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.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page 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. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • 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 at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is 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 potential 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.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se 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 criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like 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]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

July 31[edit]

Peter Sabbath[edit]

I see no connection here. Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Niederst[edit]

How are these two names connected? Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per apparent lack of connection. Rubbish computer 14:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Information About Giant Pandas[edit]

Seems unnecessary JZCL 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Information On Giant Pandas[edit]

Seems unnecessary JZCL 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal ramification[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Same idea as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Heavy metal genealogic tree but I think this is different enough that it should get a separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heaevy metael uemlaeuet[edit]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to a heavy metal umlaut because it isn't actually German. -- Tavix (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, per Tavix. I'd argue that since none of marks on these letters is really an umlaut (linguistics), calling them so is technically wrong, but of course Metal umlaut is its WP:COMMONNAME so that of itself is fine, but these are stretching it a bit.
We don't have Mëtäl ümläüt, nor Heävy metäl ümläüt (for which the first one would be the transliteration), but we do have Heavy metal ümlaut, Röckdöts, Röckdöt and Röck döts for the others respectively: these also all go to Metal umlaut.
{{R from title with diacritics}} is inappropriate in these cases since they are not the exact same title as required (or at least recommended) when using those templates.
This is getting a bit out of hand, I think: @Tavix:, did you want to add any I mention to the nom? Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Heavy metal ümlaut is less clear-cut: The word umlaut does not actually have an umlaut on the U, even in German, but I can see it being a common misspelling of "umlaut" rather than of itself intended to mean the metal umlaut. But then, we don't have metal ümlaut. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible misspelling. Rubbish computer 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heavy m[edit]

This is a super vague redirect. For starters, my search results show "Heavy M" as being some kind of mapping technology. On Wikipedia, it could refer to anything at heavy metal, heavy mineral, heavy machine-gun, etc. No matter where you put it, there'll be a WP:SURPRISE, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was actually thinking more of Livestock_branding#Symbols_and_terminology, but "heavy" appears not to be used in that terminology. Heavy M is red. Looks like this was just a typo (albeit one that has been around since 2008); stats are well below noise level (average a little over one a week). Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal genealogic tree[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. This is confusing because the article gives no indication of what a "heavy metal genealogic tree" would be. -- Tavix (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete/Weak Retarget to Metal: A Headbanger's Journey#"Definitive metal family tree". It's called the family tree there, not the "genealogic tree", but they're synonymous [genealogic now archaic. Then again I don't think or know if those are really useful directing there, hence the weak. "Definitive metal genealogic[al] tree" would be a much better redirect, if they're indeed plausible.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Incidentally "Genealogic" is marked as an archaic term for "genealogical" over at Wiktionary, which imports its definition from the 1913 Webster's. (without citations; one can get them at The Free Dictionary's definition of "genealogic" from the same source). Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @SimonTrew: Very interesting, that weakens my retarget even further. I'll change it to Delete/Weak Retarget. Thanks for pointing that out. Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @Godsy:, actually, I was veering towards your retarget. Incorrect and harmful are not the same thing, and yours might be useful. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Next Australian constitutional referendum[edit]

Delete. It isn't a good idea to have a redirect of the format "next (event)" as it will require maintenance, or in this case, remain outdated. -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; it's possible it would be used correctly, e.g. if the article was about some event in 2011 then in context the next referendum might be in 2013, even though now in the past: but even so it would be better to refer to a specific date and pipe, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - While it may get readers where they want to go right now (WP:POFRED), it will quickly become dated. WP:NOTFAQ.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as too vague and will become, or remain, outdated. Rubbish computer 15:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkishmenistan[edit]

Invented name (sorry if there are multiple nominations or whatever TWINKLE is misbehaving itself today.It said "Invalid token") - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Clearly not a likely typo or misnomer; only 13 hits in past three months. Possibly WP:RFD#D3 (insulting or abusive) too, though it's hard to tell since basically only one person on the entire internet uses this term (a NationStates forum user). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, a combination of Turkish and the latter half of the Turkmenistan. If they spoke the Turkish language in the country (they speak the Turkmen language), or the country was a city located in Turkey, I could see it. But that's not the case. I don't think it's WP:RFD#D3 though.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Harmless, plausible typo. Falls through the cracks a bit. WP:RFD#K2 frequent misspelling (but not very frequent, it seems.) Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My Malaysia[edit]

