set, for example, a strict union, a strictly ordered sequence and so on. Oh, we don't? Hmmm. I better have a strictly ordered glass of champagne, then. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, Wikipedia is also for non-mathematicians. Siuenti (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    There are a hell of a lot of things starting "Strictly", User:Siuenti. I think it's better off Deleted so that the search engine can find them; WP:RFD#D2 as WP:PTM. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    Strictly Come Dancing is not a partial title match, it's often known just as Strictly. Siuenti (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
    Sure, I was wondering if it was known as that outside of its primary audience, the UK. A bit WP:WORLDWIDE, essentially. If you think it is theprimary topic for this redirect then you should say so, but as it stands you have !voted for "disambiguate". I would go for retargeting it to Strictly Come Dancing but I was worried about whether that was just a UK thing and not worldwide. I would really hav expected this to be boldly retargeted earlier, but it hasn't been, so I imagine users looking up "Strictly" on WP are quite delighted to find defintions of strict weak orderings and so forth. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Strictly Come Dancing. Most mathematicians are likely to find definitions on MathCad, anwyay. As User:Siuenti says, Wikipedia is not only for mathematicians. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Strict (disambiguation) but I'm leaning somewhat towards Weak delete as well if there is no primary topic. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Strictly Come Dancing as shown in news articles. [3] [4] [5] Add redirects here and hatnote to strict. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hatnote. Don't care which way this targets, both have merits, but it should hatnote to the other regardless.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, this does have incoming links which will need to be bypassed if this is retargeted. SpinningSpark 17:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hatnote is also fine. Siuenti (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a WP:DICDEF; people shouldn't be linking to it at all. If a specific meaning is important, the link to that article can be piped. — Gorthian (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Myth box[edit]

Not useful. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete what a myth box, besides some random product name? Infobox myth? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maggie Rogers[edit]

delete The redirect name isn't mentioned anywhere in the target article. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete she's one of the students from Pharrell Williams' Masterclass that he specially acknowledged, but needs her own notability so redlinking this should encourage article creation if she charts. [6] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

AZX (company)[edit]

Delete. (Neelix redirect). It's not a compamy. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: SimonTrew talked to me about changing it not long ago, I'm not a big fan of coloured signatures, so I quite like it this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Double Dragon Ex[edit]

Seems this redirect may need to be deleted per WP:REDLINK, but I'm not sure just how plausible this title may be for its own article. Per the following link, this is a version of the target released for mobile devices, but it's currently not mentioned in the target article: 1. Also, the subject's possibly actual name, Double Dragon EX, doesn't exist on Wikipedia Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete Is there a Double Dragon EX in Japan? Media Arts Database doesn't seem to have the game for ダブルドラゴン EX. I see wikia articles saying it's a cell phone game, but nothing formal. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Redirects in the template namespace have to at least be somewhat related to their target by spelling, abbreviation, meaning, or historical use. This redirect, created a few days ago, meets none of those. I cannot see anyone searching for "hoax" or anything related to a hoax via this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Corrupt (organization)[edit]

Template:Bush family tree[edit]

Delete the target is not a template, using this template as a template will transclude an article, which is bad and harmful. (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete anyone transcluding this would end up transcluding the entire article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete there is Template:Bush family navbox but why do we need one with "tree" in it? With regards to transcluding the tree itself, would there be a use for this outside of the immediate article? If so then the stuff for transclusion should be put in to help. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Bush family, which is divided by generation, like a family tree is, as the best option. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

One KM Mall[edit]

Why would this seemingly-ordinary, undistinguishably non-notable shopping centre redirect to a very broad-concept article with no particular need to be linked to? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - This kind of redirect situation really isn't appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20[edit]


Not mentioned at target (other than the website for various citations) Pppery 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - This may be a case of WP:REDLINK given that the history of the website itself, its creation, its management, and so on appears notable. I'm not sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. My opinions about WP:REDLINK are in line with CoffeeWithMarkets' opinion, but since this web site has existed and doesn't have an article yet, I think the redirect should probably stay to allow readers to find the subject's "parent subject", as well as tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing: WP:D5 nonsense, WP:WORLDWIDE. Only Americans have sophomores, and if their sophomores, which I am led to believe are female, presumably I guess from the greek sage Sophos (was she a Lesbian?) can snigger all they like, but if they learned any Latin they would know that Puellam puellis applies just as much to girls and boys. As it does in Late Latin, where it is supplanted by e.g. in Virgil "Virginibus Canto", "I sing for girls and boys" (Oxford tr.) "Virginibus stands for both male and female, though if Virgil sings too much in hexameter I doubt either of them will stand, not even erectio in puellis. WP:NOTDIC, and Wiktionary does not a very good job of it: cos Wikt says it is about boys. No, no no, it is about girls and boys, really, infants is the better translation, it just doesn't make nice poetry, you can't have Virgil "I sing of infants", it doesn't scansion "scan" (I wouold pipe that in an article but don't like doing so into a discussion, that's just confusing others, sorry), not even in English. Dear, dear, me. Certainly this is not sophomoric humor. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, somewhat reluctantly. I can't think of a better place to point this. wiktionary:Puerile is inappropriate. There's no disambig or other obvious target. There's no sourcing to link puerile to sophomoric, Wiktionary doesn't support this, and this is a US-only term anyway. That said, there does seem to be some degree of link between them.
It's not wrong, it's not needed for anything else. I can't see adequate reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, wikt:Puerile is inappropriate because it doesn't exist. But wikt:puerile does. As for Sophomoric humour, the article is general enough so I'm wondering if Puerile humour might not be a better title. – Uanfala (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Should puerile redirect to puerile humour (which we don't have an article on)? Or should Puerile humour redirect to Sophomoric humor (which is something of a neologism to conflate the two)? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Juvenile. If we must keep every WP:DICDEF that pops up, let's at least redirect them to one another. Juvenile isn't a great dab page, but it gives a searcher some options; better than the current target. — Gorthian (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian Independence[edit]

Retarget one or two of the three, so they all have the same target: but which? The second could be a {{R from other caps}} (the "i" on "independence: isn't) but goes to a different target. The third is an {{R from misspelling}}. Neither is tagged as such, but that's easy to do when we agree where it should go. For completeness, I checked and Indian Independance is red. Please don't someone create it just to make a point and have a combinatorial explosion, I nominate a genuine case of confusion here when likely misspellings and things differentiating by a caps I which on many screens (not mine) is hard to distinguish from a lowercase I, and the search engine does not distinguish case except when it must, this is where redirects kick in, and in this case, kick out. But I have no idea which is the better target. Indian Independence Movement is R from other caps and should be, but Indian independance movement and Indian Independance movement are red. With caps M all are red. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget Indian Independence to Indian independence movement so that they all three redirect there. I say this because the latter has links to almost everything else having to do with independence, instead of being focused on one aspect. "Indian independence" (however it's spelled) is a broad, general term, so it should redirect to a broad, general article. — Gorthian (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget so that they all go to the 'Indian independence movement' page, which is a broad, historically-minded article. I think that errors in capitalization as well as in spelling are reasonable enough things in terms of helpful redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Four colour map problem[edit]

Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Not marked as {{R from alternative language}} so I have no idea what this means. I guess it is some strange kind of English; "problem" seems to occur interchangeably with "theorem" in the article as if they were the same thing, but in the WP:RS at the bottom it interchanges. There isn't a four-colour map problem, nor a four-color map problem, there is a four-color map to the same target but not a four-colour map, so none of those is any help to me to divulge what this might mean, encyclopeedicly. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense: Three hits in the last ninety days, well below bot noise level. Nothing links to it beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, plausible search term. The article makes plenty of references to the fact it's a problem and the fact that it involves four colors and a map. There's nothing wrong here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is something slightly wrong here, but I am not sure what it is, User:Tavix. What I said about links etc and so on are all correct, this is exactly the justification for many a listing, but I presume you guessed I was not entirely foxed about it. However, I actually searched for four-colour map problem with the hyphen and couldn't find it, and it took me a few goes to search until I removed the "u" from "color" before I got there. So it does kinda block the search, for the search engine to take over its usual treat-hyphens-as-spaces-as-equals rule, when we have an WP:ENGVAR that has it in an R form without the hyphen, but not with it. I do not suggest the solution is to add the redirects with the hyphens. I will happily withdraw, of course, but I should like to have it recorded that those that are red were red, when I searched, and I had to search in Damyank spelling for it to get me. I was surprised they didn't exist in the WP:ENGVAR. Perhaps the best solution is to create them, in this case, but my search for "four-colour map problem" came up with no results, strangely. I doubt it will now repeat that behaviour, because it will probably now find this discussion: you have to believe me when I did it, I got zero results. I note it simply so I can report it somehow, but I don't really know how to do that. Pretty obviously withdrawn, I never intended it really to be deleted. But my reasoning for why is absolutely sound: no links, three hits in ninety days. Many a redirect has thus gone. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely a plausible redirect. The 4 colour map theorem has only been a theorem since it was proved in 1976. Before that it was a conjecture, or problem. Meters (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
4 colour map problem goes there but not 4 color map problem. I think I have conjectured enough. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The latter now blue, created by User:Tavix at 01.22 this morning with this edit. One has one blue, expect others to go the same. The ones I said or implied were red, were red when I said so. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion out of RfD's remit, I wonder if to subcat and create template to match {{R from other english variant}}, Template:R from engvar etc would be better. We can hardly mark these as {{R from alternative language|en}}, as they stand. I bring this one, of course, as a test case. What I said about hits and links etc are correct, and many have been deleted by those criteria, many that I myself have nominated. I am not that stupid, I can spel proply. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Why are you wasting our time with an abusive test case? I ignored the language variant issue because it is simply not a concern, and you didn't clearly mention that it was what you were interested in. If I remember correctly, we have redirects from some of the hyphenated and variant spellings already. If you want the rest of them filled in then add them, and if you want to propose a new subcat then do so. Don't play games. Meters (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I am not wasting anyone's time. I regularly contribute to RfD and I spend hours checking through redirects and following them up. What you mean, if you put it correctly, is "why are you wasting my time?" I am not. I didn't ask you to reply. I made my response, and I stick by it. If you choose to reply, and you consider your reply a waste of time, then that is your waste of time, not mine. I didn't waste anyone's time. I wasted a tiny bit of server time but nobody requires you to come here. I did not waste your time. I actually checked up all the links, I checked up all the variations, I listed them all here, I asked they don't suddenly become blue to invalidate my argument and essentially kick the bucket from under me, which has happened before. I set out my stall like a nice little conjecture: with saying we have some in one kind of english, some in another kind of english, but neither in both. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, and indeed I went out of my way even to offer a suggestion to how we may solve the problem, because it is not just this one that suffers from this problem. I came with clean hands. If you can't see that my proposal for deletion is spurious, try rewriting RFD guidelines WP:RFD#D2 and WD:RFD#D5. This is WP:XY confusing, by your own lights, because a conjecture is not a problem, be it said in 1976 or 1588. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
        • You did indeed ask me, and any one else who bothered to read this request for discussion, to comment when you posted it. We're all volunteers. None of us are required to come here. I don't normally have any dealings here, and all your actions have done is convinced me not to spent any time on this board once the redirect I listed is dealt with. Congratulations. Meters (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I will tell you when I want to withdraw it, (non-admin closure) User:Tavix, not you tell me. That was a (non-admin closure) and I got an (edit conflict) on the closure, a genuine one not just buggering about, I got an ec with adding my comment before tavix (non-admin closure) closed it with this non-admin closure, ultra vires. Because I said I will withdraw it does not mean I said withdraw it: had that been my !vote, I would have struck my nomination and !voted to withdraw it. What is so difficult about this? There is no WP:CONSENSUS yet, because I as nom, you as closer, and someone else who is annoyed for wasting their time, has commented, and that someone else is the person who created it. That was a supposition that I will withdraw it if there are reasons to withdraw it. The reasons to delete it still stand. You can call it a strawman if you like, but that is exactly how Neelix redirects were found out, because we have to think about what we do with these kinds of things. I was just asking people to think really. And maybe try some variations for themselves. Or is it just me who does that. Cf. Indian independence and Indian independance and Indian independance. Is it just me who wonders what other variations we have, and whether they are useful or harmful or neither? Why can you be a dependant but not an independant? Am I the only one who can tell the difference any more? Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Pretty obviously withdrawn, I never intended it really to be deleted. Stop wasting everyone's time. -- Tavix (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Not obvious to me. Show me where I wrote "withdrawn" in bold at the start of a comment, or indeed where I wrote it in bold anywhere in a comment. Show me. I have pointed out to you where you closed it and what you said. Show me. You are wasting my time because I was doing a four colour map for the counties of Hungary before this farrago. But I don't mind pointing out procedure to you, I am only a non-admin myself. I still think one delete and two keeps doth not a consensus make. Most regulars here are not even awake at weekends. We won't get consensus until about Tuesday evening UTC at the earliest. Let it run. "Redirects usually are listed for about seven days"... I think it says something somewhere, I may be thinking of PNT though Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I just quoted where you said you withdrew and that you never actually wanted it deleted... -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I said myself that I didn't want it deleted. It didn't mean I wanted it withdrawn. If I meant that I would have not voted for withdrawn (I do do that, you may have noticed, with some of the redirects from Neelix that I list here when I list as sometimes not sure or delete. I deliberately do not put it in bold and so on, so that is not taken as a not vote. I am glad that misunderstanding is cleared up. No hard feelings, let's carry on shall we, you with keeping everything and me with deleting everything. Truly, I am not a deletionist, but as the search engine gets better the redirects get worse, they get in the way more. This one genuinely did with me, and of course I know how to spell color or colour and perhaps I was rather arch with the nomination, but have you tried to get anything out of WT:RFD these days> I should be glad if you would comment there, really I should. Really this is a proposal for WT:RFD but nobody looks at that, not even the regs like thee and me here. There's a discussion about what we do with foreign-language redirects going along somewhere that User:Champion pinged me about, I pinged various others. RfD is quite top-heavy with foreign-language speakers. I made my case there, that translators and foreign language speakers do it for free, as volunteers, like we all do. It was more to do with a discussion at WP:PNT I think started by User:Champion who is good at Chinese. I do French, Hungarian and a bit of German and a smattering of Spanish and a tiny bit of some others. Multilinguists do not get appreciated in any way at EN:WP, even though we do the gnomework tying all the Wikidata links together, pointing out false friends and WP:ENGVARs, and all that. Not only do we have to translate, be it User:Siuenti and many other regs here whose names I forget but who are regs here and take what it might be in Japanese or somesuch, you have to trust them on that unless you want to learn Japanese. (I have learned Japanese to a basic level, but mostly forgotten it, but I can still understand hiragana but am losing understanding katakana, my eyesight is not so good and the broad strokes of the hira are easier for me than the narrow ones of kata). You have here probably the only resource on the whole of EN:WP who has some kind of idea of what Hungarian means. There was one today well it will be yesterday now and I have to follow that one up, but haven't got around to it because of our little argy-bargy. Let it settle, let it go. Let's just carry on, you keeping, me proposing for deletion and retargeting etc. You haven't even commented on Indian independance, yet. Jump to it, things to be done. Ony another seven million redirects to go....
If {{WP:NOTPERFECT|Wikipedia were perfect]], there would be zero redirects. The search engine would be perfect, and everyone who had a thought would be taken to their information before typing it. It's not. Our job, as I see it, is to make it better. It's good that editors try to do that in different ways. Otherwise I give up and get paid $200 an hour for translating rather than translate template markup before I get to the first word. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#monolinguals_and_translation_copy-editing, if you please. Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: You're ranting least nothing related to the redirect in question. You need to stop, it's quite ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Deletion request[edit]

Not needed. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Ambiguous, can refer to {{db}}, {{prod}} etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is, as stated above, unhelpful given the ambiguity. We should just be rid of this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Boner law[edit]

Boner Law (with "law" capitalised) was deleted per WP:CSD R3, in 2009. --Nevéselbert 20:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep and Restore example in nomination as {{R from misspelling}}. Phonetically, this is extremely similar (or the same depending on accents) to how it is properly said, so this will aid searches. Highly unlikely that "Boner law" can refer to anything else. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and Restore. I fully agree with Patar knight, these are useful search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep/Restore - Yes, there's plenty of jokes that can be made about this, but the above arguments make sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (as creator) and restore capitalized version - The reason I created the redirect is because I was searching for the PM and thought it was spelt "Boner". I don't think I'm the only one to make this error. ... discospinster talk 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be redirected to John Adams? Yes, the asteroid was named after the president, but this may still result in WP:R#PLA for readers unaware of this. --Nevéselbert 20:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am going to ping in our taxonomy expert User:Plantdrew on this one. It would not at all surprise me that there were rosa jonadamsii or somesuch, quite an accolade to have a rose named after you. (and also quite an accolade to have a president award you a rose). Is there at all anything close in the planty line? Probably not, but we can then rule it out as not a viable scientific name. I couldn't find any. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Should be deleted or retargeted to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. It's a rather odd term to search for, if I may so. --Nevéselbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't see a good reason to keep this. It's not really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


No significant affinity to all caps, searching for "OBAMA" would automatically send a reader to Barack Obama by virtue of the Obama redirect. --Nevéselbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This redirect is somewhat well-trafficked (15 hits/day) Tazerdadog (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper)[edit]

Perhaps retarget to Sun (newspaper). I am aware that there are incoming links, but clearly there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, unfortunately. Looking at the internal links, they are overwhelmingly for the British newspaper. It would have been far better, in my opinion, to have the target at The Sun (British newspaper). But as it stands, there are about 4,000 articles that link through this, and the vast majority look to me like things the British Sun is likely to talk about (celebs, British politicians, etc etc.)
The history has a nice WP:ES by User:DMacks about a "long-term slow-moving war over target of this redirect." (quite long-term, User:DMacks made that comment on 9 March 2012 and it had been rumbling for years before that). So I very much doubt an RfD will achieve any lasting effect. Resignedly, I say keep, but this should probably be sorted once for all at some higher level. The page was edit-protected (by DMacks) from 9 March to 28 April 2012 (by User:Tbhotch) but has been stable since then. We'd probably be better off opening some full-blown discussion at somewhere more prominent than RfD, I don't know where: its talk page is red but really talk pages for redirects are almost invisible and despite what WP:Redirect etc says I wouldn't recommend putting anything on a redirect's talk page if you actually expect it to be read. Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sun (newspaper). There are many such newspapers, current and discontinued. Wikipedia should be a timeless work, not obsessing over the recent, the older newpapers are as notable as the current. Recentism is a bias to avoid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The most notable newspapers at the proposed target that might challenge this for primary topic all do not actually call themselves "The Sun", but have some qualifier (e.g. Toronto Sun, Vancouver Sun, Baltimore Sun, Daily Sun). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Sun (newspaper). This is a case of WP:INCOMPDAB. "Sun (newspaper)" is disambiguated, but still too ambiguous to refer to any one target. When this happens, it's best to retarget to the most relevant disambiguation (or in this case, a list). -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Sun[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

