Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

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

Reasons for deleting[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. stats.grok.se 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]

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

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

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

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

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

Contents

Current list[edit]

September 29[edit]

Guinea-Bissau/People[edit]

Delete, I think. This is not how we usually do these things, but we don't have Guinea-Bissau people; the correct redirect by the way we usually do things is Bissau-Guinean people (sic) -> Demographics of Guinea-Bissau. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Largetongue orchids[edit]

(neelix redirects) Removed from User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#X1 by User:Tazerdadog at Neelix list,m without prejudice to RfD (according to edit summary). They're not called this with these forms of punctuation or capitalisation, the common name is the Large Tongue Orchid not the Large-Tongue Orchid or largetongue orchid or whatever, these are too far away. Delete all. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep All. Reasonable spelling alternatives and search terms. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Reasonable {{R from incorrect spelling}}s that are not at the target and the search engine will find the article quite happily without them. Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all - reasonable search terms. These seem more plausible than a common typo. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Centum Investment[edit]

Not a Neelix redirect. This is on the list at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#Section 25 but is not a Neelix redirect, it is an {{R from page move}} to Centum Investments on 8 June 2016 by User:Fsmatovu. I'd already moved [[:Centum Investment Company Limited]] to there on 18 May 2016, according to my edit summary at Centum Investments, but that's not in the Co Ltd redirect's history, which has one entry that it was created on 23 June 2016 by User:Zotezangu. None of these has Neelix' thumbprint on them so I am going to remove it from the Neelix list, but I am at a bit of a loss to what's gone on here, as we've lost any sensible history. I guess things have been deleted and recreated at the same titles? Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to know what exactly happened here. If there are a lot of non-Neelix redirects polluting the list, then we have a problem. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There won't be many. They're just quite likely to be related to me in some way if there are any, just because I've probably trogged through the Anomie lists more than most other editors have. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, no rationale given for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Herbs of spiritual potency[edit]

(neelix redirects) I have taken many others such as Divine mushrooms speedily kept and rcatted as {{R from other name}}, {{R to section}} and where appropriate {{R from plural}}: all are well documented in the section. However these plurals are not documented and I think are pushing it a bit far. Obviously as English plurals these are fine, but it's a push to form the English plurals from singular translations of Chinese names; there's nothing really wrong with them except someone might reasonably sarch for "Herb of spiritual potency" if they have read that somewhere, but it is rather unlikely they will search for "Herbs of spiritual potency". Weakly delete all. Stats 0 or 1 in thirty days, well below noise level; no internal links for any except this discussion and the Neelix list. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete All (including Divine mushrooms and others). Neelix nonsense. Varied and sundry informal very approximate English translations from an Asian language for rough informational purposes absolutely do not equate to the proper designation of that entity, and the phrases absolutely should not be coopted simply because Neelix was messing around with words. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Things like Divine mushroom are individually referenced at the target, and I am AGF assuming those are RS. So, I think it's reasonable (if unnecessary) to have plurals for those RS entries. e.g. the one for Divine Mushroom:
Hu, Shiu-ying (2006), Food plants of China, Chinese University Press.
It's still pushing it a bit, I agree, to pluralise it, but we might as well work from the outside in and decide if the more egregious plurals should be deleted, first. Si Trew (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all -I can't imagine that these are plausible search terms or alternative names. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Historian of life[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_29#Life_historian, nominated by me, where the consensus was to take Life historian to Life history (sociology). I did not at that time list these other variations (probably just forgot), all are/were Neelix redirects, and I imagine should be speedily retargeted the same way: I am not quite confident enough to do so boldly, especially for the "Historian(s) of life". Regulars User:Patar knight and User:CoffeeWithMarkets contributed to the previous discussion; I did not, beyond nominating, I probably got distracted. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I would indeed retarget "Life historians" over, but the other two look like the sort of thing that I'd rather us just delete. "Historians of life" seems like something that one would haphazardly pluck out of a larger sentence with a larger context (like the snippet "historians of life under the Nazis." used here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete All. No such animals. Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Lunged[edit]

(neelix redirect). I think this can be 'Deleted as WP:XY as it could go either to the existing target, Lung (i.e. something that has lungs is lunged), or as {{R from verb}} to Lunge, a DAB. Not sure enough to be bold about it, though. We don't have lunged animal or anything I could find like that, but I'm no biologist. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd retarget to lunge, as lunge_d seems much more common to me than lung_ed. I've never heard an animal described as lung_ed, but lunge_d is a reasonably common term. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd also retarget to 'Lunge' since, even though something being described as 'lunged' in the sense of 'has a lung, surprisingly' does happen (such as with analysis of lunged fish), I think the primary use of the term is otherwise. We can alter 'Lunge' if we want too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bobi Healey[edit]

There's no evidence that any of the people at the disambiguation were known as "Bobi" or "Bobbie". -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As with the prev. nomination, Bobbi is a feminine spelling, not a masculine one, and there's no indication that any of the Robert Healys are nicknamed even "Bobby". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Bobbi is a feminine spelling, not a masculine one, and there's no indication that any of the Robert Healeys are nicknamed even "Bobby". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


  • @Clarityfiend: I was going to WP:BOLDLY bundle all of these together, but then I thought I'd ask you first. Do you have any objection to this? -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: @Clarityfiend: I've not wholly recombined them but WP:BOLDly moved the relisting of "#Sentence logic" that split these from the two immediately below. I'm certainly happy to combine them, but at least it's easier to navigate if they are visually grouped, even if in different sections (for now). Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: @Clarityfiend: @SimonTrew: I went ahead and combined them. Anyone should feel especially free to revert if this is undesired. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me. My, my, my. There sure were more of those critters in the woodwork. (Bobi?) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Although not listed [as of this writing] among the entries at the Robert Healy disambiguation page, Bobby Healy (video game developer) should be eligible for listing as a WP:DABLINK from the List of ZX Spectrum games in the same manner as the redlinked Bob Healey (boxer) is DABLINKed from the Percy Vear article at the Robert Healey disambiguation page. The parenthetical qualifiers for the specific Bobby Healy and Bob Healey may be considered as placeholders so that the names "Bobby" and "Bob" can serve as redirects to the Robert dab pages, but, if their biographical entries were to be created, each would be the sole "Bobby" and "Bob" upon his respective dab page. The other solution in regard to their current appearance, would be to list these two names with a brief description, but without redlinks or qualifiers and allow their respective blue links to serve as guides. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Delete - No notable individual known as "Bobbi Healey" appears to exist, and that first name indeed wasn't used by the notable Robert Healeys that we detail. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sentence logic[edit]

No evidence in the article that propositional calculus is called sentence logic; the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE says it is called sentential logic (which I have marked as {{R from other name}} as part of my rambling contribution to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_20#Sentential). We do not have proposition calculus or proposition logic. Added for completeness as the result of this will probably fall out of the result of that more-general discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommending to delete one redirect to create another just puts you out of the frying pan, into the fire. See Fowler (Modern English Usage), 2nd edition preferably. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Sentential logic is the logic of sentences, for one narrow meaning of "sentence" - and if there's one point of agreement in that other discussion it's that "sentential" is not a common word. It's somewhat plausible that this could come up as a mistaken search term. On the other hand, "sentence logic" might also be a plausible search term for grammar, which would argue against the current situation. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Sentential logic is certainly that, but sentence logic is not. "Sentential logic" is a specific term that may go to Formal grammar or to Sentence (linguistics) or be better deleted so that readers have a chance to decide for themselves (per WP:XY). Sentential logic is not just the logic of sentences. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - As much as I don't like this awkward wording, I'm seeing it used in a variety of books that look like reliable sources (such as this example here and also this). There's somewhat of a reasonable chance that someone will come across this term and search it here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:XY. There are just two many fields of science where this term could be used, for example those enumerated in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of (Formal language theory), which also has a nice diagram of a sentence right at the top of the article. Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Government conspiracy[edit]

Is there a good place for these redirects? The current target is a dab, and it doesn't list any government conspiracies. List of political conspiracies is close, but I'm afraid it's not close enough, because (to me) "government conspiracies" imply conspiracies by a government, while the list seems to be a list of coups. Unless there's a good retargeting suggestion, I think a WP:REDLINK deletion might be best, because I feel this might be a notable subject. -- Tavix (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete both. I agree with Tavix, the implication is that the conspiracy is by a government and not, e.g., by a political party that happens to be in government). That is, by the government admistration (e.g. Sir Humphrey) and not by the executive (Jim Hacker). Was the Watergate scandal a government conspiracy or a political conspiracy or both? It depends on one's WP:POV, probably. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Voltron?[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Per external search engines, the root of this phrase seems to have some sort of comment with original research trying to claim that the subject of the redirect's target happened in the Voltron universe. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yoshida Medical Research[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, the page history of this redirect seems to be a copy-paste move from a Wikia site. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Octaboon[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in target article. Also, search results for the redirect in external search engines seem to not return any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Monster/Cloverfield (creature)[edit]

These redirects seem so unlikely and so vague that it doesn't seem helpful, considering that the redirects start with "The Monster" (The redirects' target or any subtopics of the redirects' target are not listed in the disambiguation page The Monster.) Also, the redirects do not have any history to retain since they only contains redirects and retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Clover (creature) exists, but in my opinion, retargeting there would not resolve the issue with the redirects starting with "The Monster" as stated in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Political neologism[edit]

No words starting with "politic" are present in the target article. For this reason, the target article does not define what the subject of the redirect, which causes confusion for readers being misled to this article attempting to find a definition for the term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I note that political jargon goes to politics (equally unhelpfully). It is the political nature of the neologism, not its novelty, that is the important part of the phrase – if indeed "political neologism" is not itself a neologism. We do have Category:Political neologisms, whose lede states "Nearly all political terms were political neologisms at some point" (which is rather tautological anyway).
But we do have List of political catchphrases (<- Political catchphrases) and List of political slogans (<- Political slogan and Political slogans), either of which is perhaps possible (the first links to the second in the lede, but the second does not link to the first anywhere). Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational neologism[edit]

The word "rational" is not present in the target article. For this reason, the target article does not define what the subject of the redirect, which causes confusion for readers being misled to this article attempting to find a definition for the term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete - This should be a redlink unless actual content about it is added to the neologism article. Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward (slogan)[edit]

Subject of redirect is not mentioned at target. The subject of the redirect seems to be an example of the target's subject, but the subject of the redirect's target is not exclusive to the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Moving forward with no disambiguation is red, although Moving Forward with the caps F is an album. Moving forwards and Moving Forwards are red. As a slogan, it would be better if anything to redirect it to a person or organisation that uses the slogan (and I can imagine many have), rather than just "neologism". Moving on... Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User Account[edit]

Delete User Account. Both User Account and User account are redirects to same article. Former has 0 usages, latter has ~59 usages. No need to have two redirects that differ only in letter case. Sasha1024 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. User account in an {{R to section}} at User (computing)#User account; this one isn't. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both (but neutral on target): Capitalization differences that matter by first letters of the word are WP:CHEAP. (I have no opinion about the target per Si Trew's observation of the two redirects having different targets, but I do agree that they should both target the same location.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added and merged User account into this nomination. The nominator's original statement refers to User Account. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both, refine the first to section "User account" and rcat as {{R to section}}, {{R from other capitalization}}. There's 39 links for User account in mainspace. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Question. Sorry for possibly-stupid question, but what is the sense of redirects from other capitalization, if searching using the Go or Search button is, generally speaking, case-insensitive? I understand that extra redirects don't harm. But do they have any bits of usefulness at all? Sasha1024 (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per Si Trew, directs users to what they are looking for. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wordcoinage[edit]

(neelix redirect). Delete as a, um, a WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Identic[edit]

(neelix redirect) Delete, I think. Dictionaries basically define it as a synonym of identical, which is a DAB... so we could redirect it there as a {{R from adjective}}, but I am not sure, considering the entries there, that it would make sense to do so... Identity (disambiguation) is possible, too. Si Trew (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sojourned[edit]

(Neelix redirects) Not sure. Both Sojourn and Sojourner are DABs each with a brief one-liner in the lede saying what a sojourn(er) is, before listing albums and so forth of that name, so they don't seem like good targets. As these stand, they are probably just WP:DICDEF and WP:RFD#D2 confusing: Neither "sojourn" nor any derivative is at the current target. The current target itself is tather vague and brief, and its content probably covered by another article, but none of hotel, boarding house, rented accommodation (-> Housing tenure) etc. seem quite to fit, anyway "lodging" in the sense at the target has little to do with sojourning as it describes the place of stay, not the stay itself. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hectographer[edit]

Rametic[edit]

(neelix redirect) Delete. I have rcatted ramet (not a Neelix redirect) and ramets (a Neelix redirect), the first is explained in the lede and the second is a reasonable {{R from plural}}. However I can't find this in online dictionaries or general search, but I may be searching the wrong way. @Plantdrew: you're usually the expert on these things. Any good? Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find any evidence that this exists as a word either, and I'm finding it difficult to imagine contexts where an adjectival form makes any sense (best I can come up with is "rametic lifespan is...", but I'd rather just say "ramets live for..."). Plantdrew (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian destroyer escort Bracui (Be4)[edit]

Error in title: this ship was the Be3, the Be4 was USS McAnn (DE-179) which has a correct redirect from Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (BE-4)JFG talk 13:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (Be3)[edit]

Error in title: this ship was the Be4, the Be3 was USS Reybold (DE-177) which has a correct redirect from Brazilian destroyer escort Bracuí (BE-3)JFG talk 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Religously[edit]

(neelix redirect). Probably Delete as WP:XY, to do something religiously does not necessarily have much to do with formal religion or religiosity. No incoming links, stats well below noise level (1 in 30 days), should mark as {{R from adjective}} if we decide not to delete. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as wrong spelling of dicdef. — JFG talk 13:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed it was a misspelling. Religiously, correctly spelled, is red. I better check the others in this group for similar misspellings, thanks. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Browsing engine[edit]

Portal:Wikipedia[edit]