No plausible target and this particular term certainly does not refer to the current target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Refine to Negaraku#Proposed renaming where this is now mentioned and sourced. (Malaysiaku was already mentioned there, it just didn't mention that means "My Malaysia" in English. Malaysiaku also redirects to Negaraku already.) As the nominator states, there is no other plausible target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, there's an apparently non-notable film by Wong Kew-Lit which is actually called My Malaysia (unlike the anthem's proposed renaming to Malaysiaku) and gets a bare mention on his article (and in laundry lists of his works in lots of news articles). A WP:TWODABS WP:DABMENTION seems like a bad idea. Maybe delete and let search results sort it out. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I-net[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Converted to a disambiguation page. Being a bit bold myself and closing early! (non-admin closure) Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly retarget to iiNet, as I couldn't think of any other possibility, there are several other non-notable topics by that name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Create a disambiguation page i-net and iNet are synonyms for "internet", however, we also have topics inet, INET, Inet TV, INET (Megaranger), for which we are missing a disambiguation page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please, since there were no links in article space (and only a few in user space plus this discussion of course) I've WP:BOLDly converted this into a DAB with the entries as suggested, so it is no longer a redirect. I've also added a hatnote at Inet (but not at any others). I am sure other entries could be added to the DAB, but it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
  • Comment. Sorry about doing this after the close, but I've moved the DAB to Inet (disambiguation) and tidied/added the hatnotes at Inet and INET. So it is now an R again, but an R to DAB. I add that here as it may seem confusing to others coming to this discussion after the early close: a bit naughty I know but useful to add it here, I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet Options[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE - TheChampionMan1234 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget Delete Browsing History to Web browsing history; where this topic is discussed (granted, that section also looks like a "how-to guide" right now, but given articles like [1] there is probably room for more encyclopedic discussion of the topic there). Delete Internet Options as too vague to refer to any specific topic; best result in that case is probably to show search results. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "internet options" is excessively vague, as it could refer to dataplans, or ISP choices, etc. Delete "browsing history" as excessively vague, since many websites keep track of browsing history through your account, etc. Delete as WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

How mobilephones work?[edit]

WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFAQ. - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of trojan war[edit]

I'm concerned that this is misleading. In a sense, any article is or contains a summary of the topic. So a reader specifically searching for this term may be looking for something more specific, along the lines of the excellent Introduction to evolution.

There are other redirects like this, but I'm not going to review them all right now. Summary of 6teen episodes seems fine since the target contains summaries of episodes, but many others, I suspect, have the same problem as the Trojan War one. BDD (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • If there were an Outline of the Trojan War as there is for some topics, this would be a good redirect to it. That's currently a redlink, and beyond my skill to create. Weak keep, I think, in the sense that the lede of any article is meant to be a summary of the topic, and Trojan War has a decent one. I also see BDD's point about it being misleading, but I think it's not particularly harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was converted from a stub to a redirect one minute after it was created on 6 October 2008, so the chances of external links are vanishingly small. It probably should have been deleted then, but hey-ho. Hits are well below noise level (about one every two days) and no internal links except related to this discussion. No significant edit history. Does not meet WP:TITLECAPS. We don't have Summary of Trojan War, Summary of the trojan war or Summary of the Trojan War. I think Ivanvector's point about having an outline article is good, but then this should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, to encourage its creation. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rekt[edit]

This isn't internet slang; it's a meme for the word "wrecked". Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Namgyong[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep "Nanching" -- this is clearly a Wade-Giles variant, and most Chinese cities should have various Wade-Giles variants as redirects -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment "Namgyeong" is getting lots of hits for some reason, so it may be a candidate for keeping. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It's linked (not piped) from Seoul#Etymology, but oddly not from Names of Seoul. Suppose then that it should be retargeted to Seoul as an alternate name, although that makes it a circular redirect. Doesn't seem to be in use anywhere else, but certainly a WP:SURPRISE clicking on a historic name for Seoul and ending up at Nanjing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch; I agree it should be either retargeted to Seoul or deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Chonjin[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Tyenjin because that's how it's pronounced, making this a plausible guess by anyone who doesn't know Chinese. The others are Korean and can be deleted. Siuenti (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanghae[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Cha Sang-hae, although deletion would be the more obvious thing to do. - TheChampionMan1234 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sanghae is also an alternative name of Dongmyeong of Goguryeo. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: 58.176 is probably on to something there. My search is showing that this might be an honorific or a diminutive in Korean, as I'm finding many Korean actors who have played roles with Sanghae in the name, as though it's a modifier and not a real name. I've also found this which is a discussion of the Korean crime "sanghae" which is essentially "inflicting bodily injury", but I don't think redirecting to a legal topic would be appropriate per WP:FORRED. In the case of Cha Sang-hae, unless he is known just by "Sanghae" then this wouldn't work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sanghae is just an ordinary name, no special honorific meaning [2]. I'm not a big fan of redirecting names to random people who have that name, but it's a losing battle; there's thousands of {{R from given name}}s. On the other hand, when there's more than one person with the same given name, there's usually a WP:SETINDEX for all the people with that name, which I think is reasonable. There's even a whole WikiProject devoted to maintaining them: WP:ANTHROPONYMY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dongmyeong of Goguryeo, the only person in English Wikipedia who is known mononymously (even if only alternatively) as Sanghae. If Wikipedia gets more people named Sanghae in the future, then perhaps Sanghae could become a {{given name}} WP:SETINDEX. But since there's only one other person in Wikipedia right now, and Sanghae isn't one of the list of the most popular given names in South Korea, the name doesn't seem to need a set index page right now. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Beiching[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tongkyong[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is God real?[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ.