This has undergone several edit wars but was never discussed at RfD. IMO people searching for this term would likely be looking for a newspaper or something else on the disambiguation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: Just an FYI, this redirect was subject to an RfD in January 2010. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment. The sun > → Sun. Were we to change the nominated one, we'd have redirects that differed only in lettercase that went to different targets. That's not impossible but I think a pretty strong case has to be made for doing that. I doubt anyone would argue that these should be deleted (per WP:THE) since it's a WP:COMMONNAME for the thing. There's really not a very good solution to this one.
I notice The world and The World both go to World and not as The World (newspaper) does (to World_(disambiguation)#Periodicals). It's all a bit unsatisfactory, I agree, but I can't think of a solution that would be less so. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and while technically we could hatnote Sun with {{redirect2|The sunThe Sun}} and so on, presumably the aim is to keep the poor old fellow cluttered at the top of seven hundred hatnotes. Sure, it means that we only have a hatnote there for Sun (disamiguation) and not, e.g. The Sun (disambiguation) – we could perhaps add that into the existing hatnote – but what good even would that do? It would be saying "We now have two disambiguations. Messieurs et mesdames, faites vos jeux, please now place your bets, which of the two disambiguation pages should you like to try first?". I really can't think of a term more common than "the sun" that has left not even a chink of daylight to guide us out. A sun and a Sun are both red (as are A world and a World, to complete my earlier analogue.
An earth and An Earth also; The Earth is an R to Earth (again, WP:THE versus WP:COMMONNAME) but to my suprise The earth is red. But, then, Earth (newspaper) and The Earth (newspaper) are also red, so perhaps that is not so great an analogy.
Casting desperately to the heavens, The moon and The Moon both → Moon, which starts "The Moon" (i.e. the "The" is not in bold at the start of the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE; "The Sun" likewise, but Earth is just Earth not "The Earth"). I imagine much of this terminology would have been much fought over, e.g. why does not Moon tell us about satellites in general and The Moon about "ours" in particular. Our battle is essentially WP:THE versus WP:COMMONNAME. If WP:THE wins, then "The Sun" (and "The World") should go to the DABs about newspapers etc. thus called, since by our own lights, lunar or solar, we call the heavenly bodies just "Sun" and "Moon" as their WP:ARTICLETITLEs. If WP:COMMONNAME] wins, they should stay where they are. I think they should stay where they are. Keep, or I will get Apollo onto, pronto. I don't see much point in e.g. asking WP:WikiProject Astronomy, with all due respect they know what the sun moon and earth are, any more than if we asked what WP:WikiProject Media to tell us what The Sun, The Moon and The Earth were.
It's really tempting to say WP:XY out of sheer cussedness but I'm pretty sure they are fine as they stand. After all, the newspapers were named after the heavenly bodies, not the other way around.
To take some less well-known papers, Morning Star is a DAB, Morning Star (newspaper) you can guess for yourself, The morning star is red, but you may be WP:SURPRISEd with where The Morning Star goes. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Makes perfect sense, even as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't believe that an average person searching for "The Sun" is more likely to be looking for the newspaper than the Sun. Most people outside of the UK have never heard of The Sun newspaper. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Sun" should go to Sun (newspaper), as this case-sensitive combination overwhelmingly refers to a newspaper. "The sun" can go to Sun. Alternatively, delete these redirects and allow the internal search engine to do its job, which it appears to me to do well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Nah, after reading the old discussion keep, per Gavia Immer. Summed it up perfectly, and nothing has changed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - The star seems to be the primary topic, and the hatnote takes care of the rest of the cases.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per SmokeyJoe. Readers looking for the topic in astronomy would not be searching for "The Sun". SSTflyer 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

List of cults[edit]

This has been redirected to several pages throughout its history, but never discussed at RfD. I would suggest deletion and possibly salting it. This is because effectively, any target is bound to be a POV as a group that someone identifies as a "cult" may not be viewed by everyone as such and a "new religious movement" is not necessarily a "cult" and vice versa. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - The distinction between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is a fuzzy area, indeed, but redirects don't have to be neutral. Nor even strictly accurate, really... my instinct is to retain this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. My instinct is to delete it because there are all kinds of other cults describied at cult: Doomsday cults, Political cults, etc let alone things that are not enumerated there such as cult films. WP:RFD#D2 confusing because we are here directing from the general to the specific, which is going to be WP:SURPRISEing for people who are looking for cults other than new religious movements, and in particular because as Cult#Terminological history says (referenced) "Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture". Yes, redirects don't have to be neutral, but they don't have to be downright misleading either. Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible search term and an appropriate redirect target. We explain the difference in the associated article, so there's minimal risk of confusion. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

IGI Global[edit]

This redirect was made after the article in question was deleted per AfD consensus. It redirects to a section of the Hershey, Pennsylvania. However, an entire section on this company in that article is undue weight, and the redirect is therefore inappropriate. agtx 17:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: I agree that the section on this company in Hershey, Pennsylvania looked like undue weight, and I see insufficient rationale for recreating this article after it was deleted last month. Biogeographist (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is a well-established company dating from 1988 with many references to articles and books published by it, even on Wikipedia itself. The company publishes c.180 journals, including some listed on WIkipedia, and is listed by respected indexes such as Scopus, etc. It has been accused by some of being a vanity publishing company and there appears to be a campaign against it by some on Wikipedia, presumably for this reason, but that does not make it a non-notable company. We should not be trying to delete mention of entities from Wikipedia just because we disapprove of them. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jpbowen: I think that this comment doesn't address the issue. First, I'm not part of any "campaign" for or against any publisher, and I have no feelings of approval or disapproval of this company (and an implication otherwise has a WP:AGF problem). As of now, the company isn't notable—there's already been a decision to delete the page. That said, this isn't a discussion about notability. It's a discussion about weight. The question is whether this company is so important to Hershey, Pennsylvania that an entire section of an encyclopedia article and a redirect need to be devoted to it. I haven't seen any evidence that makes me believe that. agtx 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Of course reduce the "weight" if you wish. IGI Global is an international company in a fairly small town, so I think important in Hershey. The discussion on deletion was very close so there should be mention of the company somewhere on Wikipedia IMHO. (In fact, a new independent reference was included, increasing the company's "notability" since deletion.) If you have a suggestion for a better place do say. If you prefer a "Companies" section, add that instead. The Hershey Company is there too of course. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the company shouldn't take up a huge amount of the city's page, I feel like it ought to be mentioned in there in terms of due weight, and this redirect appears appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Corrupt (organization)[edit]

I don't think so is COL is corrupt it's isn't. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Corrupt and conflict of interest are not one and the same... Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The graduation song[edit]

Ambiguous since there are no entries on the list that are named this title. I seem to be getting a lot of search results about Graduation (Friends Forever). But I believe that is not a common name even for that specific entry. (I am currently expanding the target article). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'd rather just let people search given that there doesn't seem to be one clear-cut instance of a track known as "The Graduation Song". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. On Wikipedia, I found "The Graduation Song" as a single in Wynter Gordon discography, and a Chinese TV (movie? series?) starring Janice Man. I don't suggest retargeting to either, and a dab page would be useless. If either becomes notable, then an article can be written. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment They might mean Pomp and Circumstance, but this term is pretty vague otherwise. It doesn't need "The" in front as that would imply just one, or a specific title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Graduation in absentia[edit]

Term is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • A simple Google search finds many uses of the term. It just means to graduate without attending the graduation ceremony. Let's just add a sentence defining the term to the Graduation article. I'm not sure how much more can be written about the topic. It would be nice to know what percentage of university graduates graduate in absentia, the reasons why they don't attend the ceremony, and how this has changed over time. I don't know whether this has been researched or there are sources who have researched and written about the topic. This redirect derives from the in absentia disambiguation / broad-concept article, which doesn't define the term either, and neither does Wiktionary define it. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Chinese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what User:Champion is objecting to, but article titles on en-wiki should be in English. I move the page to what appeared to be the English equivalent, and it was subsequently redirected Jimfbleak (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: See WP:RFFL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not seeing a particular link between this organization and China that would merit such a redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete English school in the US. No need for a Chinese (or any other foreign language) redirect. Meters (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason why most people would search the Chinese name for it. Joseph2302 09:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Land Force Northern Area[edit]

Organisation did not exist. Actual organisation was Canadian Forces Northern Area Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - This appears to be a reasonable case of having a redirect from an incorrect name, although I'm not sure how helpful this really is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

British independence[edit]

The Legend of Zelda (2017 video game)[edit]

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. Gestrid (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe them to be relevant. Both the 2015 and untitled game redirctes were deleted when they were no longer accurate, however in this case no one is disputing the 2017 release date. The 2016 redirect below is a another story though.-- (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This redirect is currently correct in its disambiguation, and is thus helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game)[edit]

This redirect is not used in any articles anymore, so it is essentially an orphan. The game's title is well-known now, so I believe this redirect is no longer needed. Basically, I believe the page-move redirect has been around for a long enough period of time that it is now not needed. Gestrid (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: This discussion and this discussion, both of which resulted in a "delete", may be relevant to this discussion. Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The game is coming out in 2017, not 2016, and I'm wary of keeping redirects that appear to be as factually misleading as this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A (2017 video game) redirect will probably be created anyway.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, saw that right afterwards. ;) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

Implausible search term and not appropriate for a CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • This does not appear to be a CNR. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Izno: I think the nominator was saying it wouldn't be appropriate to retarget to WP:NPA. – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      That makes more sense. I agree with that position. --Izno (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Don't make personal attacks" is a general idea, not that clearly defined, that applies in a bunch of different contexts. This includes not just Wikipedia but other Wiki websites as well as online video games, online educational platforms, et cetera. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Nonsense redirect. If kept, retarget to {{Copyedit}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete not used at all, don't see why retargeting anywhere could be a better option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirect creator here. The target template {{Angle bracket}} encloses text in, well, angle brackets, and these have a variety of uses. One of them is to delineate the orthographic representation of a text, vs. for example the phonemic (which is surrounded in slashes) or the phonetic (square brackets). Ultimately, it might be a better idea to use that as a specific template different from the generic {{Angle bracket}}. This would have the advantage of allowing for some sort of semantic markup, as well as a better choice of one of the many angle bracket characters for this specific use, so I'm thinking about it in terms of {{R with possibilities}}. – Uanfala (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Year 1[edit]

Possibly retarget to Year One (education) for I believe that is the primary topic, the period of history is never "year 1". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to 1, which is what this was originally supposed to redirect to. — Gorthian (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hatnote and lead sentence covers the cases. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. This seems to be the most likely target, and the other possibilities are already covered in the hatnote. Meters (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9[edit]