This should go to Wikipedia:Community portal if anywhere, it is not linked from main space, and I would not call the main page a portal, I am aware of the previous discussion, but until a new portal is actually created, this should best go to Wikipedia:Community portal. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic subgroups[edit]

possible re-target, the target article doesn't seem right for these redirects Prisencolin (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to the broad concept article "Ethnic group", which should be helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree that redirecting to Ethnic group is the best option for these. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Ethnic groupJFG talk 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. What are sub-ethnic people, then? The Untermensch, perhaps? Although gsearch does give some hits in academic publications, I think this is rather a sloppy word to mean ethnic subgroups, and anyway is rather WP:DICDEF as an R.
Sarawak and Sabah link to sub-ethnic groups, the other two have no links from articles (well, the first has a link in the lede of List of contemporary ethnic groups, "by definition" as it says... but really is just defining that the definition/taxonomy of "ethnic group" is recursive/hierarchical).
However Ethnic subgroups (without the hyphen) gets about six hits a day on average, above bot noise level (the others are well below noise level). Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We do have Category:Sub-ethnic groups (and subcats thereof). Howewever from a more general gsearch I am not convinced that "sub-ethnic group" is is a correct synonym for ethnic subgroups: it is used in some academic papers, but I am not sure how much weight they carry; most of my initial hits are to Wikipedia. After all, ethnic group doesn't mention sub-ethnic (or subethnic) groups at all. Perhaps I am just being too pedantic. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per the article Ethnic group, an ethnic group can be "subdivided" into a tribe or clan. So, maybe add a section to the article for these redirects to target that specifically identifies this fact, or maybe create a WP:DABCONCEPT page for the redirects including information for tribe and clan? (In other words, I see where Si Trew's coming from with his statement, and with that, I see issues with these redirects in regards to WP:REDLINK.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I could see that a DABCONCEPT might make sense, or would we be in danger of WP:OR there? The last two just seem ill-formed (it is the group that is subdivided, it is not that members of that group are "sub" anything: we don't have sub-ethnicity for example. But perhaps that is pure pedantry on my part). Patently the current target is inappropriate. I note we don't have ethnic subgroup in the singular. These tend to suggest they have been created rather than a WP:PIPE, although there are examples in the academic literature, I think it's just sloppy writing (or more likely sloppy thinking). I've struck me delete !vote but am suspending judgment for now. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
To give an analogy, although we have neither racial subgroup nor sub-racial group (nor the plural forms), both terms appear in many Wikipedia articles. I do appreciate that many people make the distinction between ethnicity and race (although not all make the same distinction): I offer "race" merely as a close analogy, for better or worse. subrace is a DAB with two entries, the first to Race (biology); we haven't sub-race, subracial, etc. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

President Nixon[edit]

As with President Obama to Barack Obama, et al. this redirect should be retargeted to Richard Nixon. ‪Mitchumch‬ disagreed and went on to revert my revert of his, hence why I resorted here instead of retargeting the redirect myself. As far as I can tell, most people searching for President X are looking for the president's article rather than their presidency's. --Nevéselbert 23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To address Prisencolin's point, the better solution is to retain the redirect and place a Wikipedia:Hatnote at the top of both article pages to address WP:SIMILAR and Wikipedia:Primary topic. Example,
This page is about the biography of Richard Nixon. For his Presidency, see Presidency of Richard Nixon.
Or,
This page is about the biography of Richard Nixon. It is not to be confused with Presidency of Richard Nixon.
consequently, I restored the hatnote to "Presidency of Richard Nixon" article and added a hatnote to the biography article.
To address Roman Spinner's point, of the six articles you listed only Secretary Clinton has an actual WP:CONSPLIT article - Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. That article also needs to have its WP:REDIRECT corrected. The other five articles you listed don't have WP:CONSPLIT that solely focuses upon their careers (or anything else from what I can see). Do you have any other evidence to support the claim, "... these standard redirect forms have always pointed to the person"? I've only known redirects to point to their primary topic.
A question for Neve-selbert. You stated, "As far as I can tell, most people searching for President X are looking for the president's article rather than their presidency's." Could you please provide links to what you've seen to support this claim. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
As a further comment regarding Mitchumch's raising of the WP:CONSPLIT issue, it may be noted that while Secretary Clinton is the only one (among the six names that I listed) to have a consplit, since the other names do have substantially-sized articles, the argument could also be made for {R to section} WP:TARGETed redirects: William Bligh#The voyage of Bounty (or even redirecting Captain Bligh to Mutiny on the Bounty), William Tecumseh Sherman#Civil War service, Alvin York#World War I, Chester W. Nimitz#World War II and Timothy M. Dolan#Elevation into the College of Cardinals. On the subject of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, it may be noted that, in addition to Secretary Clinton, there is Senator Clinton, which also redirects to Hillary Clinton, but also presents the example of another consplit, United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton (the only other "Senator Clinton" was the equally notable [in his era] DeWitt Clinton who served [for one year and eight months] more than 200 years ago). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the tag on the Richard Nixon article as I felt it might divert readers away from the main article (RN) without giving that FA a try. A discussion has ensued at Talk:Richard Nixon. I concur with the redirect to Richard Nixon. The reader is seeking info on the person, not necessarily the official actions. Or the searcher may just have forgotten Nixon's first name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget "President Nixon" clearly refers to a person. I would also oppose a hatnote, since anyone can use the TOC to go the "Presidency" section where there is an appropriate hatnote if that's what they're looking for. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget It makes logical sense that President Nixon would redirect to the primary article, Richard Nixon. A person searching President Nixon is not necessarily looking for information on his presidency. Drdpw (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

W. T. Wallace[edit]

Redirect seems to be completely unneeded. The name is very popular and subject not widely recognizible. In this case, it is costly. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. From the sources cited, the subject goes by "W.T. Wallace." There may indeed be other "W.T. Wallace"s, but there's no indication that any of them went by that name. This (and the others that have been marked for speedy) are plausible redirects. No reason to do overzealous deletions. agtx 22:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • There may indeed be other "W.T. Wallace"s, but there's no indication that any of them went by that name. William T. Wallace was certainly referred to that way (try a Google Books search for "Judge W.T. Wallace"). In general the use of initials was quite common in the late 19th/early 20th century, the era in which both men lived. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's lead sentence states, "William Tracy Wallace (November 14, 1880 – 1947), known as W. T. Wallace". In fact, if subject's professional name was, indeed, "W. T. Wallace", rather than the full form, an argument may be made that W. T. Wallace should be the main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've also seen that the man was widely known by this name, as well as the shorter "W.T. Wallace". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Gunnersaurus Rex[edit]

Club mascot, not mentioned at the target article. I don't really know enough about English football mascots to know if it really should be or not; I see no mention or redirect for Tottenham's mascot, Chirpy. The mascot is included at List of association football mascots, but I don't think a redirect there would be very helpful. No other mascot names redirect there. Let's figure out consensus one way or another. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the 'List of mascots' article where it's mentioned, possible search term. GiantSnowman 20:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    My concern is the very high chance that a reader searching for the term already knows "Gunnersaurus Rex is the Arsenal mascot", which is the entirety of what such a redirect would impart. It seems very likely to disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there seems to be sufficient reliable source coverage [1][2] to say something about it at the current target. (There's also a bunch of free pictures at commons:Category:Arsenal F.C. mascot.) I also think retargeting to the List of mascots article isn't a great idea. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

50 Greatest Gunners[edit]

The results of a fan poll from 2009, this list was almost immediately turned into a redirect. Well meaning, but it should've just been deleted. There's no mention of the poll at the target article. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Storm of epic proportions[edit]

This phrase could be applied to various large storms, both real, fictional, and hypothetical. It seems like an unlikely search term and is a recent creation. BDD (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Man heads into space[edit]

Recently created and too vague. It could also refer to Human spaceflight, Yuri Gagarin, etc. Not a likely search term. BDD (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. The target is the one possibly performing the action, not about the action itself. And as the nom stated, the phrase is vague. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Annie Bonar Law[edit]

This is an unlikely search term (only renders 3 results in Google Books). She is also hardly mentioned at Bonar Law, referred to only once in the #Business career section. --Nevéselbert 19:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as {{R from spouse}}. Pretty common outcome for political spouses. Given the sparse coverage, I might see the merits of keeping the title red if it were a more common name, at which we'd expect an article on someone else, but this name is so unusual, it's hard to see what else would go here. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD and retarget to the specific paragraph. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    It's a very minor consideration, but I'd recommend against the section redirect. If it were to something like "Personal life", that would be different, but you wouldn't think "Business career" would be the place to find information on someone's spouse. Perhaps the article isn't going to change a great deal in the future, but Annie could certainly be moved or mentioned elsewhere, or the current section could get renamed. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be pretty easy to spin off the last two paragraphs in "Business career" to a section or subsection titled "Family" or "Personal life" and retarget the information there (and possibly add an anchor). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't his wife's name be "Annie Law" and not "Annie Bonar Law" since Bonar Law's surname is simply "Law"? When I first saw this yesterday, I figured it to be a nickname, given that his first name is "Andrew". -- Tavix (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, duh. Delete, then. Looks made up, absent evidence that she took the highly unusual step of adopting two of her husband's names at marriage. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The misconception that Bonar Law's surname is "Bonar Law" is very common – our Wikipedia article even corrects this assumption with a hatnote – and reliable sources get it wrong too [3]. I would keep the redirect and create Annie Pitcairn and Annie Pitcairn Robley as {{R from spouse}} as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Weird. I'll just leave this decision to others. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Bonar Law is one of (the only?) few cases where the most common way of referring to someone is by middle name + last name. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone going by their middle + last name is probably more common than you give credit for. People like Paul McCartney and Mitt Romney use their middle name, it's just not common knowledge. That's probably the difference between these people and Bonar Law, where it is common knowledge that it's his middle name, and perhaps that feeds the misconception. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Still lacking evidence what Annie's common names are. I don't see where she would add her husbands middle name? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the idea is that "Bonar Law" is mistaken for a double-barrelled name, right? --BDD (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Right. People use names like "Mitt Romney" all the time, but are under no delusions that it is a surname in and of itself, unlike what happens a lot with Bonar Law. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
So keeping Anne Bonar Law would be like keeping a redirect for Ann Mitt Romney. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No, because people don't think that Mitt Romney's surname is "Mitt Romney" because it's just as standard to refer to him as "Romney" (provided the context distinguishes him from the father). In Bonar Law's case, references to Bonar Law frequently use "Bonar Law" as if it was a surname (e.g. [4], [5]). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Arguments for creation are not relevant to arguments for deletion. This is wrong but useful. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it appears that people really do mistake "Bonar Law" for the family's surname. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Chen (Microsoft)[edit]

This redirect does not lead to information about its title. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have added some (minimal) info to the target article so that readers at least know that he is a Microsoft employee and blogger.
Obviously, we should have an article or at least a short section about him in the long run. He is referred to often enough in computer journals and in the community to have established some (mild) notability.
The reason why I think we should keep the redirect even now is because we already have an article about another Raymond Chen (a judge) and quite a few internal references to Microsoft's Raymond Chen, and I therefore think it is important to distinguish between them. A redirect to a related topic already allows reverse lookup of articles where he is cited/mentioned - and it thereby aids research and helps to further build the web. (The same could be achieved with red links, of course, but red links are likely to be removed from author-link= parameters by some editors who don't understand that they already serve a purpose.)
BTW. We do similar things also in a number of other cases I am aware of, f.e. to distinguish between multiple Michael Swaines. Of course, this makes sense only in cases, were we will likely have more info about a person in the future or where it could easily happen but is absolutely important not to mix up one person with another of the same name.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You added pseudo-info. It still doesn't offer any info on the subject. Visitors who visit this link are no more informed after the visit. Also, there no policy requiring us to have a link for everything that exists. In fact we have the opposite: WP:REDLINK. By the way, there are two Raymond Chens in Microsoft. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, please Wait a day or so because I I know a lot about Raymond Chen the Microsoft employee, but I am not in the mood to start the article and do all the tie-up right now, it is nearly bedtime for me. He is very notable in software engineering circles, he is certainly notable. Keep the microsoft employee at the redirect for now and I will try to add notable references. He works or worked, this was a few years ago, on well pretty much I don't know how to say but how to make things better for users and for developers has very great insight into them, used to run a blog well we didn't have blogs at that time but at msdn.microsoft.com on usenet usegroups, a very very good man and certainly notable. Keep for now while I check this up and try to add info, ok, it should be easy but I would have imagined the MS developer was primary and surprised we have to DAB it. I couldn't do it a couple of years ago because as a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional obviously I was under a Non-disclosure agreement and jus like I am under the Official Secrets Act I shan't break that agreement now, but some slightly out-of-date information will be fine and expired by that agreement (for the OSA I have to wait seventy years after I am dead.) Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You've been an MVA with an NDA? That's impressive. Now, which of the two Raymond Chens in Microsoft are you referring to? (Did you know that there are two of them?) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Sims Fitch[edit]

Delete, the name "Guy Sims Fitch" comes up in a single article by Gizmodo and it's now making the rounds on other websites. Without RS I don't see why we would keep this redirect. Redirects, after all, are a backdoor for IPs to create content without going through AfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, as creator. I added a mention of this fictitious byline used by the USIA, per a media report, to the article. That mention seems to be contested, but even so the redirect seems useful as a possible search term.  Sandstein  16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Insofar as sources are a concern, I've added another: Wilson P., Jr, Dizard (2004). Inventing public diplomacy : the story of the U.S. Information Agency. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 159. ISBN 9781588262882. Retrieved 27 September 2016. These commentaries were prepared by a group of USIA editors (...) A long-running commentary on economic developments was attributed for many years to a fictional Guy Sims Fitch, whose views were often cited authoritatively in overseas publications   Sandstein  16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see better sourcing but I still don't see why Wikipedia needs to create a redirect as a search term. If Sandstein's sentence is in the USIA article it'll be found there. The redirect will now serve as a magnet for ne'er-do-wells to begin assembling an unwatched article based on a lot of conjecture. Delete the damn thing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If as you say the name is circulated on websites (I only read the Gizmodo story), then people will likely search for it. And it is only if the redirect is deleted that the page will be unwatched and may then give rise to an article (which I agree there seems to be no basis for).  Sandstein  17:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Japoa[edit]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. A google does not link this term to Japan. I could not find any notable usage of this. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

MileyWorld[edit]

According to the original version of this redirect, MileyWorld is (was?) a fan club for Miley Cyrus. There's no mention of this club at her article, however, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I may be wrong, but I think MileyWorld.com and MileyCyrus.com are now connected completely. I'm not sure what the policy is on using offical websites related to people and/or multiperson entities. Toys.com and ToysRUs.com don't go to Toys 'R Us company page, for instance. CNN.com goes to CNN, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. mileyworld.com forwards to mileycyrus.com (WARNING: The aforementioned links are "http://".) However, I'm weak delete since it's a redirect to the web site, not the actual name of the web site. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Giapponese[edit]

Delete. The Italian language has no particular affiliation with Japan. Gorobay (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Federico Garcia Lorca[edit]

Non-notable play that was redirected after AfD almost 8 years ago, but it's not mentioned there, and it doesn't seem likely that it ever will be. García Lorca himself wrote multiple tragedies, so I don't think we can repurpose this either. BDD (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete There's a compilation book called Three Tragedies [6] but I don't see one for this particular title, and a biography one called The Comic Spirit of Federico Garcia Lorca [7] and The Selected Poems of [8] but I'm not seeing where there's a book by this particular title. If there is such a title and it is notable, either direct it to the author or add it to the books about Garcia Lorca. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mongolian studies[edit]