I don't see how this is a plausible search term, but people searching this would be more likely be looking for something to do with Educational stages, but I would prefer deletion to retargeting there. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. - Patrick (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:R3. Gestrid (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Not eligible since this is not recently created, hence this RfD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ABC Kids (Australia - 2000s-2009)[edit]

Nominated for deletion as this redirect is unnecessary as its function is covered by the current name of the article which has details on the subject's past in its history section. Additionally, all former names of the article subject already individually redirect to the current article name and the formatting for this redirect is clumsy and unusual (placing dates in a country disambig, separated by a hyphen). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display[edit]

Could this be a test page? The /Image-Display redirect held the text "hmm" before being redirected, and the other redirect has always been one. I don't see what use these pages serve. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete both - Not useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the talk pages which are valid subpages of the main article talk page. The article namespace pages were likely created to stop them being redlinks, but this is not required or particularly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Thryduulf, that's what I missed. That's clearly the purpose of these redirects, and I agree with your analysis. -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Randy Stockmaster[edit]

Delete. Non-notable principal of a non-notable elementary school that has been redirected to the school district per the norm for non-notable elementary schools. This was apparently part of a test case on lower level school articles. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#Rechallenging the right for any type of school to have its own article! and the school article redirect discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Springs Elementary School (Ohio). Meters (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Forgot to mention that this has zero page views in the last 90 days. Meters (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Danish cartoons (without pictures)[edit]

Delete, incorrect redirect without any edit history. I'm assuming there was a proposal for a separate article without the depictions of Muhammad? Whatever the case, there is consensus that some depictions are okay for the article, making this redirect inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete too vague and not a term used for the event like "Danish cartoon crisis". there's also a "Danish cartoons" redirect to the same page so this is an unnecessary disambiguation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vague and otherwise just not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. If someone was searching for this they would not be happy to end up at the target which features pictures of Danish cartoons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Thou shalt not make graven images, I believe is in the book of Moses or something, oh hang on that is the Christain old testament, and in the Talmud, and in the Koran... rather much depends on what you mean by graven image. It seems not to mean photo-engraving, or photogravura, for example, the nearest we get is lithograph, I think, gravura is too far away. Si Trew (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamic boycott[edit]

This can't be the only or most notable boycott involving Muslims and/or Islam. Do we have a better target for these redirects? -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. Let the search find possible articles as with Jewish boycott. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both - These are extremely vague. Numerous Muslim groups and individuals have called for boycotting a wide variety of things. It's like saying 'Human Boycott', 'Female Boycott', or 'Christian Boycott'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Way too vague even for a list article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A Cat[edit]

We don't have similar redirects for other pets. SSTflyer 10:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Noting that 'A cat' is red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • delete per CWM. The sailboat nickname seems generally to be hyphenated and after that there's no decent target. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete lots of PTMs for "A Cat". Best to let the search continue. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hyde Covered Bridgee[edit]

Delete as recent obvious typo. Correctly spelled redirect was created one minute later. Speedy tag removed. I wouldn't bother except misspelling shows up on dropdown in Search box. Station1 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Soyuz 2[edit]

The question is whether the redirect should point to the 1968 space mission or the rocket. Pinging JustinTime55, author of this edit retargeting the redirect to the mission.

This was made a rocket redirect following Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soyuz-2_(disambiguation) (before which pages were really a mess). The nom states the rocket is primary topic, but there was little discussion on that point.

FWIW, I am in the "rocket" camp. I do not really care either way about which is the primary topic, but I do think there should be consistency, and Soyuz 2 / Soyuz-2 should land (see what I did here?) on the same page, whether it is the rocket or the mission. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep The hatnotes lead me to believe that Soyuz 2 (no hyphen) refers to the 1968 mission while Soyuz-2, used in the 2000s, so obviously named after the original Soyuz missions, refers to the rocket. The original missions are all phrased without the hyphen (e.g. Soyuz 3, Soyuz 33), while the rockets are all hyphenated (e.g. Soyuz-2, Soyuz-2-1v). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC) updated 17:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that with the existing hatnotes, the issue about possibly landing on the wrong page can be remedied. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Baena[edit]

Bodybuilding competitions featuring arnold schwarzenegger[edit]

Is this a valid search term? SSTflyer 12:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete It's the only one of those search phrases for "bodybuilding competitions featuring (person)" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This seems worthless to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Thatcher is a disambiguation page. SSTflyer 12:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Write for Obama we know our RS (yes!)
Was he from Hawaii, do you have to guess *yes!)
The first non black man black man who ever was pres
And made it a roaring success (or didnt, depending on your point of view)
He is the guy whose old wife is a charmer
She wows all the folks saying hubby's Obama
Now she is the one that should be underdressed
The voters expect quite nothing less.... the voters expecks nothing less (or more, depending on your point of view).
Would that be a suitable opening intro, and suitably NPOV? Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Thatcher is a disambiguation page. SSTflyer 12:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no affinity to all caps. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    I find it much more likely than not that someone searching for "Thatcher" in all caps is looking for the prime minister. She motivated a lot of ill feeling, not that I make any argument either way. Per the lede at All caps: "Short strings of words in capital letters appear bolder and "louder" than mixed case, and this is sometimes referred to as "shouting"." Anyone shouting "THATCHER" (or "THATCHER!", for that matter) is certainly more likely than not looking for the prime minister. If this redirect (and the one above) is deleted, I think perhaps MAGGIE! or Maggie! should be created, given its use in the infamous socialist battle cry "Maggie Out" (i.e. Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Out! Out! Out!).--Nevéselbert 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I see your reasoning, User:Neve-selbert, but I disagree. People searching for Thatcher will just search for Thatcher. That their mobile phone doolalies capitalise it is because of this redirect, not because of them typing it that way. Or they are just lazy. What the real problem is is that Thatcher is a DAB and THATCHER is not. So we have things that vary in case, and that's always a tricky one. As a British person, I would say THATCHER was primary for Margaret Thatcher, it is not as if people are going to look for people who do thatching, though I know a couple of people who do exactly that (and one of them, his wife is called Margaret, which is another roll-your-eyes job as if that's the first time they ever heard that one), but that would be a WP:SURPRISE. I think best to take it to the DAB at Thatcher. Retarget to DAB per AngusWOOF as {{R from ambiguous page}}. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera[edit]

The article talks a lot about artists that influenced Xtina, but not vice-versa. SSTflyer 12:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment There's Christina Aguilera#Legacy that has a paragraph where it starts listing people she's influenced. But it's not a list like we'd expect for a list article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target is not a list of artists.... it is not a list... this is patent nonsense. Things that start "List of", by convention, are lists of things: another way to search as if we didn't have search portals, rfds, categories. This just ends up in a WP:SURPRISE as I am sure the nom had to find it is not a list of artists influenced by Crizzy Waters. Si Trew (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

List of unreleased Christina Aguilera songs[edit]

Article does not contain such a list. SSTflyer 12:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No such list exists, and I'm not sure if it would be notable enough to keep even if it did exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to note that we do have List_of_songs_recorded_by_Christina_Aguilera#B-sides_and_unreleased_songs, but that's fundamentally different given that B-sides are, by definition, songs that do see large-scale release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, and there's more B-sides: this is pretty much WP:FUTURE as the R. If they are released even as B sides, and I don't know what that means these days because i remember when you had to get up to your dansette and actually change it over to the B side, so it can't mean that any more, so it must mean "stuff to fill up the release" or something like that. By the way Funky Moped was a hit only because of it being on the B side, the A side the BBC refused to play, while at the same time employing its performer. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sheesh we don't have an article about Funky Moped. I better get on that. Performed by Jasper Carrott. Si Trew (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Kalvin Harries[edit]

Two typos, unlikely. SSTflyer 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO then. Exceptions could be made if the original artist name is difficult to spell. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible. Native English speakers aren't the only users of the English wikipedia, and to anyone who hasn't grown up in an English-majority country, Harries is just about as easy to spell as Qasymbek. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Calvin harris (band)[edit]

A person, not a band. SSTflyer 12:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no indication he has a steady band with the exact same name as the artist. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both - I also don't think that these are worth keeping. This isn't a situation like we have with Paul McCartney and Bruce Springsteen, say, who associate themselves with notable musicians and have bands connected deeply with their own individual fame. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Steinski & David Guetta[edit]

"Steinski" not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 12:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete until such a relation is established. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This was probably created from a red link in Herbal Blend, but the link was there as a result of vandalism a few months earlier. Peter James (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 12:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete fan group name. Reconsider if the article actually talks about them as with Deadhead.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Zeppelin, Led[edit]

A band, not a person. SSTflyer 12:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no such arrangement of a stage name or album name as such. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No, Led Zeppelin is not the name of an actual person. (I did grin and chuckle, though.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from wrong name}} and {{R from sort name}}. For those not familiar with the band, it's plausible that they might think it's refers to a person. Zeppelin is a surname after all. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, this does no harm that needs to be corrected. I don't know that it does much good, either, but that's not sufficient reason for deletion. (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar Knight an the IP. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect's existence could confuse readers who somehow look it up into believing that there is a person by this name. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Highly unlikely, as anyone following the link will be educated otherwise. It's no different to the (tens of?) thousands of redirects from incorrect names and misspellings that already exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Someone who is not familiar with the target subject (since there is always someone who is not familiar with something) may think otherwise. And just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't necessarily mean it's correct or helpful either. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it's discussions such as this one that may help determine if the status quo for similar things should remain. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

List of appearances by Carrie Underwood[edit]

Article does not contain a list of appearances. SSTflyer 12:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete vague. Appearances could mean in filmography or in concert. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Not a likely search term. SSTflyer 12:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete vague what appearances mean. Filmography? Concerts? And no such term where all the words are bunched together like that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This looks like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Disturbing the comfortable, comforting the disturbed[edit]

Huh? SSTflyer 12:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Huh? per nom. Err, I mean delete retarget per below (how could I miss that?). The sentence seems to be of biblical inspiration, but I could not find a song (or whatever) with that title. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Finley Peter Dunne#Legacy. It's one of many variants on a Dunne quote, riffed on by Banksy, Mary Karr and others (possibly including Slipknot). Dunne originally said that newspapers "comforted the afflicted, and afflicted the comfortable". Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Lights Tour 2010[edit]

Propose retargeting to Lights (Ellie Goulding album)#Tour. SSTflyer 12:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bonny Bear[edit]

Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Halcyon Tour[edit]

Retarget to The Halcyon Days Tour. SSTflyer 12:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @SSTflyer: WP:JUSTDOIT. Retarget proposals shouldn't be at RFD unless they're controversial, and I'm not seeing why this particular redirect would be. The proposed target was the original target, before a couple double redirect fixing bots moved it to the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. No other notable tours with Halcyon in it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Country Winston Marshall[edit]

Retarget to Winston Marshall or delete. SSTflyer 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Appears to be a nickname when he was with Mumford and Sons, but good enough to put in as either a credited alias (infobox) or the article itself. [18] [19] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC) updated 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No Phun Intended[edit]

Not mentioned in article, non-notable. SSTflyer 11:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Beliebers[edit]

Article does not contain any information related to Turkey. SSTflyer 11:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Port 25565[edit]

N Delete all, no significance or inbound links. Port 25565 was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port 25565 and redirected with results 2 redirect, 2 delete, 1 delete preferred but redirect OK, so may need to be discussed or reviewed more in-depth. (Port 25565 seems to be related to Minecraft. (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing Port 666, previously a merged article. (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Port 25565, with 233 pageviwes a day. Delete 53 port, Port 8333 and Port 1199, as they have virtually zero page views. "Port" is not usually put after the number; the Bitcoin one doesn't seem to be notable enough to attract views; and port 1199 is not mentioned at the target article. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ариана Гранде Бутера[edit]

Not a valid WP:FORRED. SSTflyer 11:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 11:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I've combined these into one item. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The very term alcoholism was rather WP:NEOLOGISM at the time, superseding words like "drunkard", but it has leant itself to chocoholism, shopoholism and various others. (the sign is not simply (-ism, but -oholism). WP:NOTDIC, although Wikt doesnt list it anyway. It is not as if this were melancholia or somesuch. This is just a madeup word really. As a regular supplier of empties to the Trade, I know quite a lot about both. Neither are pharma terms, so no chance of putting them there. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 11:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete redirects should not house fan group names when they are not mentioned in the article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY AngusWOOF (barksniff)
  • Delete - I don't think that this is particularly notable even among my fellow fans of the band, let alone the regular public. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Bay Area Metallibangers[edit]

Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 11:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete – Seems to be a hoax, barely any Google search results for the term. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete redirects should not house fan group names when they are not mentioned in the article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY AngusWOOF (barksniff)


No evidence this refers to the band. SSTflyer 11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created years ago, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. 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. There is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use."
  5. "Redirects are cheap. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
  6. If {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for templates, my redirect is also acceptable as it is. If not, it should be renamed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The allowance for short "Template:" namespace page names does not apply to the article namespace. In the article namespace, unless the name is a known name for the target, it is misleading to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not an abbreviation used by the band or by writers covering the band. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

State Chairman[edit]

Not the only meaning, see zh:國家主席 as it says it is the title of the head of state in socialist countries. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment, nope nope that;s no good. This is the English wikepedia. What would an english speaking audience expect to find from this? Not what a chinese audience would. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)*Change to disambiguation - it's not only used for national heads of state, it's also used in countries with federated states, for chairs of both government groups and large organizations at state level. Wikishovel (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as hopelessly vague, WP:RFD#D2 by WP:XY, Q.E.D. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SAITM : The Green Campus[edit]


Unused, seems to be in Estonian, this is the English Wikipedia - probably falls under the category of being an implausible redirect. FASTILY 04:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Love Yourself[edit]

October 18[edit]

Brian kelly album redirects[edit]

DELETE this redirect and all others like it. All of this nonsense is pure self-promotion. These redirects were once articles where deletion was denied. They should have been deleted right away. Main deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pools of Light Sn00per (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possible WP:TRAINWRECK. The AfD doesn't currently look like it will come to any strong conclusions, but it may do some of the work here for us.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Copyvios are not in the public domain. Also, {{copyvio}} is not the right way to claim that images violate copyright. Pppery 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Restore and mark as historical. It seems like these templates were the subject of a long debate back in 2006, as evidenced by the talk page at Template talk:PD-USSR as well the histories of the redirects. Seeing how many old talk page archives link to the relevant talk pages, we shouldn't be breaking these links, but instead providing the context for why those links existed in the first place. Mark them historical to avoid confusion and preserve the history of the debate. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or possibly restore since this is a particular case of wanting to preserve a bunch of discussions... although... I'm really not sure about this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore as historical - they are from very old wikitimes. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


I never thought I'd post here again since I have left Wikipedia a long time ago, but this needs to go. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In fact if I could speedy delete it I would, but I can't since the redirect is a decade old. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: WP:FORRED should become a CSD criterion, and WP:R3 should not be limited to "recently created" redirects. We've had this discussion for ages, and I feel like it has to be changed some time. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Champion started just such a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects_from_foreign_languages. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Not a dictionary" means that articles shouldn't be written to define words. I don't see any reason not to allow navigational aids based on foreign words. If the redirect causes ambiguity, that's different, of course. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have navigational aids based on foreign words. They are called Wikipedia:Interlanguage links: redirects are not a substitute for those. We have to assume some basic reader competence, e.g. that an Elbonian speaker will look up an Elbonian-language term at Elbonian Wikipedia. But even if they do look it up first at English Wikipedia, they are probably served just as well if not better by search results, especially because definitions of words seldom have a one-to-one mapping between languages, or that other WPs place different emphasis on what is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
The problem is not just one of ambiguity but how different languages organise their WPs; what they consider "primary" and so on. For example the common word "orange" in Hungarian is narancs for both the fruit and the colour. Now, as it happens, hu:narancs is not a DAB (there isn't one, nor an article about the colour) but an article which links to English en:Citrus_×_sinensis, because English has an article about the fruit and a separate one about the plant, but HU:WP doesn't. Let's suppose we had narancs in English Wikipedia to "make it easy" for Hungarians: should it go to Orange (fruit) or Citrus_×_sinensis or Orange (colour) or the DAB at orange which includes meanings like War of the Oranges (hu:Narancsok háborúja) or for that matter Magyar Narancs?
These problems are avoided by not having the redirects, per WP:XY, and letting search do it. And orange and narancs are cognates so making those decisions would probably be relatively easy compared to the general case. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: the term is mentioned among many others in the Etymology section of the target, but it is the only one to also have a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Variants of this term are discussed in the etymology section. I should also mention that the current target is actually Orange (fruit), and not the Orange disambiguation page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete They'll be better found via a search. In particular this is WP:RFD#D2 confusing because, pace User:Uanfala, the term is not actually at the target, but the etymology lists similar cognates such as Low German Apfelsine and Dutch appelsien. It also has a {{main|Orange (word)}} in the lede. Actually some examples are in the fruit article that are not in the word article, which is a bit weird; they should probably be moved over. (Narancs is in neither.) We don't need to invoke WP:NOTDIC here, but since there is explicitly no affinity to German (the words are not cognate) so it is even more baffling, it would be like redirecting not a cat to dog just because Baldrick defined it thus. Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment I've boldly changed it the target in the nom (I checked, the R has always directed to the fruit. No changes have been made to the target since this listing, either.) Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • delete - no English-language usage (as could have been with culture-specific terms like 'pierogi'). - üser:Altenmann >t 02:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hopper 7[edit]

Not mentioned in article. This was my first search result, this was the first result related to the article topic. SSTflyer 09:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Hopper 7 is an unlock able level in Killer 7. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not mentioned in article, people who do search for this would not be helped at all. If they don't know what this is, they will be disappointed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It's mentioned briefly at the bottom of Gameplay but seems to be just some name of a re-decorated level that is unlockable after completing other levels. It doesn't seem to be that notable, like the cow level. But I'd like to see news articles that cover the significance of this. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft China[edit]

Not the same topic, clearly misleading for Microsoft's operations in China are not restricted to MSN. We have Google China, for example, so WP:REDLINK delete. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that there is an entity called Google China. The nearest I can find is "Microsoft (China) Co., Ltd". Perhaps both should re-target to subsidiaries of Microsoft? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd rather that we just be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - delete as misleading. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindu Democrats[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else. BDD (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XY. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There appears to be no party containing both the words "Hindu" and "democrat" (or forms thereof) that I can find, although there is/was a proposal for one in Nepal it is nowhere near notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sports notability[edit]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE No. 6: Newly-created cross-namespace redirect to WP namespace. No reason an exception would be needed here. —Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:CHEAP I believe it is quicker and less work to just type in sports notability. This is especially useful to individuals who are new to wikipedia or new to this portion of wiki. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. The argument about cross-namespace redirects being useful for new users is a valid one, but it only really works for targets that will be of use for people who have not yet learned about namespaces. Specific notability criteria are at least one or two steps beyond that level. Arguments about being quicker and easier to type have generally been rejected in the past absent other reasons to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Donnold Trump[edit]

Implausible typo, for there is no such spelling variation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Typo-based redirects are often helpful, but I don't think that this specifically is useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What's next? Don Trump? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, Don Trump is his son. -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool, just like Ron Reagan. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Unlikely spelling, not plausible. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Rodman[edit]

Not a valid synonym, misleading as there are people with this name. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

H. Clinton[edit]

WP:XY There are multiple people that this can refer to, per the dab at Clinton. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Not a valid CamelCase redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not a searchable term. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States[edit]