Delete, since though Mongolia is a part of East Asia, the article on East Asian studies does not mention Mongolian studies at all, meaning that it is impossible to read any info about Mongolian studies from the East Asian studies article. RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Textbook(!) example of WP:REDLINK in redirection studies. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • see, here is what I do not get about this kind of "discussion" -- this is clearly a valid {{R with possibilities}}, and it would take you less time to fix the problem than to open this "discussion", let alone the time it takes the four or five people that are going to be involved with it. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation should the specific field of study gather Wikipedia-level notability. There's also American Center for Mongolian Studies. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't encourage article creation by deleting a topic. Seeing that a topic was previously deleted discourages potential editors to recreate a topic. Also, IPs cannot create articles, but they can turn redirects into articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but WP:RED quite clearly says a redlink can "indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic", and even cites research to that effect. Now, certainly sometimes {{R with possibilities}} is a better approach, but from a purely technical standpoint, it's much easier to click "create" on a blank page than to go to the top of an article, click the term you're redirected from, and then click "edit".
I'm not commenting on this particular redirect, and I admit that I never considered that seeing a delete log might discourage someone from creating an article. But I do want to firmly emphasize that AngusWOOF's vote isn't just based on some personal whim, but rather a very well established principle. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (or refine to #Subfields). Until a dedicated article is created, our readers will still find a paragraph of information on the subject at the target. This is better than giving them search results. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid "catch term" and it makes sense to redirect it to the current target article (as the link is helpful in providing at least related information and likely is the place also for more detailed info in the future) for as long as we don't have a dedicated article about it. Per WP:R#DELETE, none of the reasons to delete redirects apply, but several of WP:R#KEEP apply, so deleting it would be counter-productive. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Lemme go draft something Draft:Mongolian studies. Otherwise it's kind of an WP:XY problem: some universities put (or used to put) Mongolian studies under their Central Asian studies programme, or with Inner Asian studies (too bad, that's red), or with Tibetology and Indology (e.g. Leipzig University [9]). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of putting that draft into {{mongolia-stub}} and catting it – not great because of course these are not studies done in Mongolia but I couldn't find anything better to cat it as, sometimes by putting something wrong it helps others to put it right! Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the draft? How likely is it that we'll ever be able to say more about Mongolian studies than that it's the study of Mongolia? If that's all we can say, how do we proceed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Move draft into mainspace. In terms of notabiliy, Mongolian studies isn't much different from other broad areas of scholarly enquiry. Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Move draft into mainspace. Thanks for taking the time to draft this! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Move draft as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 13 in California[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1#Interstate 13. The consensus of that discussion was to retarget Interstate 13 away from the article on Interstate 605 due to the lack of reliable sources connecting an Interstate 13 to Interstate 605. Since the stituation hasn't changed in the meantime, I propose that this redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I still believe that this redirect should be kept and reliable information on the planning numbering of I-605 as I-13 should be re-added to the I-605 article. Then, the Interstate 13 redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page for both I-13s. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
First, someone needs to find reliable information to add to that article. That was the whole reason the other redirect was retargeted instead of dabbed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: The "in" is a standard along with the parenthetical disambiguation. They refer to two different things though. Check out Category:Interstate 95, for example. There are sub-articles for each state that I-95 is "in" (eg: Interstate 95 in Maine and Interstate 95 in Maryland). The parenthetical disambiguation comes into play when there are multiple interstates with the same name; the state is used to disambiguate (eg: Interstate 195 (Maine) and Interstate 195 (Maryland). -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I stand corrected. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979  20:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I boldly added a (sourced) bit to the "History" section of the target to cover this. The original text added in 2005 said "The numbering for this route was originally suggested as I-13, as it is positioned approximately midway between I-5 and I-15 (although it intersects the former)." By the time the reference to I-13 was removed ten years later, the text had gotten mangled so that it read "Originally it was planned as I-13 running from Interstate 5 to I-15." The edit summary was rm content that is highly dubious, and no wonder! There was no doubt cast on the reliability of the source, just the accuracy of the route. So now the target mentions the old number, and we can keep the redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My first choice would be to keep now that Gorthian has added info about the proposed I-13 designation. My second choice would be to retarget to California State Route 13, since I think there is a fair chance that some readers may mistake that highway for an interstate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China (1949–2000)[edit]

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: Possibly related to "In 2005, the National Assembly permanently abolished itself by ratifying a constitution amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan." but even if that's the case, still wrong year, and fails WP:NPOV in that the editor is saying that Taiwan no longer exists. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 09:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If this redirect is to work, it should lead to Politics of the Republic of China, which is almost all about Taiwan (where the Republic of China has been established since 1949) and not Government of the Republic of China, which concerns mostly the pre-1949 period. Madalibi (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
History of the Republic of China#Republic of China on Taiwan (1949–present) might be the best target, since it has a sub section break at History_of_the_Republic_of_China#Political_transition to discuss events after the 2000 election which saw the DPP defeat the KMT – essentially 1949–2000 is the period in ROC history between their defeat in the Chinese Civil War/retreat to Taiwan and the first electoral defeat of the Kuomintang. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ts'ao Hsueeh-Ch'in[edit]

Not a valid alternative romanization (hsueeh, what is this supposed to mean? Its not pinyin, Wade-Giles, Tongyong Pinyin, Gwoyeu Romatzyh etc). A quick google for any of these reveal nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, keeping redirects like these would encourage nothing but more external links to these incorrect terms. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not used in journals and news articles with those spellings. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete – The spelling "hsueeh" is not attested anywhere. The closest correct Romanization is "Ch'ing-hua Ta-hsueh" ("hsüeh" for the purist) in Wade–Giles. Accepting this misspelled redirect would potentially open the door to a flurry of other incorrect Romanizations for any page in Chinese, from "Chink-wa ta-suey" to "Jing-hwa dasway". Madalibi (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

University Center Patio[edit]

Generic name, not mentioned at the target article. Searching the phrase on Google, I'm seeing results for various universities, but not for Miami. BDD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep: I created this redirect as a direct replacement for an equivalent piped link ([[University of Miami|University Center Patio]]) in the article Born to Run tours. There's no doubt about its accuracy, despite it not being mentioned in the target article - I've just done a Google search which brings up "Lakeside Patio Stage | University of Miami" as the first entry, plus several images from UM. I agree that it's a fairly generic term, but it's not clashing with anything else or misleading anyone. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - While the Florida college does indeed have such an area, I'm seeing analogously named areas in multiple other educational institutions around the U.S. I'm concerned that we're basically privileging one specific university at the expense of a bunch of other ones. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:NOTTRAVEL San Diego also has a University Center Patio [10]. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. After reviewing a number of sources, I can't find any evidence that the location at the University of Miami is the primary topic. Maybe we can dabify if other articles discuss similar locations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FRIENDLY[edit]

Should this point to Wikipedia:Twinkle instead, as Wikipedia:Friendly redirects there and Friendly was merged into Twinkle 5 years ago? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong keep There are over 500 links to this redirect, retargeting will break those links. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: Actually, turns out that retargeting the redirect will fix a majority the links. See my comments below for information. Steel1943 (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
(Changed from "retarget" to "weak retarget" since I agree with Pppery's comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC))

September 25[edit]

Susan Ee[edit]

Author redirects to a work are of little value; inhibit the creation of the author article, so any link would be better to be a redlink until someone can create a suitable article. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • keep as redirect. Reader is better served by a rd to one of her works than by a red link or the unsourced dead-end blp stub I found while stub-sorting. Rd can be overwritten in future by anyone prepared to create a useful sourced stub. PamD 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep This is her only Wikipedia-notable work so far. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The author is strongly identified with this one work in particular, and I also feel inclined to keep this as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Surname List[edit]

The target article does not really contain a useful list of surnames. Propose retargeting to Lists of most common surnames. SSTflyer 11:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • If I typed surname list, I'd probably be looking for something like the list that Category:Surnames is. Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think most people would use the "list of" format for that. This format makes me think they'd be looking for List (surname). I haven't made up my mind between retarget there or delete per WP:XY though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. On a completely irrelevant note, I couldn't help noticing that List (surname) is where List of Lists redirects, and that's different from where List of lists is pointed at. Uanfala (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the exact same thing! I think it'd be worth a discussion... -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I concur, although I think things are fine as they stand: after all, the entities listed at List (surname) are Lists, and a list listing Lists is a different thing from a list that lists lists, isn't it? Uanfala (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It's more of a question whether Surname (subject) should be a valid search term in general. List (surname) exists. But yeah a hatnote for List of surnames would be good for that article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: your comment made me realize that we could have an excellent parody article at List of lists of Lists (surname). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

B-Sides (Digital download EP's)[edit]

This is not something you usually create an article for, and it's at an implausible title. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep; this has a separate page history. RFD isn't for getting rid of significant page history. Nyttend (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target. Steel1943 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not at Duffy's article, not a title of an album of Duffy's. Digital download EP's are not a notable section on the A-side and B-side article. There is already B-Side (EP) by another artist named Baiyu. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sedecillion[edit]

Confusing redirects. Some of the text doesn't even exists. See WP:RfD#D2. NgYShung huh? 09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Sexdicillion; it's only one letter off, and while not particularly likely as an unintentional typo, it's entirely reasonable as a misspelling by someone who hears the word and doesn't know how to spell it. Delete the others; they don't seem like likely typos or likely misspellings by the "sexdicillion" typist. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Secdecillion; the first time I saw the original word "Sexdecillion" it had the typo "Secdecillion". But per Nyttend, delete the others. 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all except Sedecillion as perfectly reasonable misspellings. And I hope the fact that I find them perfectly reasonable isn't down to just me mishearing and mistypign a lot. Uanfala (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - The Sexdecillion article had been redirected to Names of large numbers by User:Pppery. Resulting on double redirect. NgYShung huh? 13:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Enrico Teodorani[edit]

A redirect from an Italian comic book writer to a single work of his. A redlink would be preferable. However, he doesn't even have an Italian Wikipedia article, so the resulting redlinks should probably be delinked too. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as the comic book is more notable than its author. But Is Djustine a notable work? That doesn't even have an Italian Wikipedia article, so if it gets AFD'ed then the author redirect would be deleted as well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • What justification is there for redirecting to this article and not Calavera (comics)? Or Femforce? I probably should have mentioned there are multiple possible targets. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Loosing feeling[edit]

unnecessary Little Professor (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep; this is the original title of the page, and it's been around for seven years. Don't create linkrot. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - This is a typo that involves two mistakes, repeating a word and also forgetting a capitalization, but it seems like something that multiple readers may do. I'm not too sure. I feel a bit like keeping it, but I also think that it isn't particularly helpful either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete – The article was only at this title for two months, and another month at Losing feeling. I doubt there are any significant external links to it that haven't been fixed yet. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Orphaned, thus useless. SSTflyer 11:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Headscratch I'm wondering if the lowercase variant might not very vaguely refer to things like Apathy or Social-emotional agnosia or Tactile agnosia. Uanfala (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The properly capitalised and appropriately spelt loosing can also refer to "relaxing" (in the same sense that laxatives are relaxing), but I'm not sure the combination with feeling could get the phrase very far. Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Typo + capitalization difference = too unlikely and thus possibly harmful. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Typing in "Loosing" gives "loosing religion" and "loosing feeilng". This isn't a common enough typo for this album title, unless news articles disagree. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

September 24[edit]

Neo Tokyo (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete(Withdrawn update see below). Redirect doesn't target a dab page but an WP:SIA (now a WP:BROADCONCEPT) so incorrect to have a dab redirect per WP:MOSDAB. (dab was converted to SIA, update now to a DC). No incoming links. No plausible target as a dab redirect. MOS:DABNOTINDEX "Set index articles are not disambiguation pages and do not have to follow the style outlined on this page." and WP:NOTDAB "A set index article is not a disambiguation page." (original emphasis). Take the example HMS Albatross it does not have a dab redirect [11] . Widefox; talk 19:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not convinced Neo-Tokyo isn't a DAB page. SIAs need to be about similarly named things of the same type, and I'm not seeing that here. There's stuff about an academic thought experiment in a school of Japanese architecture, two territories with that name in two Western board games, a Brazilian magazine, a Half-Life 2 mod (American), a level in a British video game, and the expected Japanese anime/manga/video game things. In fact, until a couple days ago when the nominator of this RfD changed the template at the bottom, it was a DAB page. In any case, in the 14 months before the nominator edited the target page, it got 164 hits or just under a hit every other day. So even if it is technically an SIA, it would be a disservice to readers and casual editors to delete the redirect.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, OK now I understand what you're contesting. It's the SIA. This redirect isn't the SIA, so it would have been helpful to take that up in the right place at the SIA. Anyhow, to answer, all items are fictional places. That's a clear SIA IMHO, with all items in the scope of the intro. There is one borderline, the architectural one, which is now a hatnote. It would be WP:TWODABS (an SIA WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and one item) to create a dab for that. Either way, the redirect can get deleted. As said, dab/SIA discussion is for the dab/SIA not this redirect. Can you elaborate on the hits argument, as the redirect isn't used in any pages, and is incorrectly targeting an SIA (which, as explicitly stated above in bold is not a dab) is only to be used to target a dab. You realise this looks much more like an SIA than a dab, if we do convert back to a dab most of the value for readers will get removed (the intro)?! Widefox; talk 08:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A similar redirect, ČSR (disambiguation), was deleted as G6 by Diannaa. Pppery 02:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, normally they're deleted CSD G6. I've had that one, and at least two/three others deleted as G6 in the last couple of weeks alone. Widefox; talk 08:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-dabify the target per Patar knight. Pppery 14:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Turn into a DAB. Assuming Neo Tokyo remains as an index, at least three pages (said index, Neo Tokyo (film), and NeoTokyo (video game)) have ambiguous titles. Cnilep (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends on what happens at the target. As it is, Neo Tokyo is not a set-index article. Your argument that the entries are all fictional places doesn't hold water. NeoTokyo (video game) is not a fictional place; it's a video game. Neo Tokyo (film) is not a fictional place; it's an anthology film. And films are not video games. So the criterion that the entries be a set of items of a specific type is not met.
However, it could be argued that Neo Tokyo could be expanded into a broad-concept article. As I searched on Wikipedia, I was struck by how many references are made to this term. It would be a service to readers to have a good article about this concept. If this is what happens, of course, we would dabify Neo Tokyo (disambiguation).
If Neo Tokyo is restored as a regular dab page, of course we would keep the redirect. And I have some music pieces ready to add to the target.
If the consensus is to keep the target as a SIA, we should also keep the redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Gorthian is right that a broad concept fits the current items better than an SIA. Fixed. NeoTokyo (video game) is within the scope - eponymous title set in this fictional futuristic Tokyo place (per lede), but also it is WP:RELATED. It's not verified that Neo Tokyo (film) fits within the scope without more details on the location of the films (or reasoning for titling as such), so in the absence of that in the article or sources it should go in the hatnote. Done. It is clear though, that all items (including the film) have connection to the scope of the broad concept as covered in the lede. As such, they're secondary consideration to having the broad concept at the primary topic. The futuristic architectural topic is included in the see also, and be worked into the body later. As a broad concept with only RELATED other titles (with the exception of the borderline unknown film).
    • Alternatively, if returned to a dab, we lose the lede which IMHO is the main benefit here (which is why I originally didn't clean up the dab, but attempted to preserve this non-dab). For certain, SIAs never have dab directs, and broad concepts too. Widefox; talk 09:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Nom Update - dabify here there's a couple of music items which could go at a new dab at this location, although the last two of the four User:Gorthian/sandbox4 are WP:PTM so go in the dab See also section. Widefox; talk 11:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

3x+1@Home[edit]

Non-notable BOINC project aimed at solving the Collatz conjecture, not mentioned in the target article. SSTflyer 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Gibbs (assault victim)[edit]

No longer mentioned at target. WP:BIO1E content about him was merged to the target after a 2009 AFD with two "merge" opinions and two "delete" opinions. It was then cut down over the years and the remaining three sentences about him were removed completely in April this year. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Pinging relevant editors: @Headbomb: (AfD nominator), @Edison, Rickproser, Matt Deres, David Eppstein, and Fences and windows: (AFD participants), @Sephiroth storm: (who carried out the merge), @Woovee: (who removed the content). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The content may belong in the section "Prejudice and violence directed at goths", Woovee's removal was odd as 1) an attack that severed a man's ear and left the attackers in jail is not "trivia" and 2) he could have easily found other sources but preferred to instead remove content. It's not the most well-known of attacks on goths, but there are few mentioned in that section and the trial established that a hatred of goths was a motivating factor in the attack. Fences&Windows 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a site about news items with tales of murders. Woovee (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Open Threat Exchange[edit]

Wrong namespace for drafts, whether accepted or rejected. Pppery 11:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete; the page history is unclear as to how long this was there, so it might not be a long-term-in-existence title. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nyttend: This title dates back to February when Newtonlee moved the page from draft to Wikipedia space, then copy-and-paste moved it back to draft space, the move the draft page to article space, leaving an article in article space without history and a redirect from draft space to it (and a duplicate copy with old history in Wikipedia space). About an hour ago, I requested histmerging of the Wikipedia space page into the article space one, which was done by Anthony Appleyard, leaving this redirect behind that I then nominated for rfd. Pppery 15:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipeidans who play Pokémon Go[edit]

Obviously wrong and almostly no one will type it. 333-blue 06:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - This redirect... is pointing at itself? What's going on? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete this double redirect consisting of a misspelling. Pppery 11:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; unusual misspellings in category names virtually never need to be kept. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:R3 maybe? I've never seen that apply to category redirects, though. If not, there should be a SD criterion for typos in category redirects. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Transfer to Prof. Willow (Delete) per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:R3. Delete Quite clearly an implausible typo, no one is going to use this. Omni Flames (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Omni Flames: R3 doesn't apply to redirects created from page moves. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete typo. Debatable whether the correctly titled category is even worth keeping around. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stromboulopoulos, George[edit]

September 23[edit]

Protein misfolders[edit]

Delete all (neelix redirects): A bit like the ones below, bnut not enough for me to want to make them into one bunch. A protein being being misfolded is not the same as it being incorrectly folded, in the sense meant by biochemists or molecular modellers (I was one) working on protein folding problems. There are more general ones like misfold but they are just WP:SURPRISE and will list separately. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Misfolding proteins and Misfolded proteins as these are sensible phrases and likely search terms (the latter receives 40 hits a month, the former only one, but it's a phrase that turns up in reliable places). Delete the "misfolder" ones as clear nonsense. Unsure about Misfolds proteins as it's somewhat unlikely (only 5 hits on google scholar) and I can't imagine anyone ever typing that into a search box, but that's a conceivable phrase an editor might want to link to within running text – although I' not sure such a thin possibility is worth the cost (no matter how small) of having the redirect. An alternative target could be Proteopathy, but that's already linked in a "main article" note at the current target, and the text at the current target seems a bit more up to the point. Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Misfolding proteins and Misfolded proteins since, as stated above, those are bits of terminology that's used by reliable sources often while I would delete the rest as not particularly helpful CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the first two at least. Made up words. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the first two since they basically get no use; keep last three as ones that get actual use in academic texts (e.g. [12] for "misfolds proteins"). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrectly folded proteins[edit]

(neelix redirect). Not marked as {{R to section}} but that's trivial, Delete all I just can't see that anyone, even a biochemist, would search for "incorrect protein folding". Several others like this but I am told off for listing too many at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep... ish: these are phrases I would search for and I'm not a biochemist (nor do I have a mad cow disease). Uanfala (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I see now that these have all received effectively zero pageviews per day, so maybe I am the only who finds them useful (or, alternatively, I have the mad cow disease). Uanfala (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Incorrectly folded protein" and its plural form since I've seen that exact wording used by reliable sources (such as here), while I would scratch the other one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Plausible searches since they're used in academic literature. "Incorrect folded protein" gets 146 Google Books hits, so I would keep that as well unlike CWM above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sworn[edit]

(Neelix redirect) The lede (first sentence) says that this organisation was formed by people including Helen Sworn, which as you see we do not have but is referenced at the target. If we don't have Helen Sworn, I swear we should not have Sworn poointing to this, it is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't this redirect to Swear? Although the most likely intended meaning would be that at oath. Uanfala (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to oath, per Uanfala; it's more helpful than targeting to Swear, and it makes much more sense than going to this organisation. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to oath, per Uanfala. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

CameGube[edit]

Unable to see how this is a useful redirect. The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep unless someone can show that this is causing problems somehow. It's probably for a visual error, for those who misread the "G" as a "C", in the mode of Kim Jong Il being misread as Kim Jong II. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete visual error is more for the Kim Jong Il case since he's a political leader, and many leader names have successors. But CameCube isn't strongly confused for that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • keep, it's a typo of only one letter.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF & as WP:R#D8 obscure. Whether you want to call CameGube a "typo of one letter" or a "typo of two letters", intuitively readers are unlikely to accidentally switch two letters that far away from each other in a word. The stats back that up: no usage in the past 90 days except for on the day of this RfD. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible typo per WP:R#D8. The word "Game" is central to the function of the product and is unlikely to be confused with renderings using similar letters. It's the equivalent of a redirect for "Crowth medium" ("Growth medium"). -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling per above. Also sounds like a bad pun --Lenticel (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Living the Game[edit]

Doesn't seem to be related to target article. The1337gamer (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - The exact words "Living the Game" was a well-known commercial slogan related to Friendster, and it's there in the article's info-box. I'm not totally sure if this means that we should redirect over there, though. I suppose it's like having "Stronger Than Dirt" go to Ajax, which we don't do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Commemt - The only Living the Game I see for Wii is a bundle pack called Living the Game with Wii and Activision. However, I don't think that is the right target. I also don't see a game called Living for the Wii either. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - the term is not mentioned at the current target. I am also pinging Scepia, who turned this into a redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If this is indeed a notable bundle pack then this might be better off targetted to somewhere with more appropriate content. --Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Race for first![edit]

Seems like a generic phrase that is not closely related to target article. The1337gamer (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - It looks like this generic combination of words has a lot of meanings in a lot of different contexts. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - not discussed at current target, and I can't think of any other appropriate target for this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable catchphrase for this particular title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Debits and credits (disambiguation)[edit]

Cuchullain redirected this dab page to its current target with the correct observation that only one of the listed entries is actually titled "Debits and Credits". However, the resulting redirect suffers from WP:XY: it could just as well refer to Credit. Debits and Credits (book) is properly handled already with a hatnote and parenthetical disambiguation, so I propose this redirect be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Oh, and I created it! How about that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. All those observations make sense. The dab page can be recreated if another topic named "debits and credits" comes along.--Cúchullain t/c 13:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Pat Duke[edit]

Pat Duke is a man with a number of voice acting and narration roles. He had a minor voice acting role in Halo: Reach. I don't think this redirect is useful as neither Pat Duke, nor the character he voices are mentioned in the article. The1337gamer (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment is there any chance that Patty Duke ever went by Pat? -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Page 169 of Call Me Anna: The Autobiography of Patty Duke, it seems like Patty Duke says that she was explicitly not called "Pat Duke". Nonetheless it might still be an appropriate redirect to Patty. --Prisencolin (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I disagree with the idea of bringing this over to Patty Duke. She's not commonly known (or even uncommonly known) by that name at all. I'd rather us just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If the voice actor is deemed notable in the future then having a red-link might be better than having this redirect around --Lenticel (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New Halo Project[edit]

Currently redirects to Halo 3: ODST, a game released 7 years ago. The game is no longer new so this redirect is no longer accurate. The1337gamer (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bishop Paul Ing SJ[edit]

(neelix redirects) Delete all. WP:TITLE forbids having honorifics like "SJ" and "Bishop" in their titles, but to make avery possible variation is nonsense, these do not help a search, and the fact that "Ing" actually is the European designation for an incorporated engineer is WP:RFD#D2 confusing that "Ing" is part of this person's name, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not, because of all the other qualificaions around it (Bishop, S.J. and so on). He is not an incorporated engineer but "Ing" seems to be part of his name. The target is bloody dubious to start with and has been marked as such (not by me). Just cut this crap. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Oh dear we have stacks of these with titles in them. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Too much redirect for a person. Don't really think someone could click of one of the redirects. NgYShung huh? 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I striked my vote for now per User:Prisencolin. NgYShung huh? 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Typing Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing is good enough to get to the person's article. The person has a ton of pre and post scripts, and it would be ridiculous to retain combinations and variants of each of these. Other Wikipedia articles that refer to this one would not list S.J. all the time. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
As a note, his email at the diocese is Bishop Paul Tan and he goes by Bishop Emeritus Paul Tan. [13] When he writes articles, he adds a bunch of honorifics as Rt. Rev. Paul Tan Chee Ing, S.J [14]. So his common name would be Bishop Paul Tan. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, WP:CHEAP and there is still a plausible chance someone may type one of these in, and it appears that none of these are technically incorrect. As with the other RfC for this guy, WP:TITLE doesn't apply to redirects.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Prisencolin. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all This is seriously unnecessary. I also don't see the redirects being used. A much better solution is to simply mention the alternative name on the main article. Most people search the Wikipedia page on a search engine, instead of directly tying the Wikipedia URL itself. Search engines are sufficiently advanced enough to parse the main article and figure out the alternative name. More importantly, redirects are WP:COSTLY as every extra redirect increases the maintenance workload of volunteers due to a potential chance at vandalism. This is simply not worth the trouble. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Unnatural selecter[edit]

(neelix redirects) Delete all: These are rather WP:POV that breeding animals is somehow "unnatural" even though Man has been doing it for quite a while, at least seven thousand years. The target Breeder is not particularly neutral either, but that's something to be discussed at the target; the redirects are very much POV with "artificial", "unnatural" and so forth.

I have a great entomological collection of insects in my house because I seem to be good at good at breeding maggots and ants and moths and spiders, I don't interfere with them but they seem just to spontaneously appear in my house. We rub along together quire fine.

I remember the slogan by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, against Nuclear power stations (which had little to do with nuclear weapons anyway, but they got a bit carried away), "The only safe fast breeder is a rabbit". As it stands these are nonsense because they are not artificial unless you want to define what "artificial" is, in that case roads, buses, grass, houses are artificial, and people born by artificial insemination are from conception artificial people? Grass, or rather wheat and barley and stuff like that, only exists because Man looks after it, well it is hardy stuff but for cultivation it would not exist if Me and the Farmer did not look after it. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - While most of these appear to be typical Neelix made-up terms, the artificial breeder and artificial breeders labels, while indeed examples of loaded language, come up in reliable sources. An example is this publication from Cambridge, which states: "[W]hy do females have these preferences for extreme and sometimes maladaptive traits in males? Darwin's response was that female animals had an aesthetic sense similar to that of the artificial breeder." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha Melekh[edit]

(neelix redirects) I see no evidence at the target that these are, I presume, Yiddish or Semitic words for "King" or "Ruler or "Monarch", in the Jewish tradition. I can find no mention of any at the target, thus WP:RFD#D2 confusing. And WP:NOTDIC and not a translation dictionary. I will probably be banned a as a jew-basher or something, now. It would be nice if the target had an etymology on the word "Monarch" which I imagine does come via this way (well it comes from from Ancient Greek mono, meaning "single", and Ancient Greek arch, meaning "ruler"), but not all seven of them, and it does not have an etymology. No mention of any in the article. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I can just see ahead I will be accused of antisemitism or something. It is not about that. It is about whether these make the encylopaedia better or worse. I have no idea if Neelix is presbytarian, Jewish, a fundamentalist islamist or an atheist – well I do from the conversations over Neelix directs know I think he is rather a devout Christian, not proper Christian C of E but some kind of Christian, and God forgive him his sins, and we can make amends. He would not make these to piss off any other faith; it just happens they are wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all; we're not a translation dictionary. Si Trew, for your reference, "ha" is the definite article, i.e. "Ha-Mashiach" is "The Messiah", the specific person occupying this status, not merely the status itself. And "melekh" is Hebrew "מלך", i.e. "king"; see Ebed-Melech. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would expect these to redirect to something like Kingship in ancient Israel (in the same vein as Germanic kingship), but that doesn't exist (and that's surprising, given the sheer amount of literature published on the topic). Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    Interesting point; thank you, Uanfala. Unfortunately, there's no single article about the subject under any other title I can find, as Kingdom of Israel discusses the united kingdom and all related articles discuss individual other periods in Israel's history, with nothing discussing the kings in general. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Brush-tailed rat (octodontid)[edit]

  • Not sure. Neelix creation and not at target but there are plenty of other Brush-tailed rats around, and this really is a job for the experts at WP:WikiProject Biology or something to work out whether this is valid. THe disambiguator to me is a bit fishy or rather somewhat ratty and in fact I should think hinders a search as it did mine for other species whose WP:COMMONNAME is the brush-tailed rat. Not sure where the "octodontid" came from, presumably it has eight teeth, but no kinda reasonably explanation at the target for an eight-toothed brush-tailed rat. Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Implausible search term. "Octodontid" is technical jargony shorthand for the family this species belongs to (Octodontidae); the current target of "brush-tailed rat" could be called "brush-tailed rat (echimyid)". But nobody is going to use a search term that's a hybrid of a common name and the scientific name of the family; anybody who knows what an octodontid or echimyid is will likely be searching for a scientific name in the first place, and for the majority of people with no idea what an octodontid is, the disambiguatory term isn't helpful. Better to turn "brush-tailed rat" into a disambiguation page and link the scientific names (with enough description to help people find which brush-tailed rat they are interested in). I get twice as many Google hits for "Octodon+brush-tailed rat" as I do for "Isothrix+brush-tailed rat", which seems to be influenced by Octodon showing up in the pet trade; I don't see that Isothrix is ever sold as a pet, and it really doesn't seem to have a good claim for being the primary topic of "brush-tailed rat". Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Plantdrew:, always the expert in matters taxonomical. I did try to search etc but this kinda blocked it. You can count me in the majority who had no idea what an octodontid was, I merely translated it from the Greek as eight teeth. Delete, then. Si Trew (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Dewu[edit]