Implausible search term, combination of two. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation. Someone typing in George W. Bush will get to the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This is somewhat plausible as an attempt to search specifically for the 43rd President of the United States as opposed to the 41st. The elder Bush is less often referred to by his middle initials, so a searcher may not know them. (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep' as harmless. It's not the most plausible search term, but it is neither incorrect nor ambiguous and (unlikely the edit summary used for creation I've just had to hide) it's not offensive or otherwise problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep' as harmless. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

2004 Republican Presidential Nominee[edit]

Why would anyone search for those terms, if not deleted, retarget to George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000. We don't have 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee, for example. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Barack Hussein[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_17#Hillary_Diane. This one has never had an RfD before but IDK why it is semi protected. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Red Reamer[edit]

The current target's alternate name and fictional race is called "Red Arremer". This redirect's spelling seems like too much of a misspelling to even be useful. Searches for "Red reamer" on search engines turn up mostly with results for the Detroit Red Wings for an unclear reason. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete typing in this term may make "Arremer" show up, but there's no evidence that Reamer is an official nickname. It would just take some published video game reviewers to indicate otherwise. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Give me roughly a week or so and I should be able to track down some sources that have this as a name that, at least in the past, was used in reliable sources. (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mayor Boris[edit]

Per this discussion on Boris (mayor), which had the same target and ended in delete. No one is using this and Johnson isn't the only notable mayor named Boris. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Nonsense redirect isn't very useful. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'd also get rid of this myself. Eh, humor is subjective. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't add any value. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Unused making useful Redirects are not useful. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete this could be a navbox for the Crank movies but only 2 produced so far so best leave it red linked AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could result in BLP violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Unused making useful Redirects are not useful. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not useful. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Looks like quite nonsense ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not useful. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Should this be deleted? This redirect is only used 4 times; these could be replaced with the destination. And TINJ would make more sense than TANJ; what's the "A" for? I suppose WP:NOTFAIR could be created, but I won't; this is just an essay and not a good one, IMO. Elvey(tc) 20:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as "There ain't no justice" is a bit more memorable than the current title. Nothing against creating WP:TINJUanfala (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. TANJ as an acronym for "There Ain't No Justice" is familiar to readers of Larry Niven as an invented expletive; we have a mainspace redirect TANJ pointing to Profanity in science fiction. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. --Elvey(tc) 00:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per JohnCD, it's a perfectly reasonable shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


N Delete because the target provides no information about SNMP Unix Multiplexer. I have not addressed the notability. (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's a bit of an WP:XY as there are all sorts of protocols that a multiplexer can be used for, and it's not one of the strongly associated ones like TDM or CDMA. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Spanish or French. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This isn't resume. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Icelandic. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lake Ozark, Texas[edit]

There is no such place. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:REDLINK at best (if the subject exists), per nom at worst (if the subject doesn't exist). Steel1943 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, there seems to be an "Ozark Lake, Texas", but Wikipedia currently doesn't even have the aforementioned link, Ozark Lake (Texas) or even Ozark Lake. Steel1943 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete per Steel1943. The lake isn't called Lake Ozark. The Ozark Lake is not a notable lake, even for List of lakes in Texas it is not mentioned. [20] Satellite pictures make it look like it's a dry lake. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be a lake in Texas (I got search results for the other one in a different state). Nothing to verify and the redirect has no use. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I couldn't find evidence of a place in Texas (all I got was Lake Ozark, Missouri), but I'm not ready to say that such a place doesn't exist. A couple articles do say otherwise, such as Claire Curran and Teryn Ashley. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


Not a valid abbreviation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I created this redirect. I searched for HDRC because her full name is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton and it's shorter to type than Hillary Clinton. I found no page and created the redirect. I don't understand why HDRC would be invalid — and even if it is invalid, what is the harm in having this redirect? --Gerrit CUTEDH 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Subject not known and/or notably known by this abbreviation. For this reason, this redirect borders on a being a misleading promotion for the target's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't imagine someone looking her up by this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Burden needs to be on the editor to produce evidence that such an initialization scheme is used. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Diane[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

WP:XY and WP:PTM. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP until there is ambiguity regarding this redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. More first and middle name usage that is supposed by the redirect creator rather than actual news sources or self-referencing. No regular usage of this as with Lisa Marie. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, her middle name is rarely used and I would see no practical reason to search this term. MB298 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Changing my stance to Keep after reading the previous discussion. MB298 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • How do you know that is what the reader is looking for, her common name is the name of the article, and I can't imagine why anyone will search for just this. Barack Hussein does not exist (my bad, nominated that one, didn't do WP:BEFORE). It is harmful in the way that it encourages creation of similar redirects such as Donald John etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Richard Helm[edit]

Sunni Wahabi relations[edit]

The article should be deleted per criteria 2 and 3 on WP:R#DELETE. Sufis and Salafis are two separate branches of Sunni Islam, yet the redirect here is clear POV pushing of the type which isn't new to Wikipedia. Wahhabism is another branch of Sunni Islam and is related to Salafism though technically different; it's opponents from Sufism charge that they're one and the same. By switching "Sufi" to "Sunni," the redirect implies that Wahhabism and Salafism are outside the fold of Sunni Islam - a common charge of heresy that Sunni Muslims hurl at each other for their inter-sectarian polemics. It's blatant exploitation of Wikipedia as a platform for sectarian POV pushing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Lauryn Hill[edit]

October 16[edit]

Stephanie Shaw[edit]

Non-notable victim redirected to aircraft accident page where they are not mention, similar redirects have been deleted in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Shawyer theory[edit]

There is no such theory; not a common name for the target article or any nouns in it. – SJ + 21:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep ((edit conflict) with User:BDD while moved from 5 to 6 Oct.) The article pretty much solely describes Roger Shawyer's inventions, proposals, and how and why they do or do not work. I think this is a reasonable search term. The noun "Shawyer" crops up a lot in that article, and there is an RS quote from a former director of "EADS Astrium, who stated: "I reviewed Roger’s work and concluded that both theory and experiment were fatally flawed". Yes, "theory" is pushing it a little, but seems to me a perfectly reasonable search term.Or are you arguing that because the theory is wrong it is not a theory? The infobox says the "Theory violation" is Conservation of momentum, Newton's Third Law. The fact that pretty much nobody believes the theory doesn't mean it ain't WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V. Some strange people don't even believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we still have an article abut Him. I note it was a double redirect via EmDrive which is piped, I think, in the article: back to itself. I've discussed this in the past and taken those kind of things as R3 or something but consensus is that only applies to a redirect literally to itself, not via a hop through another page. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • hang on... non-admin User:Tavix is relisting? I suppose nothing is in the rules to say a non-admin can't. Decorum is that usually admins relist. A non-admin can do the gnomework, for example referring us to the discussion from which it has ben hoist. I deign to Tavix, but if you're gonna do it, do it properly. I will sort out the mess on this hoist as non-admin. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal attack aside, anyone can and is encouraged to relist discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: If you didn't notice, I've also began to relist discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Fires of Avalon[edit]

Neither film is mentioned at the target; apparently these films are still in development. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Books were announced back in 2011. [21], and a film in 2013 [22] but nothing has indicated that he's completed anything worth reporting. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Earth X (film)[edit]

The target is not a film, nor are there any films mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Burkina Faso[edit]

This is a follow-up to a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 3#Women in Serbia, where consensus was to delete that redirect to encourage article creation. These redirects are also in the same mould, in that they redirect to a category when an article would be preferable. We already have some wonderfully developed articles on women in other countries, see Category:Women by country for some examples. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Articles can be created from there should someone want to provide the content. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Resource Location Protocol[edit]

N Delete as a confusing redirect. The mention of Resource Location Protocol is trivial in the target list, and prevents creating a red link if someone is interested to create an article on RLP. Thus, the page would redirect to itself (or I could not wikilink to Resource Location Protocol in the list at all). (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • No particular objection (as the creator of the redirect back in 2011), but if you think the protocol is notable enough to have its own article, you might as well change the redirect to a stub with some rudimentary information on it. Nick Number (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


  • DWeak Delete. No particular affinity for Austrian. This is the Hungarian name for Vienna. Yes, I am aware of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Austria-Hungary, but I still feel at English Wikipedia this is essentially WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Note Fwiw, the term is mentioned at the target. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The name is significant enough to be mentioned at the target, so it's significant enough to warrant a redirect. The connection with Austria-Hungary should also be enough to satisfy WP:RFOREIGN regardless. This isn't an unrelated language, it's one that's connected to Hungarian culture through decades of union. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm somewhat persuaded by the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Igen igen en tanulok, ertem. I stil stand and say tha since Becs and Bécs go to different things, for an english speaking audience to whom diacritical marks are basically fluffs in the wind, this makes no sense in Hungarian and no sense in English to have them go the same waz. Becs is an occurence of flatulence, by the way. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, User:Uanfala has made a pretty good DAB at Becs. I listed these seperately because my concerns were slughtly different, but with that DAB, I think we can safely {{R to DAB}} with this one. I hesitate to say withdrawn, because the last time I did, within two seconds it was a (non-admin closure) for withdrawn, I am quite happy to withdraw the nom if we have WP:CONSENSUS to take it to the DAB. We're close, but no cigar, yet. I could and perhaps should have listed them together but deliberately kept them separate because of the accent. Not important in english, extremely important in Hungarian. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Weak delete. The article does not mention "Becs", although the references (but not the article itself) mention "BECS, which also redirects to this target. I can see the reason for keeping the caps "BECS", but I think "Becs" might be pushing it a bit. I was half-expecting it to go to Vienna (and it would be wrong, in my opinion if it did, but that's why I was checking it: because "Bécs" is the Hungarian for Vienna. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Dabify: I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing that, USer:Uanfala. I've ce'd the dab because what a DAB should do is give just enough information to disambiguify. e.g. we don't need to say that Vienna is in Austria, so I cut Austria. We just have to say it is Vienna. Have a glance over, o wise one, but I am pretty happy that Dabify is the way to go on this one. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Delete. This was redirected because of an AFD discussion; one person expressed the opinion that this would be a valuable redirect, and the closer (non-admin) went with that option even though all of the other participants in the discussion supported a straight delete. The problem is that the target article contains no information about VF2477 specifically -- it just contains an extremely general overview of the concept of VF stations, while containing no identifying information whatsoever about this VF station. All other VF stations that have come up at AFD recently were simply deleted (or redirected to their specific programming source if they were relay transmitters rather than originators of their own distinct programming), and there's no particular reason why this one would need special treatment as the only one that redirects to a general concept article. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

October 15[edit]


This redirect is unnecessary, a topic for wiktionary, not wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a Neelix redirect. An IP retargeted this to desirability, which has now been deleted. I've retargeted it back to desire. -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Better to just let people search around the various uses of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

IFA Arabic[edit]

It is unclear what "IFA" refers to in this situation as the target makes no mention of it and IFA is a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - This may have some reference to an obscure bit of religious history (discussed here). Yet that's merely a guess. I'd rather we just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Arabische Hochsprache[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Arabic has no affinity with the German language. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Retarget to Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. Fairly recent creation, not quite a year old. A very small portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, addresses CamelCase, while Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia is entirely about it. MOS:CAMELCASE would still redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I appreciate the argument, but the fact that your proposed target is both and about (pretty old) historical practices makes me disinclined to co-opt an existing redirect for it. I also think it's generally desirable to have equivalent MOS: and WP: redirects point to the same place when practical. Maybe worth a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the only pages which this is linked to clearly intend the present target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Champion: I'm not too concerned about three links. I currently see six in total, half of which are related to this nomination. As this is such an obscure synonym for the current target (MOS:TM making much more sense), I doubt it has been used extensively in edit summaries.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: You may already know this, but the incoming links tool doesn't count the links that are present in edit histories and deletion logs. So, it would be very difficult to list a numeric amount of those. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom as a more obvious target. Pppery 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD's reasoning, and hatnote to the proposed target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Rest of the world[edit]

List of politicians[edit]

Who would search for this? This seems like a bad idea, even a list of lists of politicians is a bad idea considering how many hugely long articles that would result in. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a plausible search term; if we had List of lists of politicians that would be a more appropriate target, but there's no real equivalent at List of lists of lists#Government and politics (the nearest is Lists of office-holders, but that doesn't include unsuccessful politicians). These redirects are a service to the reader; it's better they land on the Politician page (which may not be what they're looking for, but is likely to contain links to what the reader is looking for) than just to get a blank screen with a 'You may create the page "List of politicians"' message. ("Hugely long article" isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided there's a sensible reason for the list to be a single hugely long sortable list rather than being split; take a look at List of townlands of County Mayo some time.) ‑ Iridescent 09:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
We could, but that would be an WP:XNR. I wouldn't be against it on that principle, because to me categories and articles and redirects are all in reader facing space. So in principle I would say, yes, we could. In practice because that category is such a broad category, I am not sure it would be helpful to readers thus to do, there are only two pages in that category, Politician and Hereditary politicians. So as a navigational tool it doesn't seem to make sense to me thus to redirect this one, but in principle yes I think we should R to a category when it makes sense. but Delete this one, this one doesn't make sense to XNR that way, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


No affinity for Italian. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Penguin Hugger[edit]

Term is not mentioned at target, and most usage of this term refer to obscure non notable topics anyway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Actually this made me smile and I would love to keep it and I shall use it in my real life as a software engineer from now on.... but this is not referenced and not mentioned at the target, so Champion is quite right, from a WP point of view, it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Combat Service Support[edit]

Combat Service Support is NOT an exclusive American type of sport. At least in Canada (33 Service Battalion) and the United Kingdom (Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Dental Corps, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps there are combat support units. The Banner talk 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm adding a hatnote to help things. You can discuss whether to redirect over topic? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation page perhaps? Or else a list to tell you what combat support units there are? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I guess every option will be better than this incorrect redirect. The Banner talk 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that this is the sort of thing that deserves a conceptual article (discussing how supply structures work to provide medical resources and the like to combatants, behind the scenes) rather than just a list of particular examples. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with The Banner that this is not US specific. I came here from a UK oriented defence blog where someone was talking about Combat Support and Combat Service Support and I wanted to refresh in my mind what sort of units went into which category. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been thinking of this one for a while but had no better suggestion to make. User:The Banner said "combat support units". That gives me a clue, because we don't have combat support unit. If we haven't that, I don't think we should say this. But it is probably worth pinging WP:MILHIST and asking their opinion, I'll leave a message on their talk page referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Done that, I got a bit distracted about flying tanks, but hadn't Centre of inertia, we now do, we did have Center of inertia. Both go to Center of mass. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Combat service support as a concept exists across the NATO and ABCA spectrum, not just as a US Army construct. It essentially relates to logistical and medical support for combat elements. For instance, the Australian Army has several combat service support battalions: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th ,11th, 13th etc. [23] These units provide second line logistical support (ordnance, supply, transport, maintenance, etc) to combat units, specifically at brigade level). Note that within the Australian Army, medical support now exists outside of the CSSB construct, and is essentially a CSS element controlled at divisional or command level, which is pushed down to brigade level on the basis of need. Additionally, the concept of combat service support differs from combat support. For instance, combat support units might provide offensive fire support (e.g. artillery or attack aviation), or counter mobility or mobility support (e.g. combat engineers) direct to combat units (infantry or armour), whereas combat service support units provide logistical (e.g. transport, maintenance or catering units) or medical support to combat units etc. As intimated earlier, CSS can be provided at various levels also: first line (integral to a combat unit), second line (at a combat brigade level), or third level (divisional or higher). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Boris (British politician)[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term, it's also misleading as it implies Boris Johnson is known mononymously, which isn't the case as far as I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Boris is definitely known mononymously in London and in the press, Private Eye always just calls him "Boris" and Ian Hislop will do so on Have I Got News For You, to a British English audience "Boris" on its own pretty much always means Boris Johnson. However, it's still rather a weird and unnecessary disambiguation. There are probably other British politicians called Boris, although I can't seem to find any. (I found this about ex-apc councillor Hon. Boris Neenwi, but that is neither notable nor British). We don't have Maggie (British politician) even though for a decade or three Margaret Thatcher was generally referred to coloquially just as "Maggie" (or Milk Snatcher for a while). We don't have Boris (Russian politician). We just don't disambiguate this way. Both are at the DAB at Boris. Just not needed. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since Boris is often referred to mononymously. Unless there's another prominent British mayor politician (EDITED 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)) named Boris, there's no problem with this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Someone wanting to find "[[[:Mayor Boris]]" or whatever is going to search for "Boris (British politician)"? I think you are conflating "mayor" with "British politician" here.; perhaps you put your "mayor" rationale in the wrong nomination. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Under its original title of Boris (politician) it made a certain sense, as he is regularly referred to solely by his first name and it's conceivable that someone seeing a "Boris to meet with insert local dignitary" headline might want to see who 'Boris' is (although I very much doubt anyone in Europe over the age of five could fail to be aware of who he is). However, nobody is ever going to search on "Boris (British politician)", and if they really need to I'm sure they can Google the name. ‑ Iridescent 09:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - While he is indeed known as just "Boris" in a lot of publications as well as among regular people, I still don't see this as particularly helpful. If people just searched his name as well as a bit of related words, they'd go right to his related page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


(neelix redirect) Not sure0. The article always uses "Biy" as plural, so to make it "Biys" would be over-egging the pudding, I think, but I am not an expert on Kazakh language.. Si Trew (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete All I could find were misspellings of "boys" and people's usernames on various social media. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Oops, I thought it was Blys. Plural is okay here. [24] I don't understand the more recent slang usage though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Delete. (neelix redirect) I don't know why but this was up for Categories for Deletion. I still can't fathom that yet, but it's a neelix redirect, it really was never a category, I don't know why it would have been t thus tagged. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete: agreed, this doesn't seem a necessary redirect. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The greater question is whether Wikipedia should have redirects for NORAD ID and ADC IDs. WP:NOTDIRECTORY These aren't that useful but could be considered if they have some notability by those code names. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


(Neelix redirects). Only in the infobox, not in article elsewhise. Nobody seems to be clearing per WP:X1, that didn't work too well as intended because at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4 there are 145 by User:Tazerdadog and 95 by me. So patently simply to list them at the Anomie list and expect them to be cleared, rather than clutter up RfD with them all, is not working. Perhaps the admins got bored. I certainly do. These aren't on the backlog there for X1, but Delete all.Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete all: agreed, these redirects seem unlikely and unnecessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete do we need redirects for every ADC ID and NORAD ID? They aren't common codes as with airport codes, or notable areas as with Area 51? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 14[edit]

Pizza Hut Bulgaria[edit]


John (Apostle)[edit]