Dagu language[edit]

(neelix redirect). I've been told taht everyone in Sudan speaks dago language, but they don't speak Dagu language. The target does not say that they do, so this is a kinda queer back-formation. Speedily delete, WP:RFD#D2 not at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • How about a speedy keep as it is (and has been for years) listed in the first sentence of the target. Sidenote: sometimes I do come across redirects for alt. language names that aren't mentioned in the target articles, sometimes I create these myself – if in doubt, always have a look at the alternative names given by ethnologue and glottolog, there are almost always links to these in the infobox. Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmmm User:Uanfala you are right it is in the lede.... and I would go with you as speedy keep withdrawn by nominator on this one... but the nagging doubt is what the ISO code etc for this language is so that it can be used in infoboxes etc, I am pretty much 99% with you on a keep, but not a particularly speed keep, let me check this up. In good faith, if I have any doubt about these that is why I list them here, so am quite happy if the result is keep (I could have sent it myself to CSD with the Neelix concession) so was perhaps a bit hasty to say "speedily" delete. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not a the List of ISO 639-1 codes for the language. This might go then as WP:RFOREIGN, or WP:MADEUP, I am not sure... just because something has been there for a while, unreferenced, does not mean it is good. The usual style is French language, English languge, Spanish language etc and the {{lang}} templates etc. rely on those in a rather back-handed way so that the infoboxes work and all kinds of other things work. This one won't work like that, it just cocks it up. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is listed as an alternative name by both ethnologue [15] and glottolog [16] (again, these links are very easily accessible from the infobox of any language article). Now, neither of these sources are completely free of error (there have been all sorts of cases, for example when the "alternative name" has turned out to be just the name of the village where the language is spoken), but what these sources testify to is the fact that the given name has been used, with or without good reason, as either a synonym for the language, or a variety (dialect etc.) of it. And that's all we need to keep a redirect, no? If there are doubts, of course it's always a good idea to follow through: the glottolog page for a given language usually contains quite a comprehensive bibliography of relevant sources and that's a good place to start. Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator, me. In essence I agree with User:Uanfala (and thanks for the refs there), this is WP:NOTPERFECT but we'd be worse off without it. Si Trew (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Paper Mario enemy and boss redirects[edit]

A list of unnotable enemies and bosses in Paper Mario that seem to not be mentioned on the article. Delete all per WP:NOTWIKIA. (Also, listed a couple of related "List of..." redirects whose information seems absent from the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I can weakly support the aforementioned retargeting option for Goomba King as a plausible reversal of the words, but not the "...retarget all others to respective species pages where applicable..." part since most, if not all, of the variations listed here are exclusive to the Paper Mario series and are not mentioned at the specific locations on the franchise article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG 2: The Return of the Stars[edit]

This redirect's subject seems to be a fan-created game that has no connection to the target. The use of the phrase "The Return of the Stars" seems to return no search results for the Paper Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List Of Other Power Rangers[edit]

Unclear what "Other" refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - We have clear-cut precedent to get rid of these kinds of redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you tell me where that precedent is? I am with you in principle to cut the crap etc, because that makes the search work better without needless clutter, but every redirect has to be taken case by case, with the notable exception of "Neelix redirects" which have a specific authorisation until a given time that they can be bulk listed. Which reminds me I should start on the Anomie list, probably a few left? Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Just in terms of the recent past, there were at least five redirects of this form proposed for deletion on the 15th, and all of them got trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, to my astonishment since I just threw that in as an example without even checking, we do have List of minor Power Rangers characters. Weak retarget to there, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To be frank, I don't think that list article that you just mentioned would survive an AFD process. I'm not interested in nominating it myself, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm thinking whatever can be merged into the main character list from the minor list should be merged, and then the minor character list should be redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget to the minor PR characters list. As long as that exists, this is a good redirect there, and if that list gets deleted at AFD, this redirect will be a perfect G8 candidate. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have WP:BOLDly retargeted List of minor Power Rangers characters to List of Power Rangers characters. List of minor Power Rangers characters went through a couple of WP:AFD nominations 8–9 years ago, so deleting would probably not be an option. However, if all of the incoming character-based redirects to it were resolved or pointed to other more-related locations with the proper information, issues with redirects targeting that page would be resolved, so I went ahead and resolved such redirects by either retargeting them elsewhere and/or adding information to the most appropriate new target for the redirect. (For example, see Wild West Rangers, or even Alpha 6 (Power Rangers) where my resolution for that redirect was restoring the page.) With these changes, there no longer is an "Other" list to retarget the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

List PR[edit]

The Gossman Project[edit]

Information regarding this subject seems absent from the target article. However, from some research, the subject of the redirect seems to have a connection to Pearl Jam, most likely some work that happened before the band officially formed. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment it looks like a demo tape. [23] But it'd be nice if one of those Pearl Jam biography books could verify the name and then it can be added to the article. The Spanish Wikipedia has an unsourced article that only lists the tracks on it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, this is a tricky situation since the term does apply to an underground release related to the band, but it's hard to find a reliable source confirming that fact. I see brief bits of information at discogs.com and rateyourmusic.com as well as various blogs but nothing solid. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, redirects do not have to be WP:RS. Is it a likely search term? The stats are kinda what I would have said were at bot noise level, but I'm told without any evidence that the stats tool now removes bot hits so those would be real hits. Peaked at 5 on 21 July 2016, no editing activity on it then. (Thank your God, it seems someone at the stats tool has finally woken up to my grumble that not to combine the stats for a redirect with the stats for its target: they still have not got rid of those annoying "rising" bars on the barchart that are really slow on slow devices, JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM).
With all that said I will, for now, !vote reluctantly for Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no information at target. But I have no doubt from Woof's and CWM's research this does exist, but is just a bit unencylopaedic at the moment to have it as it stands. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned about straight up lying about bootleg / underground releases since it's a common thing that I've seen. However, it seems strongly likely that this project existed in some form... still, though, details beyond that (How many tracks were recorded? Were they any good? What were their titles? Who did the songwriting?) are unclear. It's an unhappy guessing game. I guess I have a reluctant delete vote at the end of the day as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
That's why I was hoping a book biography of the band would cover with such demo releases and early band names. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Pearl Jam songs covered by others[edit]

No such information exists in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sounds like a gateway to lots of original research and covers by non-notable bands. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. (And "covered" implies "others" anyway: what would a List of Pearl Jam songs covered by Pearl Jam be?) These redirects are the result of a merge, but that content must have been deleted from the target, because now it doesn't have anything on cover versions (unless I am my usual fumbling self and can't find it), so these are simply WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Nintendo 64-exclusive titles[edit]

Information to help readers determine which video games on the target article are exclusive to the Nintendo 64 is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No such sublist on that page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above, these are misleading and not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of SNES-exclusive titles[edit]

Information to help readers determine which video games on the target article are exclusive to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System is not present in the target article. (Also, a related category, Category:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-only games, exists. For the record, I oppose retargeting the nominated redirects there since they would then be WP:XNRs.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It implies there's an exclusive subsection which is not the case. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The redirects are deliberately misleading, and they should be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

List SNES[edit]

The target isn't a list of different types of Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) but rather its games. That, and even if there is/were a list of different SNES's, the omission of the word "of" in the nominated redirect makes the redirect confusing and most likely not searched for, regardless of its target. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - "List of _____" articles and redirects are often helpful, but this awkward "List _____" redirect isn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

TYPES OF ADVERTISING[edit]

Super Mario Storyline[edit]

Seems that I missed this one back in May of this year. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 13#Storyline of the Mario series; my rationale remains unchanged. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There isn't an article that covers the storyline, or warrants a capital S to Storyline. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mario (franchise)#Plot and themes. As it exists at the moment, the "plot and themes" subsection needs a lot of work, but redirecting readers there may encourage editors to expand and add material. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

List of African territories and states by the date they succumbed to European imperialism[edit]

This redirect is not WP:NPOV (and the edit history of the move that created this redirect almost 10 years ago states this as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete seems an unlikely search term Atlantic306 (talk).
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is awkward wording to say the least, and I agree that this just isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from non-neutral name}}. Redirects don't have to have neutral titles, and there is nothing wrong with redirects having lengthy titles. Pppery 12:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not the wording is neutral or non-neutral isn't the issue. It's that this is worded in a clumsy way that is unlikely for people to actually type in. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative advertising[edit]

The term of the redirect does not seem defined in the target article, so the connection could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete too vague. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As it stands, this isn't right. I also believe that the concept of socially transgressive advertising appealing to the counter-culture is a notable enough topic on its own, so that makes this a case of WP:REDLINK as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Manufactured demand[edit]

Associating the redirect to Advertising seems misleading and probably erroneous. This term of this redirect seems more associated with other subjects such as the September 11th, 2001 gas price hikes in the United States or any activity that could inaccurately raise a company's stock value. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete It looks like it was kept in case there would be a potential article, but given that Advertising does not even discuss this topic, it is better it be redilnked so people can create the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This term is usually linked with either direct financial fraud or indirect dishonest commercial behavior (I'm reminded of the Manufacturing Consent book, which is famous enough that I know of it without having read it). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Demand (which includes a section about demand management) or delete per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Billboard (television)[edit]

This redirect seems confusing and possibly misleading. It seems that all billboards are advertising, but billboards are more known to be big large signs usually posted on roadways. For this reason, I also don't think there is a good retargeting option for this redirect either. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

List of advertising clichés[edit]

Such a list or subject seems to be absent from the target article; if fact, the word "cliche" or "cliché" seems to be completely absent from the target article. (Note: All of these redirects formerly targeted List of advertising clichés [with the exception of the formerly-mentioned redirect] when it was a article.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters/Family tree of House Targaryen[edit]

This redirect was created when its target article was moved to its current title in 2014. The target article was created in 2013, meaning that the target is not old enough to be eligible for {{R with old history}}. With this being said, the redirect is a possibly-misleading, malformed WP:SUBPAGE-style redirect that is not a subpage since it's in the article namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no such style. Perhaps it was from a userfied page? It's no longer useful in the regular Wikipedia space. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of AWS devices[edit]

The use of the acronym "AWS" in regards to devices is ambiguous per the multiple possible subjects at AWS which could have devices made by or for them, including Apple Workgroup Server. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

AWS-1[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, making the connection unclear. Alternate searches seems to connect the redirect to the subject in Advanced Wireless Services, but the term's not mentioned there either. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The acronym is listed in the History section of the article. Squadron was first designated as Air Warning Squadron 1 (AWS-1).Looper5920 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

List of AVA[edit]

The redirect is ambiguous, considering the multiple subjects listed at AVA using the acronym which this redirect could refer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Retrget to AVA, which is a list of things that are called "AVA." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What if It All Means Something (song)[edit]

Relatively little information about the song itself is discussed in the target, and I can't find information other than the lyrics relating to the song itself rather than the album. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation as there are no other articles with this title. Also not clear if "if" should be in caps or not. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @AngusWOOF: I came across this about a week ago and was unsure if it was appropriate or not. Now thanks to your comment on the Trump redirects, I now know how not every track in an album needs a redirect. I came across it when I added an entry to Turn (not delete) the Page and Miss April to the article on the album, now I'm beginning to wonder if even that is appropriate. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I have never seen the "If" uncapitalized in this context until I spotted this redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's a released single, then of course it can stay. If it's a notable song on a track, like it gets covered in reviews or receives airplay on major stations, then don't mind it as much. Titles that are common to multiple artists can go on the disambiguation page; not sure if those need a redirect but if they are notable, then maybe retain those too. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The album article claims that the title track is one of its released singles, but there's no source to back it up. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Typical {{R from song}}; this is how we treat NN songs. If anything, being notable would make for a stronger deletion case because you could say REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Voiding[edit]

This seems to be too specific a target for it. Came across it on the DAB page void where someone has helpfully also linked it to excretion but it has other meanings, such as the act of declaring a result void. Suggest retargeting to void. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to void as news articles use it like cancelling. like voiding a contract or permit. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Voiding is also a term used on electronics manufacturing. [24] [25] [26] all of which can support directing to void which has definitions under the "In science and engineering" section. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to void. Voiding has lots of meanings. Margalob (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to void. per AngusWOOF and Margalob--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Voiding" does not belong on the dab page void at all. There are ten articles that link to it (all medical), and there is heavy use (for a redirect). If it must be retargeted to the dab page, first fix the article links, then add urination to the dab. — Gorthian (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, there is another more "common" meaning, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Don't fall into the dictionary definition trap. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (Voiding (law)) (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics, e.g. Voiding a contract, Voiding a transaction, Voiding a permit), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. We do have a couple of articles that cover this other meaning: Void (law) and Voidable (e.g. voidable marriage). The term voiding isn't used in the former, and appears twice in the latter: (1) in the hatnote linking to urination, I suppose in case someone is searching for a bladder which is "voidable" or full, and (2) in a simple definition of voiding the contract. Duh. I note that the equivalent term in the UK and Australia, avoiding, is a red link. I challenge you to show me more of those "other meanings" that we'll surely find at Void (disambiguation). "Voiding" space to create a cosmic void? "Voiding" a composite material to create a higher void content? "Voiding" a container to create a vacuum? Anything else I'm missing? Lacking evidence of any other topic besides the dictionary definition for legally voiding something, which we can hatnote to, urination is the primary topic because it is virtually the only encyclopedic topic for the term. I know everyone calls this tinkling, peeing, weeing, whizzing or pissing, and few, including me up until a few minutes ago, know what micturition is (definition, it's another word for voiding), but that's not a valid reason to piss on the encyclopedia by retargeting this to a disambiguation which is almost useless for this purpose. Related topics: Voiding cystourethrogram · Scheduled voiding · Post-void dribbling · Learned voiding dysfunctionwbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Picture the circuit wire like a bike lane and there's a huge pothole in the middle of it or some pile of leaves. That's your void. It can also be used in those electronic connectors and wires where they clear out room around a connector so it doesn't touch the sides. Either way, it's related to making voids. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe you're thinking of signal traces on printed circuit boards. Perhaps that is a valid application of the term "voiding", but the term isn't used in the printed circuit board article. It does mention "leaving voids"... "in the materials". So "voiding" could mean either:
* Filling in undesired "potholes" in traces, or
* Creating voids between traces to avoid shorting traces together? wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion of electronics is interesting, but it still misses the point that after searching 15 pages deep in "voiding", my results are dominated by the medical usage, with some pages on voiding documents, test scores, warranties, patents, receipts and checks, etc. thrown in. You need to specifically search for "voiding electronics" to easily find webpages on that topic, such as Voiding Control for QFN Assembly, and our QFN article doesn't mention "void", much less "voiding". Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic. This electronics usage of the term simply isn't covered by Wikipedia. wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to void. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wbm1058 and hatnote to void. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Red cell antigens[edit]