'Delete. WP:RFD#D8, novel or obscure synonym. Very novel, because it was only created today by User:Tavix. It only exists because I mentioned its non-existence when discussing Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_14#John (Baptist). It would not otherwise exist, it would not have been created by anyone except for my mention there that it did not exist as an apposition in my reasoning at that discussion. I was not expecting it then to be created: had I wished that, I would have done that myself. I note that Matthew (Apostle), Mark (Apostle), Luke (Apostle) and even Paul (Apostle) are also red as I write, but I imagine will become blue shortly hereafter. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as obviously helpful for someone isn't sure how Wikipedia is disambiuating the article for the Apostle John. The fact that other redirects are also red is irrelevant because they can just as easily be created. I created this one simply because I didn't want to forget to create it once the other discussion is closed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's the point Tavix. I said and other editors have agreed, that since "The Baptist" or "The Apostle" are already disambiguators, we don't need Wikipedia's way of disambiguating them, they are already disambiguated. "The Baptist" is so you don't confuse that John with "The Apostle", that John. They already disambiguate. What are you going to do, write "The gospel according to St. John (Apostle)". Of course you're not. To disambiguate things which are already in real life disambiguated is pure nonsense, it is just silly to do that. I have come here with clean hands, I have said who created it, said why I disagree with it. I didn't go round the back and create a redirect while a discussion about the very thing was open. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not everyone knows how this article is disambiguated, so the redirect is useful for those who think it is parenthetically disambiguated. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, Tavix, I entirely disagree. I know and you know that we disambiguate things with parentheses. The Bible doesn't. A reader who is searching for John the Baptist is probably going to search for "John the Baptist". Exactly because they don't know that Wikipedia disambiguates Johns in some way that is peculiar to Wikipedia, an intelligent but ignorant reader is not going to think Hmmm, Wikipedia uses parentheses in disambiguations so I'll try "John (Baptist)". No, they won't, they'll seach for John the Baptist. They might search for john the baptist. But they won't search for John (Baptist). Editors know how we disambiguate, but the vast majority of readers are not editors. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Plausible way for people to search, given how we disambiguate (i.e. "common name (job)").---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. So Matthew (Apostle), Mark (Apostle), Luke (Apostle) are OK then? People seem to manage fine without those. Lookit I set out my stance fairly clearly time and again: I am not a deletionist by nature, but these do not help but harm a search. I know by listing those three which now I shall have to put in bold because another regular here, User:Tavix has twice in seven days shown his tendency to create the redirects I am arguing are red, trying to queer my pitch, those ARE RED at the moment. What good would come if we created them> Would they help or harm search? That is the question to answer. This is absolutely as I said, nobody was inhibited by searching this way until this very redirect was created by User:Tavix when I specifically said it was red, in an argument about what kind of redirects do we keep. If Tavix is some kind of creeping Neelix, surreptitiously creating redirects any time one is mentioned, I think it should be WP:X1 frankly. Don't create redirects when they are under discussion and exemplified by me for being red as an example of why things are red. That's just downright idiocy. Expect Matthew mark and Luke to go blue soon. Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly support creation of all of these. As for their utility (or lack thereof), we won't know until we let these redirects exist for a while and get pageviews data. Before that we simply don't know if their lack of existence inhibited anyone's searches. Anyone is allowed to create redirects in good faith, and anyone is allowed to nominate them for RfD in good faith. Calling someone else's good faith edits "downright idiocy" is a personal attack, especially when it was clear that their motive was to create a redirect that they believed was beneficial to the project.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Rama IX Bhumibol Adulyadej)[edit]

Queen of Falkland Islands[edit]

Elizabeth II Queen of Great Britain[edit]


WP:FORRED. Turkey may be a place with a lot of archaeological activity, but that doesn't mean any archaeological term has affinity for Turkish. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete all. Something's iffy here, User:BDD. tr:Höyük is linked over to en:Mound. But at the Turkish article, none of the other spellings are mentioned, but Hüyük, Öyük and Üyük are in the first sentence. Tell (archaelogy) does not link to tr:Höyük in its iw links, but that's probably because of something I have been grumbling about for years, that the Wikidata requires a 1:1 mapping. Actually tumulus would be a better IW link than mound, where it goes currently. But that's by the by-pass, I think these should all be deleted, but we need to do a bit of tidying up with the IW links, which is not really in the remit of RfD but I will do it. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Right, I get the Huyuk and Hüyük. I've listed separately for the latter, because that's an R that doesn't need to be. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Retarget Huyuk to Hüyük, Konya Hüyük as {{R from title without diacritics}}. No opinion on the others. Pppery 23:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've taken as suggested by User:Pppery to reverse the redirect at Hüyük. Until that is sorted I don't think we can say more about that one. Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first three to Hüyük. Höyük is an alternative name for Hüyük and the other two are simply {{R without diacritics}}. Delete Hoeyuek and Hueyuek. Eubot rather infamously applied the Germanic ö → oe standard to all languages, including those that don't use that transliteration. AFAICT, Turkish is not a language where that applies, and should be deleted as nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first three, Delete the fourth, per Tavix. User: Andy M. Wang did the move over i.e. essentially reversal of the redirect, per my request: thanks for that, and sorry for asking initially at the wrong forum (i.e. here at RfD) but I wasn't sure what the right forum was. Si Trew (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I support retargeting the first three as suggested above. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Hüyük. Some sources do use the last spelling as a transliteration. [25], [26] [27].---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Patar knight. BTW @Tavix, SimonTrew, Patar knight, and BDD:, while we're at it, it might be worth proposing a mass deletion for Eubot redirects, you know, kinda like the "Neelix case". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

John (Baptist)[edit]

Er Duo Yan Zha Gao[edit]

Modern Australia[edit]

Recep tayyip[edit]



Microsoft Windows Microsoft Vista[edit]

October 13[edit]

Erdogan fried rice cake[edit]

Trump tape controvery[edit]

Comparison of C[edit]

The Aardvarks (Michigan band)[edit]

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council[edit]

Apple pen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 22

Raffaele Sollecito[edit]

Amanda Knox s[edit]

St. Hans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 21#St. Hans

John in Islam[edit]

Is this the only John in the religion? SSTflyer 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are several Johns even in the Crhistian Bible, so "The Baptist" is essentially a disambiguator. I'm not very Christan, but I think two of Jusus' extended disciples were called John. I think this is fine, it goes to the section which relates the Quran to the Bible so I think we have no problems there. I think this is fine, tho' I understand the concern. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I'ce added the existing section target to the nom, I have marked the R as {{R to section}} and placed a comment it at the target per WP:RSECT. I emphasise, this is without prejudice to this discussion. I do that even if they end up delete. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - This appears to be the most notable 'John' in the specific context of the Koran, although I'm not sure. I lean to keeping things as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, with more thought, I think I also support creating a page to disambiguate the results. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'd prefer deletion over disambiguation since it doesn't seem like a likely search term to me. Disambiguation is preferable over the status quo, however, so it could be a useful compromise/no consensus solution. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is nothing to disambiguate, as no other John's are mentioned in the Quran. The article fails to mention that according to Muslim tradition the head of John the Baptist is burried in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. The alternative would be to redirect to Yahya or Yahya (name). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per PatarKnight, pace Tavix. While that is WP:NOTPERFECT, I think it's better. I can see that deleting it would give people a better chance to find tge Apostle themselves through a search, but that they are both in sections ("Islam" and "Islamic View") probably would make the search rather clumsy, so the DAB will act as a good "hint" both to the search engine and to the reader searching. User:SSTflyers question in the nomination, "Is this the only John in the religion?" is no, as we see. I think there are a couple of others but fairly minor characters with walk-on parts. Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have John (Baptist) but not John (Apostle). I don't think we should have the first, will nom separately. I must admit I always thought that Matthew Mark Luke and John, well I never gave it much thought, really, pretty obviously he wa John the Apostle but I never really thought about it when I was being fed baby food with apostle spoons. They weren't as posh as the ones at the article, though, just a bit of sheffield steel, I think. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_14#John (Baptist). q.v. Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yum Chums[edit][edit]


Not mentioned in target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I am pretty bloody sure Hungarian KFC uses that. We don't go there much, it's a treat for us, cos it's bloody pricey (bizarrely it is more pricey than a proper restaurant, but "treats" are like that aren't they). I think they are called this in French as well. Same as above, I will check. Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. A quick search confirms it. Francises in Romania, Armenia, and Hungary, among others, go under the name "Rostix KFC". We do not have Rostix KFC and I am not sure we could say much if we did, beyond it is a brand name and franchise. Thus Delete, no use to an English-speaking audience, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not at target,, WP:RFD#D3 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This doesn't seem to be helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to KFC#Europe and add a statement about how KFC merged with Rostik's, which had 164 stores at the time of the merge. Otherwise wait until KFC adds a section in Europe about merging Rostik's as per this article. [37] [38] [39] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I noticed above I wrote "Rostix KFC" letter X not "Rostiks KFC". Now I am wondering which term I searched for, even though AngusWOOF has essentially confirmed what I said. Rostix is red so I probably for some reason substituted "x" for "ks" but that is not something I would usually do, so I am doubting myself now. Perhaps I was hypercorrecting, because of the apostrophe S wouldn't be used that way in Hungarian native words (it would be Rostiki), or something like that, as the possessive noun but frequently is found on loanwords, usually without the apostrophe.(Even in English we're losing the apostrophe, e.g Sainsburys, Lloyds Bank have officially dropped the apostrophe). Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
If the redirect stays, then the apostrophe and non-apostrophe versions can both be redirected to the same place. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Kitchen fresh chicken[edit]

Poulet Frit Kentucky[edit]

Team Gulp[edit]


WP:R4 LOL. Anyway, no affinity for these languages. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ohhh, sore loser :) Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, and WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Dutch I imagine for the first and French for the second, but "ij" and "ien" even just on their own are not present at the target. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both - Not worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Typos that will distract from the proper spelling in searches. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Australija as a plausible misspelling ("j"s are pronounced like "y"s in many languages) which gets a hit a day. Retarget Australien to Australian as a plausible typo which gets 10 hits a day. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Australija, this doesn't seem quite plausible enough to me. Retarget Australien to Australian per Patar knight. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lareal Watt[edit]


Text editor support[edit]


Delete. Barbarity rarely these days means things the Barbarians did, it just means any violent act we happen not to like. WP:NOTDIC. This is not marked as {{R from noun}} or any such, but it sends people astray. People wanting to know about "Barbarities" probably do not want to know about "Barbarians". Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as with barbaric. Still used a lot in news articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


While literally this refers to Barbarians, its use is mostly in style guides. e.g. Orwell's Six Rules the last is "break any of these rules rather than write something outright barbarous", (a bit WP:IAR before his time old George) so I think this is an odd place to put it. Retarget to Barbarism (linguistics). Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as with barbaric. It's not really connected to the linguistics meaning. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindi version[edit]