I'm admittedly no expert in biology, but something doesn't seem right here with this redirect pointing towards its current target. In a nutshell, the term "red cell antigen" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, and via search engines, I am failing to establish a connection between the two terms. In addition, the article Human red cell antigens exists (possible retargeting option.) (Anyone who feels up to participating in this discussion has my permission to ping whatever WikiProjects or possible experts regarding this.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Human red cell antigensBlood type which seems to be the most relevant article this should point to. The majority of times these antigens are talked about it is in relation to us humans and our blood type, and I think this will be what most readers are actually trying to look for.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unsure - I think there is more to this than blood type, unless you are including Rh. I am not medically trained but have previously tried to understand red blood cell antibody, since it applies to family members. The redirect, I agree, isn't helpful, and the Red cell antigen article might be closer, except it really just confused me more. So here is my understanding of red blood cell antibody, in case it helps anyone. It can be cause by a blood transfusion but in these days it more usually arises from a pregnancy when the mother is Rh-negative, the father is Rh-positive and the baby inherits an Rh-positive rhesus factor. Essentially the woman develops a sensitivity to the Rh+ factor, essentially an allergy, and the baby can also be affected in ways I did not research because they did not apply. I am told that this is not an issue unless the woman has another Rh-positive baby in another pregnancy, or perhaps needs a blood transfusion in surgery, in which case more careful matching than usual is required. Did I see that in any of those articles, no. I realize this is anecdotal evidence and not RS but this is what doctors have told me and I think it is at least somewhat accurate, and may shed a *little* light on the subject. hth - I think you need a hematology expert, or possibly an obstetrician will have some knowledge This might help esp p481ff Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology of this discussion with a notification on its talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Jobs and Wozniak[edit]

WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to History of Apple Inc.#1969–1984: Jobs and Wozniak. XY situations can be resolved if there's an authoritative place where both topics are discussed. A better case for deletion might be if a reader was expecting a more detailed look at Jobs and Wozniak's relationship with each other, but I don't really think we'd ever have something like that. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I do think that the reader is likely looking for an article discussing the relationship between those different men, akin to the Lennon-McCartney and Tchaikovsky and the Five pages, and such a thing doesn't exist. Until we have it, this redirect should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

アップル[edit]

Not particularly Japanese. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The Japanese Interwiki is jp:アップル (企業). The first part of that, before the parens, matches this, as katakana for Apple. The second part in the parens is han for ("company, enterprise") roughly - gtrans detects it as chinese since I just did a double check for it, that would be normal for a very short run of kan. The stalling point is that foreign words are usually written in the katakana, as アップル is, but native words are written in hiragana and han, as 企業 is. (Han is quite easy, you can see that is a house and that is where people are coming into the house, to make a team, an enterprise, a company. That probably sounds like Ronnie Barker explaining hieroglyphics but once you get the hang of it the script is quite easy, but hard to translate literally). No doubt it is Japanese and the targets tie up. I would say Weak keep because although definitely WP:RFOREIGN I can see this being a likely search term for English readers if they scrape it off their Apple devices, not entirely sure. It is kinda certainly the right target but absolutely WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The subject of Apple Japan is perhaps a notable enough thing for its own page (particularly given its business struggles getting reliable source coverage), but that article doesn't exist. Until we have one, then the redirect we're talking about here is a clear-cut case of WP:RFOREIGN. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Baton Rouge mayoral election, 2016[edit]

a very narrow topic (politics x year) within a city referring to the general article about that city seems inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I know others disgagree but my general opinion is that of the nominator, taking a specific title to a more-general one is shouting our wares that we have more in the suitcase than we actually have. We should be brave and admit we don't have anything about this specifically; were we brave and {{tlx|R to section]] at Baton Rouge, Louisiana#Mayor-President our readers would find out quicker that we know nothing about it.
It's not the job of RfD to add content but to work out whether redirects to the content we have make sense. This one don't. I checked in case I could scrape from the French article at fr:Baton Rouge, but that is more brief than the English one, so no good there. I haven't checked Spanish yet but Louisiana ain't much Spanish-speaking so I doubt there will be much there. The general form for these are place type of election date, but I am not sure what policy that actually is, it just seems to be how they are usually done. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lists of AFVs[edit]

The term "AFV" isn't exclusive to "armoured fighting vehicles". Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominator comment: If deleting isn't an option, then weak retarget to AFV. Since "AFV" is currently not a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Armoured fighting vehicle, the connection via this redirect should not remain due to potentially causing reader confusion. (I'm "weak" on this alternative since the redirect in its entirety is not an alternate spelling or punctuation of "AFV" since AFV is currently a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the term AFV does not mean just armoured fighting vehicles, the lists of them are exclusive to armoured fighting vehicles. (We don't have a list of Ansdell and Fairhaven railway stations for example, let alone a list of lists of Ansdell and Fairhaven railway stations). I will cat it if not already done, but lists of lists are not uncommon, List of lists of lists being the end of the recursion. Without prejudice I have catted into Category:Lists of lists. The DAB at AFV doesn't really need all the section headers in, each with one entry, but I shall leave that until this discussion closes in my favour (ahem). Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I am going to be bold and take all the sections out of that DAB that Steely kindly referred to, it does not need a section for each entry. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Done that. Now, I notice that it is "armoured fighting vehicle" with the British spelling not "armored fighting vehicle" as I think it would be with the american spelling. I imagine the spelling was hard fought for, possibly with cannon: but there may be other Rs lurking about that need {{R from other spelling}} or adding to this nom, i will try to find them. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep until there is also a list of alternative fuel vehicles or something: then create a disambiguation page. Michael Z. 2016-09-22 12:49 z
Heh, I was thinking List of America's Funniest Home Videos. But the armored ones are primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Armoured fighting vehicles is by far the primary topic for this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. I just glanced over Alternative fuel vehicle, and it does have a list-y feel to it. I wouldn't object to a retarget to the disambiguation, however. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Hang up[edit]

  • Delete. Nope, nope, nope. The title of the song by this "celebrity" (someone who got onto a talent show once) was "Hang Up" with the caps. This is not what the word means, this is just turning Wikipedia into a bloody way to suit sales for people who have ever been on X factor and can't type properly from their mobile phones. Delete immediately. I have a big Hangup (a song) and Hang Up (same target) about this abuse of language for commercial ends. WP:PROMO all three of them. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Telephone_call#Placing_a_call which is likely what the user would be searching for. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I was thinking of that too, it is possible but I am not sure likely. On the other hand on the automated systems, when they went all fancy and replaced the engaged tone with an automated voice, I think BT used to say "your call cannot be connected. Please hang up and try again". (I am pretty sure those were the words cos I heard them as much as I heard "tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day till the last syllable of recorded time", etc.) So perhaps it is OK for the telephony malarky, but it is a bit edgy, I think... Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Expand: Sorry to say folks, but the song was released 8 April 2006 and charted at 63. And thus it fulfils criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. The song also appears on YouTube. I'm assuming whoever did the redirect meant to place it at The Impossible Dream (Andy Abraham album) as the single is off that album. Which if that is the case, then re-target the direct to the album article. Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Then Expand it then.You're the one with the info, you can help to improve Wikipedia. It says right at the bottom of the article "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it". Go ahead, then expand it. I don't know bugger all about it so I can't, I've just been translating Romanian. Please get my eyes back they rolled across the floor. Si Trew (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Don't be bossing me, Si Trew, on what to do and when to do it. You may have forgotten, but there is a real world out there. You know, blue sky, green trees, pretty flowers. You've nominated something for deletion with a specific rationale. I have debunked your rationale because the song has charted and therefore fulfilled criteria that prevents the deletion. I'm not going to start creating a new song article, when I'm also trying to move house, plus I'm not that good with song articles. I tend to balls things up when creating them. Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    Whatever. YOu have a user page and talk page that is inaccessible. I hope your house move goes well, that is always a stressful time, I hope it all gang aft agley or rather doesn't. Since you have kinda ruled yourself out from being able to create or expand the article I have no idea why you suggested the article should be created or expanded. I wish you well in your new home, and let's hope it has Internet so you can contribute here too! Si Trew (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I ain't bossing you. You're the one who suggested to exxpand the article, so expand the article, nobody is stopping you. What you are doing is bossing me around for telling me I am not allowed to say the bleeding obvious, if you know it, stop bitching about it, make the article. There are plenty of stubs in Category:Stubs and just be bold and do it. Don't whine at me about the lack of something that you have expertise in, do it. Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Create dab there's a 1974 film called Hangup, the song as mentioned above which (song) should direct to the album, and the phone usage. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    That's pretty much in danger of being WP:TWODABS I think, AngusWOOF. Si Trew (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Champion. Pppery 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So, we're completely torn between 'The Impossible Dream (Andy Abraham album)', 'Hangup (film)', and 'Telephone_call#Placing_a_call'? I don't see a clear-cut case for any of them being a primary target, to be honest, so I guess I'm having to also vote for a disambiguation page coming about from all this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Dabify. I've created a dab page at the redirect if it's wanted. (I have no idea if any of those songs are covers of one another.) — Gorthian (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Govern Ment[edit]

Form of leadership[edit]

Government does not equal leadership. I'm thinking these should be deleted. Leadership lists some styles of leadership, but forms? Not really sure what's meant there. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for pissing on your bonfire, but we do have Forms of government. I am not sure that would be any better though, it would fall into WP:XY I think. Systems of government redirects there, too. I think you're right, one would think there would be an overarching article about autocracy, monarchy, plutocracy and so on but it seems there is not.

(parody deleted by meSi Trew (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC))

I know that. I wssn't too happy with the scansion meself, either. Deleted. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Leadership isn't exclusive to government. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Leadership style per nom. Searches for this term direct mainly to this topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, that would be the better place; I overlooked the {{main}}. Still favoring deletion though. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Leadership style - I agree. We can see that "form(s)" and "style(s)" in this context are closely related. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Leadership style. Seems to be the closest synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of government functions[edit]

Dream out loud[edit]

Delete. Not at target. Not marked as {{R to section}}, but there has never been a DREAMOUTLOUD section. Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep and add section to Selena Gomez mentioning her brand of boots. [27] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I ain't here to add the content. When someone else does, I'll change me !vote. As it stands, there is no content. I can only go from what I see on Wikipedia. What I then have is a totally bizarre reference to something that doesn't mention it. I don't even know who the person is, let alone what the boots are. When I hear the expression "dream out loud" I do not automatically think of a singer/cobbler. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    Given that Gomez's brand isn't even notable enough to list in her article, but that the other band is, I'm changing my vote to Retarget per Tavix. A (brand) disambiguator can be added later if coverage does occur, but given the article is C-class, it isn't clear whether the article is complete to make a statement about that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dream Out Loud, {{R from miscapitalization}}. Can we all be happy with that? -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • No, I am not happy with that. It goes to a different target. Delete it. Be brave, delete it. The search engine will cope with the different capitalization. Delete it. No point redirecting it. WP:BOLD and delete it. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Dabify or Retarget to Dream Out Loud as a {{R from other capitalisation}}. I've drafted a dab page at Dream out loud but I'm not especially attached to it if this discussion decides to retarget. Also, Comment: her collection is discussed, with sources, at the target. 06:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)— Gorthian (talk)
    The Selena Gomez mention is listed twice but buried in the article. But nice finds with the other albums and songs. It might make a good dab page though the band stays a primary topic until at least one of the other topics becomes notable for its own article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

SelenaGomez.com[edit]

This has got to be pushing it... Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing notable about the website names that it requires a redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep perfectly valid {{R from domain name}}. This is not like the Qantas case where all of the domains are not mentioned at the target, this one is mentioned, so I see no reason for deletion. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's WP:PROMO too. As AngusWOOLF implied, the article should be about a notable website, not a notable person. For if not, we might as well have redirects for anything that has a website= in its infobox. and the one with the intercapping is not even a well-formed URL, but never mind. You'll probably say keep. So let's make manchesterunited.com or whatever. I know, in fact explicitly, the nonexistence of other redirects is no reason to argue against the deletion of those that exist, but I know in practice over the years what precedence means. madonna.com does not exist, for example, this is pure WP:PROMO to get external linksto divert people to the Wikipedia page. We are not not a WP:FANSITE. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree not having an active link isn't grounds for removal, but there are still no outside articles that refer specifically to the website name, so that implies the name of the website is not notable enough for a redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: We have apple.com, microsoft.com, google.com etc. Qantas.com.au is also a redirect, you may feel free to nominate any of these, but I still haven't changed my opinion on this nomination. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Champion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel that someone searching this already knows about Selena Gomez, and is wanting specific information about the website. The article doesn't discuss the website at all, just the fact that it's hers, which wouldn't help those searching this. {{R from domain name}} specifies that it's for an "article about a website", which isn't the case here since Selena Gomez is notable as an actress/singer, not as a website. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix:By your logic, Qantas.com.au, Apple.com and so on, should all be deleted due to them not being notable as a website, I would oppose such mass-deletion, people do get what they are looking for due to the website being mentioned at the target. Quoting you from the linked discussion above, "this is not the official website of Qantas", I assumed that you were in favor of keeping the redirect from the actual official website. You are certainly entitled to change, of course, but I would like an explanation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion focused on the redirect nominated. Those other redirects have not been nominated and I have not cast judgement upon them. I would oppose a mass nomination of this sort as well, but that's a red herring at this point since there isn't one. -- Tavix (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Selena Qomez[edit]

Selena Gómez[edit]

Selena M. Gomez[edit]

Delete. Not commonly known as Selena M. Gomez; essentially for search that implies a disambiguation from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and ends up with a WP:SURPRISE that it is, indeed, singer Selena Gomez. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep But not incorrect. Unsuitable for a title, but fine here unless there was potential ambiguity. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My beef with that, and as you can tell I am trogging through many borderline ones with this, is that it implies to someone searching via a drop down that Selena M. Gomez is somehow a different person from Selena Gomez, i.e. that implicitly the M. acts as a disambiguator. I agree it is not techincally incorrect, but I think it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Were we not to have it, people would not have to make the choice of which Selena Gomez they wanted, only to find to their disappointment or at least WP:SURPRISE they were the same person. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fly To Your Heart (Selena Gomez song)[edit]

Not sure. This is a bit weird. Fly to Your Heart is a a redirect to Tinker Bell (film)#Soundtrack where Gomez is linked. It is odd, then, to have this redirect go to a different place – and indeed not to a section but just to the person themselves, kinda self-disambiguating. I can't put my finger on it, but essentially this is WP:SURPRISEing as being the same, transitively, as ssaying "Selena Gomez (Selena Gomez song)", or is it just me that has the mental jar with this one? Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete unless there are other "Fly to Your Heart" songs, this is an unnecessary extra disambiguator. The song itself can be kept, and perhaps added to her discography if the soundtrack had some amount of charting success. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: I added two others before or during your delete !vote, not technically an ec but your delete technically only applies to the first... you may wish to comment on the other two. Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem. This would apply to the other variants. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of songs by Selena Gomez[edit]

Selena Gomez songs[edit]

Yeah, I closed it procedurally and before I discovered the list in the RfD above. I agree that should be the target regardless of the other RfD turns out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with retargeting to the song list. I didn't realize there was one when I initially voted. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I think that's enough support to go ahead and do it. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ppr:Kut[edit]

Lyrics redirects to Papercut (Linkin Park song)[edit]

WP:NOTLYRICS. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete lyrics need to be notable like a catchphrase, and covered by independent secondary sources such as news articles. Ideally something that the reader immediately knows that song, but might not know its actual title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a lyrics database. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Why does it feel like night today" as the first line in the song (i.e. a low-brow version of Shall I compare thee to a summer's day) and delete the other. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Will Hunting 2[edit]

MacOS[edit]

Sentence logic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29#Sentence logic

To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding (H.R. 3095; 113th Congress)[edit]

To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding (H.R. 3578; 113th Congress)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for revert wars[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:AfD/Gordon Franz[edit]

Chantelle Kreviaziuk[edit]

White house tours[edit]

Democracy and Dictatorship[edit]

-cracy[edit]

CAT R[edit]

September 14[edit]

UYT[edit]

Other Armada[edit]

Wikipedia:IAP[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

retarget to Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, this is a more useful redirect. This may also violate WP:CNR. Prisencolin (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment BDD nominated it for retargetting to that page in 2014 - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Wikipedia:IAP, a discussion that ended in no consensus. I'm leaning towards keeping as it seems to be used to reach the current target based on links. Redirects from project space to template space are very rarely problematic and so that aspect of the nomination is a very weak rationale at best unless someone can identify that this redirect is actually (not just theoretically) harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are quite a lot of links to this redirect, and it's been in use since 2006. BTW, I reformatted the RFD template properly on the redirect page, and informed WP:AUSTRALIA of this discussion.Gorthian (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the last discussion about this in April 2014, except that the redirect has now been in use for over 9 years. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent remains a little known, stubby essay created almost entirely by a single editor. The only changes to it since the last discussion was that it was nominated for merge with WP:IAR but gained very little interest. The essay does little more than restate what WP:BOLD and WP:IAR do, but in far less words and with far less detail. --AussieLegend () 05:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Orphan (replace with the correct T:IAP which already exists) and then retarget either per nominator or any other suggestion. Some project-space XNRs (e.g. between Wikipedia vs. Help, where there's a potential for confusion between the two namespaces) are helpful, but from Wikipedia to Template is a bridge too far: editors should be competent enough to know that templates are found in the Template namespace.. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget Still feel this way. The IP above me put it particularly well. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent as above. Valid targets within the namespace in which a title resides should take precedence over targets outside of it in most cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Except that {{Infobox Australian place}} is a highly visible template used in more than 10,000 articles and ignore all precendents is a hardly known essay. If we were to look at the primary topic, one would win out. --AussieLegend () 12:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That argument would hold a lot of weight if both titles were of the article namespace where the primary topic guidance is a matter of policy. They aren't, so it doesn't, especially as it is a cross namespace redirect. If they were in the same namespace, I'd agree with you. T:IAP already exists for Template:Infobox Australian place, it doesn't need to have a monopoly on "IAP".— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Just because it's not the namespace doesn't mean the same principles shouldn't apply. T:IAP was created as a result of the last discussion, but it hasn't caught on. WP:IAP is still more well known. Retargeting the redirect would simply be adding advertising for a little known stubby essay, and confusing the editors looking for the infobox. --AussieLegend () 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is linked from hundreds of pages, and retargeting would certainly be harmful. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: It seems Plantdrew's comment below might effect your opinion, if you haven't already seen it, as it contradicts your statement. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: No, this has not changed my vote. To further clarify my vote, WP:Ignore all precedent is currently being discussed at MfD and the current target is long-established and the fact that it is not linked at a lot of pages may be the reason to keep it, a hatnote on the template documentation may be enough. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: Yes, I had realized that, but that still doesn't change my opinion, as the current target is long established and may break links. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: I just noticed that you did already notice this and acknowledged it. My apologies for the repeat inquiry from you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: That I did. Your response to me now looks several pixels larger. Face-smile.svg Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget It's linked from 61 pages, not hundreds. 10 of those are in one editors user space (who has commented here opposing retarget). 23 are to talk page archives. There are some links that clearly intend Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent. I'm not sure what best practice is regarding disambiguating non-article links in archived talk pages, but a little disambiguation work could sort out this very strange usage of a cross-namespace redirect shortcut. Plantdrew (talk)
It doesn't matter how many pages this shortcut links to, it's meant as a shortcut, and not necessarily a link. As for links meant for Ignore all precedent, at least some of these are typos. One I found dates to 2 months before the essay was created. --AussieLegend () 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • keep as per my original comment in the 2014 discussion nothing has changed. Gnangarra 07:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Orphan and possibly retarget per 58.176.246.42. Plantdrew made the case for a CNR without widespread use, but let me pile on a bit. On Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:IAP, the only two mentions in the Talk: namespace are missellings. Honestly, it looks to me as if AussieLegend tries to defend "their" redirect (in their shoes, I would not have made this nomination with this timing). See [30]: while it is true that WP:IAP is used more than T:IAP, the numbers for both are very low, and much lower than all hits of Template:Infobox_Australian_place. (In fact, it may even be that hits for WP:IAP are driven by readers of AussieLegend's user pages, in particular User:AussieLegend/Australian_place_article_starter.) Retracted, see below. So, while the infobox may be highly visible, it does not follow that a particular redirect to the infobox should be left untouched (I would bet that the bulk of the hits come from mainspace pages that use the infobox).
This being said, I am not sure Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, a rather obscure essay, is worth redirecting to either - but since it is the only target in the same namespace, why not. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
On Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:IAP, the only two mentions in the Talk: namespace are missellings. - You do realise that this redirect is a shortcut don't you? Instead of typing "Template:Infobox Australian place" in the search box to get to the template, an editor only has to type "WP:IAP". Shortcuts don't normally get linked to on talk pages when editors are navigating to the target of the shortcut. They're only on talk pages when somebody decides to mention the target of the redirect. If you look at the pageview statistics you'll see that the shortcut has been used 227 times in the past year, despite only two mentions on talkpages.
it may even be that hits for WP:IAP are driven by readers of AussieLegend's user pages, in particular User:AussieLegend/Australian_place_article_starter - No. Pageview statistics for that page show that it has been accessed only 76 times in the past year. Those statistics do not match the statistics for WP:IAP. --AussieLegend () 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
First of all, your "227 hits/year" figure takes into account a big bump after the nomination at RfD (95 hits since 2016-08-27). In reality, it is closer to one hit every two days. But even if it was one per day, that is not exactly grandfathering rights.
The absence of (linked) mention in article talk pages is very relevant. Everything else being equal, grandfathering rights are better supported with project noticeboard and article TP than user or template TP mentions. If your argument is that the WP:IAP shortcut is actually used a lot, just that it is unlinked, none prevents you to keep using this way; it will be confusing for newbies, but that is the case regardless of where the redirect points if the redirect is actually not linked to.
As for the origin of traffic, your argument is a poor one because (1) even if one hit to your UP translated to one hit to the WP:IAP page it would still be a large part (~50%) of the traffic, and (2) one could imagine a user creating multiple pages on Australia keeps your UP open but open and close WP:IAP multiple times. However, I see no clear correlation between hits on those pages, which invalidates my supposition, so I removed that part. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The absence of (linked) mention in article talk pages is very relevant. There is no requirement that redirects starting with "WP" must be linked. That a redirect is not mentioned on a talk page has absolutely no relevance. As I said, it's a shortcut, meant to make it easier for someone to get to the page, nothing more.
Everything else being equal, grandfathering rights are better supported with project noticeboard and article TP than user or template TP mentions. No, pageviews are more relevant. Something can be linked from a talk page but never clicked on, or it can be clicked 1,000 times. What determines how used something is, are the number of times the page has been viewed.
If your argument is that the WP:IAP shortcut is actually used a lot, just that it is unlinked, none prevents you to keep using this way If it was retargeted it would certainly stop it being used. People used looking for the template this way for 10 years would end up at an obscure, totally irrelevant essay.
As for the origin of traffic, your argument is a poor one because (1) even if one hit to your UP translated to one hit to the WP:IAP That is a simplistic assumption, and nothing more. On the userpage that you are talking about, there are 237 links. You can't make any assumptions about any of them because you simply don't have any information at all to support your argument. It may well be that none of the links are clicked, while it may be that all of them are. You just don't know. --AussieLegend () 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I am ready to accept an argument that the shortcut is widely used, but rarely linked. But you offered no proof of that whatsoever.
"Everything else being equal" obviously included page views. If a user's talk page has 100 hits per month, and a project noticeboard has 100 hits per month, I say that a mention of a particular redirect on the latter gives better support than on the former to an assertion that it is well-known. A better metric would be how many times that redirect was clicked from those pages and by how many unique visitors, but as you mentioned we do not have that.
While you did not bring up the argument that the redirect is linked from many pages (and hence should be kept), almost any other !keep voter did and I think it is a sensible one. That is why I looked at the "what links here" page. However, it is incompatible with your argument that "we don't care what links, all that matter is the number of times the redirect was hit".
If it was retargeted it would certainly stop it being used. Firstly, that is speculation. If, as you mentioned, it is mostly used as a shortcut and unlinked, I do not see why people would or should change their ways to mention the template by "WP:IAP". Secondly, if we accept your second assertion that People used looking for the template this way for 10 years would end up at an obscure, totally irrelevant essay, it is actually a good thing rather than a problem that it stops being used. Thirdly, the only way people would end up on the essay page from an unlinked mention is if a user unfamiliar with its meaning copy-pastes the shortcut in their browser bar. If such a person exists, then the redirect has already been hit by someone who did not know what the target would be, and surely they were surprised to end up on a template page from a WP: shortcut (the trapdoor problem).
Finally, I retracted my argument about your user page (with some information refuting it, BTW). Still, if I "simply don't have any information at all to support my argument" that the link was clicked from your UP then surely Pageview statistics ... show that [the user page] has been accessed only 76 times in the past year. Those statistics do not match the statistics for WP:IAP. is an equally wrong implication (that the hit numbers demonstrate that WP:IAP is mostly accessed by other means). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I am ready to accept an argument that the shortcut is widely used, but rarely linked. But you offered no proof of that You do indeed have proof that it is not widely linked. You have pageviews to show that it has been used. Unfortunately we can only go back to last year with those, but you have to include all of the uses of the link since it was first created nearly 10 years ago, 7 of those before the obscure essay was created.
I think it is a sensible one ... it is incompatible with your argument that "we don't care what links, all that matter is the number of times the redirect was hit" If we were talking about something you expected to be linked from talk pages then it might be sensible but this is not a link we expect to be linked from pages so it's largely irrelevant here.
Firstly, that is speculation. No it isn't. If the redirect was retargeted it would certainly stop it be used as a shortcut for Infobox Australian place.
it is actually a good thing rather than a problem that it stops being used How can sending people to an abscure, totally unrelated page be a good thing?
the only way people would end up on the essay page from an unlinked mention is if a user unfamiliar with its meaning copy-pastes the shortcut in their browser bar. No, a user who is used to typing in WP:IAP to get to an infobox via a shortcut that was been in place for 10 years would end up there too.
then surely Pageview statistics ... show that [the user page] has been accessed only 76 times in the past year My user page is really irrelevant to this discussion, despite your attempts to make it relevant. Most of the accesses were probably me, although I do know of at least one other editor who has referenced it. --AussieLegend () 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as the redirect has targeted either its current target or its target's previous title (Template:Infobox Australian Place) for almost 10 years, but weak since it has a small amount of incoming links (less than 100), so replacing them wouldn't be too problematic and shows a possible lack of precedence for using this shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Yep, this is a WP:CNR. (Not sure how I missed that.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As was pointed out at the last discussion, WP:CNR really applies to redirects to and from the main namespace. In any case, WP:CNR, which is an essay, gives reasons for both deleting and keeping CNRs. --AussieLegend () 04:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...And my opinion is that most cross-namespace redirects are misleading to most readers not familiar with the established mechanics of Wikipedia. This is definitely one of those cases since the target page is not a Wikipedia guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • How does it mislead readers? Most readers, as opposed to editors, are not going to be looking for guidelines. "WP" is not restricted to guidelines, policies or essays. WP is, for example, also used to link to WikiProjects. Surely that use would be misleading readers too? --AussieLegend () 17:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Do you mean WikiProject titles, such as all pages that start with "Wikipedia:WikiProject"? There's nothing misleading there since those pages are located in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Readers and editors alike may need to find volunteers who could answer their questions about certain subjects, and Wikipedia volunteers have established WikiProjects to help gather possible experts in these subjects together to collaborate. I fail to see how this connection is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You claim that isn't misleading, but you haven't how this redirect is misleading. --AussieLegend () 19:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I already did in a previous comment (but looking back, I should have said "guidelines and WikiProjects".) You changed the subject, so I answered your subject change. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No, you didn't. You said most cross-namespace redirects are misleading to most readers not familiar with the established mechanics of Wikipedia. Adding "guidelines and WikiProjects" doesn't explain how CNRs are misleading to readers who, as I said, are not going to be looking for guidelines, or WikiProjects. Most readers will never even look at anything beyond an article. They don't even look at talkpages generally. It's only the very occasional reader who will go past the article itself, and they generally don't immediately start typing redirects. --AussieLegend () 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the last time, as I don't see that anything has changed. The arguments from WP:CNR for removing CNRs don't actually apply in this case, as this redirect is in the Wikipedia namespace and not the main namespace. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent has only a handful of links, 23 as of now, including 8 from XfD pages; of the remaining 15 links, 10 of them use the perfectly adequate shortcut WP:AIPD that is just one letter longer. - Evad37 [talk] 06:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
While CNRs are much worse in the main namespace than backstage, they are still is a poor idea: unexpected trapdoors are bad for editors too. There is no need of guideline (or essay, or...) to see that, really. If you encounter an unknown acronym redirect you would expect the acronym to have something to do with the target; it is the same for the prefix.
I think the retargeting to WP:IAPD is a red herring since it is an obscure essay, but if you accept the "just one letter longer" argument (that the essay does not need the other redirect), then T:IAP is a "perfectly adequate shortcut that is even one letter shorter". TigraanClick here to contact me 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I commented on the retargerting because that was in the nomination, and commented on by others above. Unexpected "trap doors" not involving mainspace are much less of problem, by orders of magnitude – even just going by the raw numbers of readers compared to editors, let alone that editors have more clue about what's going on than the average reader. So while, in general, CNRs aren't so good (and I probably wouldn't support new ones from WP-space to template-space), there are reasons for keeping old ones articulated at WP:CNR, the most relevant being that editors find it useful (also if you accept that retargeting to WP:IAPD is a red herring, there's nothing much better to take over the redirect). If editors say they find it useful, then they probably do – the existence of the T: shortcut doesn't really change that, does it? Plus, it seems ironic that a mainspace→template-space redirect would be preferred to a non-mainspace→template-space redirect (anything in a pseudo-space is actually in mainspace) - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I will clarify about the "red herring". I think a CNR is, in itself, actively harmful, even in the backstage areas (though much less than in mainspace, I agree with that). I also think that, if WP:IAP was a redlink, there would be little value to targeting it to an obscure essay; however, as long as none else wants the redirect, the value in linking, albeit small, is positive as soon as someone wants it done. So I see the debate not as much as "should WP:IAP redirect to this page or that page?", but rather as "should WP:IAP redirect to the template page?".
As for the fact that T: is technically in mainspace, Is there any difference for the end user? (Genuinely asking, AFAIK the only ones affected are the coders.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The main difference is that typing T: into the search box brings up suggestions for both articles such as T: The New York Times Style Magazine and t:kort, as well as non-articles such as T:WPBIO (redirect to Template:WikiProject_Biography) and T:DYKT (redirect to Template talk:Did you know). WP:CNR suggests that there may also be issues for re-users ending up with broken redirects. Looking at a similar question for the whole RfD:
  • If the redirect is kept, some editors will be annoyed that a (non-pseudo-space) CNR still exists, but the amount of actual harm (editors following the redirect and being "lost behind the trap door", or even just confused for longer than some seconds) is probably quite small.
  • If the redirect is deleted or retargeted, some editors will be annoyed that a redirect they found useful no longer works, and a few dozen links will need to be changed.
Either way, there's not likely to much difference in terms of helping/hindering the writing of the encyclopedia (the reason where all here). And in either case, adding a {{redirect}} hatnote to the target page may help matters. - Evad37 [talk] 01:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hatnote added to template documentation - Evad37 [talk] 03:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote on the editors' pages, I informed Gnangarra because his edit history showed he had been away for a few days. He normally watches WP:AWNB but had not responded to the notices there, but I knew he would be interested in this discussion, and assumed he had missed the notice. Evad37 was the editor who addressed CNRs at the last discussion. It seemed appropriate to notify him. Unfortunately there is a long history of Australian editors missing out on relevant discussions - we've had a lot of articles, categories etc disappear because interested editors haven't been informed, so it's common practice to notify editors to ensure everyone has a chance to participate. Sorry for being courteous. It's a sad trait that we Aussies are lumbered with. --AussieLegend () 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no need for sarcasm. --BDD (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on grandfathering rights, CNR jurisprudence, etc. It seems probable, or at least plausible, that the outcome of the discussion will depend on the weighting of "it is useful" vs. "CNR are bad generally speaking". For perspective, skimming through the RfD archives by searching for "WP:CNR" and excluding mainspace redirects (but including pseudo-namespace redirects), I found only these cases:
Also of interest can be the page Category:Redirects_to_template_from_non-template_namespace, where the immense majority is either mainspace or T: to Template: redirects, or subpages. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, Godsy. My opinion hasn't changed in the last two years - retarget per nom. There is no good reason for this CNR to exist.  — Scott talk 18:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This redirect has existed for nearly 10 years and has prevented the need to type "Template:Infobox Australian place" in order to get to the infobox. That seems a pretty good reason and it has worked well for all this time. --AussieLegend () 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you numerous times already, T:IAP also exists and, being shorter, provides an even better way to avoid needing to type "Template:Infobox Australian place". So no, that is not a good reason.  — Scott talk 09:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware that T:IAP exists, since I was the one who created it. There is no limitation on the number of redirects that a page may have pointing to it, so the fact that T:IAP exists is irrelevant. --AussieLegend () 03:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
More heat than light in there. Collapsed by TigraanClick here to contact me 09:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It does not follow: "[Because] there is no [limit] on the number of redirects [to] a page, the fact that [another redirect to it] exists is irrelevant."— Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What I said was perfectly valid. Other redirects are completely irrelevant. We're only talking about one. If we were to accept your argument, the the fact that WP:IAPD already redirects to the essay would need to be taken into account, but it is really irrelevant. --AussieLegend () 08:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Another logical error. Just because we are addressing one redirect doesn't mean that it exists in a vacuum.  — Scott talk 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Fine then. Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent already has an established redirect pointing to it. It therefore doesn't need another. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. --AussieLegend () 15:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
A non sequitur again and complete cobblers to boot. You've run out of useful things to say.  — Scott talk 20:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying "non sequitur" over and over again doesn't make you right. Nor does calling something cobblers without actually explaining why it's cobblers. It just makes you seem like a robot in a bad '70s Sci-fi movie looking for a shoe shop. --AussieLegend () 06:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 58.176.246.42 and Tigraan. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • comment after 2 years an admin is going to have to grow some gold plated balls and make a decision, the reality is we have a shortcut thats been in use since 2006 being recommended for retarget to an essay thats being in place since 2013 (only six months before this on going discussion started). The rationale is for the redirect is based on another essay not a guideline nor a policy. I find it hard to see how an argument can be made based on an essay that itself states Currently, the general consensus seems to be that most newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links.. This short cut isnt newly created, and hasnt over 2 years of discussion even gained a general consensus yes consensus can change and inevitably drawn out discussion might lead to an eventual outcome that suits the rationale purely because of attrition, the last rider on that statement is the substantive point that being very old CNR might retain their value to me clearly this discussion has proven that point in that the discussion has been unable to reach the desired consensus in two years, the closure of this isnt going to create any new policy change or precedent umm I mean essay. Gnangarra 09:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    the discussion has been unable to reach the desired consensus in two years Give us a break. The first RfD ran for a week. This one has been running for three weeks. Also, gold plated balls is both unhelpful and sexist. Please refrain from making similar comments.  — Scott talk 12:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, Gnangarra does have a point that some admin will have a difficult close here, even if the formulation was regrettable. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Pppery 16:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. A shorter shortcut already exists, which serves this exact purpose. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Whether it's shorter or not is really irrelevant, and this has been discussed already. --AussieLegend () 18:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Where it was discussed above, there was disagreement on that issue. It's pretty clear that there would be a stronger case for keeping this if it was the most concise redirect to the current target, which it's not. Since there's an alternative that's not a CNR and which is in fact, more efficient, my preference is retargeting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
T:IAP exists only because I created it after the last discussion. However, it hasn't gained the "popularity" that this redirect has, probably because this one has been in use for 10 years and is far more well known. Most templates, policies and guidelines have multiple redirects pointing to them, all of different lengths. Should we delete all but the shortest? no, of course, because people use something they can remember. For some, that might be WP:OTHERSTUFF, despite the much shorter WP:OCE existing. In short, length is not an issue and, in any case, T:IAP is only a single letter shorter. The fact that editors have been using this shortcut for ten years to point to a template used in 10,000+ articles should, in itself, give cause to keeping it as is, instead of retargeting it to an obscure stubby essay that very few people use and which was only created two years ago. --AussieLegend () 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
That the template this points to is used in 10,000+ articles is irrelevant to this discussion.  — Scott talk 08:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's entirely relevant. It is far more beneficial to point a redirect to a target that is more widely used than to one that is rarely used, and which has no "official" status. --AussieLegend () 10:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would agree with the logic of AL's argument here (though CNR blah blah), but it cuts both ways: the fact that the target is hugely popular compared to the redirect itself proves that the redirect has not that much traction. However, I disagree with the premise that 10,000 templated articles is an indication of "popularity" - a much better measure would be page views for the template, for instance (4/day here). {{Quote}} probably has a zillion inclusions, but Template talk:Quote has 17 (recently active) page watchers and 55 views/day the last month, which is not that large - of course, templates are fairly arcane. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the point, since it came up again: "an alternative that's not a CNR" is not accurate. T:IAP is a CNR, from mainspace to templatespace. See above comments from myself and Tigraan on 8–10 September. - Evad37 [talk] 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

African stereotypes[edit]

Why We Want You to be Rich: Two Men – One Message[edit]

Toy Story 5[edit]

Ted Snowden[edit]

Goliath (film)[edit]

The Side Effect (film)[edit]

August 6[edit]

Cinderella (2014 film)[edit]

All cross-namespace redirects of the following type[edit]

Full list of WikiProject XNRs

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/WikiProject XNR list

Delete all, as well as dozens of other cross-namespace redirects of the type WikiProject _____ in article namespace -> Wikipedia:WikiProject _____ in Wikipedia namespace. See this essay on Cross-namespace redirects, although for guidance only, it states: Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects from the main (article) namespace to the Wikipedia (project) namespace should be deleted, that very old ones might retain their value for extra-Wikipedia links. I clicked in a few of the revision history pages of these redirects and most are created after 2008, hence probably not considered as 'very old'. Such redirects would not be of much use anyways since most or all of these WikiProjects already have their own respective shortcuts. Even for people that don't know that such individual shortcuts exist, all they have to do is to type in WP:, instead of wasting time creating these cross-namespace redirects that might confuse readers. Wishva de Silva | Talk 11:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia articles about WikiProjects likely? Might any of them be sufficiently notable? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In some cases I think WikiProjects could become notable - Miltiary history, Medicine and Women in red are the three most likely candidates I think. I wouldn't expect any of the ones explicitly listed above to be notable presently, but I haven't looked for sources. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • strong keep all not listed. Yes it's tedious having to explicitly tag and list all nominated redirects when there are many, but it is necessary for as reason as it alerts anybody using the redirects that they are being considered for deletion and allows people to look at the history, views and links of the redirects and to look for external sources, etc which are all important for correctly determining the fate of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude and Thryduulf: Hi, I think both of you didn't understand what I mean here. These redirects are not articles and never meant to be...If you type in one of those names of WikiProjects in the search bar, without the reserved word and colon (ie Wikipedia:), the page will be immediately redirected to that WikiProject in Wikipedia: namespace, instead of an article. As I said, these redirects have minimal use. They are likely to be created by inexperienced editors who have no knowledge of the uses of different namespaces. These redirects are relatively new hence the revision history pages have one (that is the current) version only, so they wouldn't be of much use either. Wishva de Silva | Talk 02:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you mean, but I disagree that we can delete them without tagging them and looking at them individually. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It's also clear that you haven't investigated this much - WikiProject Albums has been around since 2009, has many incoming links and was previously kept at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 3#Special:PrefixIndex/WikiProject). See also other previous discussions Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 2#WikiProject → Wikipedia:WikiProject. Having read those discussions, I'm going to recommend keep all as the chance of confusion is very low and they take users where they want to go. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. Saves keystrokes and doesn't impact casual readers who wouldn't know about WikiProjects in the first place. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete all listed here, and warn the user Jujutsuan who created them a month ago that they are not acceptable. It will impact casual readers when these potentially show up in the regular article namespace search results, and lead them to something they may not understand, or will come to believe is part of the encyclopedia proper. The benefit of saving three keystrokes (i.e. "WP:") for contributors seeking the Wikipedia namespace content doesn't even come close to outweighing the harm. Textbook cross namespace redirects that should be deleted.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
    • You have only looked at the very first one listed, as only that single redirect was created by Jujutsuan. All the others were created between 2008 and 2013 by various users, so it seems unlikely you have actually given any thought to these redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I've amended my statement above, the rest still applies.Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D6 and the previous RFD regarding these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. The odds of a non-wikipedian stumbling upon these redirects seems very low, and it saves keystrokes for the wikipedians. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Readers come first. Even if the chance of confusion for them is miniscule (which is debatable), the benefit clearly doesn't outweigh it (especially as editors can use the efficient three characters of "WP:" and commonly do), therefore we shouldn't retain these.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all These pointless XNRs are not even the shortest way of typing the name of their targets (WP:SONG or other shortcuts of that type are). Pppery (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pppery and Godsy: The shortest way of typing the name of the target is not the only consideration - the evidence shows that these reirects have been around a long time and that people are using them to get to the current target. It doesn't matter why they use this and not a WP: shortcut, only that they do, and redirects that are used are by very definition not pointless. Readers do come first, but when there is no conflict between readers and editors (such as here) we should not be inconveniencing editors and breaking links when doing so will not benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @Wisha de Silva: You did not even tag all of these redirects, making Thryduulf's initial concern even more relevant. I have just tagged them. Pppery (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. Recent precedent weighs more heavily in my book, especially since WikiProjects are occasionally notable in their own right. At a glance, though, there are still many other redirects of this type out there. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all listed and, should a list of all the ones matching the specified pattern be added here, delete those too. Per nominator, Tavix, Pppery, and particularly Godsy.  — Scott talk 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I just added a full list of redirects matching the title pattern below. Pppery (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Scott: Pinging because I forgot to earlier. Pppery (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've moved it to a subpage and transcluded it to save people having to load so much code when participating in this discussion.  — Scott talk 16:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Full list moved to top. Pppery (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I only became aware of this discussion because I accidentally typed "WikiProject Biography" instead of something that would have taken me to the correct place. I would have still got to where I needed to go, and I suspect anyone else typing that would also know how to get to the right place. It might be an idea to fix incoming links. Is it possibly to vote delete but only after existing links have been fixed? How many are there? Or maybe delete the ones with no incoming links other than to RfD discussions but keep the rest until they fall out of use. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. In Wikipedia time, I'm not so sure that 2008 is not "very old". People have gotten used to using these, and forgetting to add the "WP:" at the beginning of typing is probably common (it is for me). I don't see that these are doing any harm. (Wishva de Silva and Pppery, per Carcharoth's comment, these all need to be tagged for the RfD so anyone using them will be alerted. Maybe someone with AWB can help.) — Gorthian (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note None of the redirects in the extended list have been tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Tavix and BDD. WJBscribe (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all Wikiprojects are not for the readership. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming films[edit]

Ancient names for DYK prep areas[edit]

Numbers 15:32[edit]

Avenger of blood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Avenger of blood

Indian Magna Carta[edit]

Fionn Whitehead[edit]