WP:NOTFAQ, and we're not Jeopardy.

WP:NOTFAQ and WP:RFD#D8. Especially improbable because "is" is capitalized.

Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jumpy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. WP:IAR close here. I created the redirect, but have since converted to a disambiguation page, which seems to go in line with the nominator's rationale anyways. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

May not be a reasonable redirect, as the page's name is an adjective that can reasonably be construed to have other meanings, and is not specific to the redirect target. MopSeeker FoxThree! 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. (I am the redirect's creator.) I drafted the disambiguation page below the redirect after I realized that all current incoming links refer to a non-existent article called Jumpy (play). Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean seriously, can this discussion be closed? (WP:IAR?) This redirect was nominated a mere minute or two after I created it. I didn't even have time to realize that I made a mistake. Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

July 30[edit]

Do not revert during talk page discussions[edit]

WP:CNR Not for article readership - TheChampionMan1234 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed psychic[edit]

This was only used to link to Liar/Charlatan from the lede of Uri Geller in a non-obvious way. —Ruud 23:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think this is a G10, as its only purpose is to disparage. It's not disparaging to its actual target, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sperance[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in its target article. Also, I have been looking around for some sort of definition of the redirect term on search engines, and I cannot find any. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment:A misspelling of esperance definition; hope or expectation. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete as seems implausible; a not particularly likely typo of an alternative name. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

I'm thinking that this redirect should target Advertising per WP:DIFFCAPS (the part that promotes different capitalizations representing different topics) and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The only other contender that I see on the disambiguation page that matches it's capitalization is Ad (given name), and it doesn't seem like it comes close enough in notability to Advertising to keep it from being the primary topic for this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom - I agree. A user typing "ad" is most likely looking for advertising; a hatnote at Advertising would serve other uses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget I see advertising as the more likely destination.--67.68.31.200 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "ad" is the same as "Ad" and ad can refer to Anno Domini, so the current target is fine, since some people do not capitalize AD. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand "people don't capitalize AD": you just did. Retarget' as above. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Anno Domini can be abbreviated two ways "AD" or "A.D.". "Ad" or "ad", I'm fairly certain is simply incorrect.Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that AD most commonly represents Anno Domini (especially since it already targets that article), but the lowercase variant without periods seems to almost always refer to Advertising. A hatnote at the top of Advertising can be added to direct readers to AD (disambiguation) if by chance they are looking for something else. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Senator from Comcast[edit]

Cited as a "common nickname" for Specter in its creation summary, this phrase nevertheless doesn't appear on his article. The "Senator from [Company]" (and variants) epithet is not uncommon in politics, but I was surprised we don't have any other instances of it. Henry M. Jackson was commonly known as Senator from Boeing, which is mentioned at his article but not a redirect. During the 2008 primary there were media reports that Obama's camp called Hillary Clinton "Senator from Punjab", though the actual phrasing was written "(D-Punjab)". That one's not mentioned on her article, and probably shouldn't be. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't appear to be common at all, only disparaging. If you google "senator from comcast" (without quotes) you get many results for Al Franken, but not because he is known by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: implausible. Rubbish computer 22:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wouldn't Senator for Comcast be the more natural way to put it, anyway? I was trying to find analogies with "MP for" or "Minister for" used sarcastically, when MPs are known to have some peculiar characteristic ("MP for Bad Hair") or conflict of interest ("Minister for Pollution"), but failed with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not in American English. While, for example, Chuck Schumer is a Senator for New York, in a sense, the much more common way of putting it would be "Senator from New York". (That form is used in the article's lede, in fact.) --BDD (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hoeflich[edit]

This person served as Specter's chief of staff, but he isn't mentioned at Specter's article. Hoeflich is still alive and may be notable in his own right, but for now, this redirect isn't helping anyone. BDD (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Acidobacterium[edit]

This redirect incorrectly links the genus Acidobacterium to the Acidobacteria phylum; these are not synonymous taxa. Teixiptla (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment is genus Acidobacterium a member of the phylum Acidobacteria ? If so, it would still be appropriate as a {{R from subtopic}}. Is there a higher level taxon that Acidobacterium belongs to that we have an article on? Though you could just convert the redirect into a short stub article instead. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Acidobacteriaceae. It's very uncommon to have a genus redirect to its phylum, but a genus redirecting to its family is not so odd. Here, there's also substantial potential for confusion, since the redirect just appears to be the singular form of the target article; that's probably why it was created in the first place. We'll eventually want an Acidobacterium article, but this will be a substantial improvement in the meantime. I'm tagging with {{R with possibilities}}. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple options on what should be done with this redirect; one option is to keep it where it is (possibly) per the comment, and the option for retargetting. More discussion regarding these two options may be needed. (Also, thank you Tavix for completing this Relist: real life got in the way for longer than I expected.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that. I just didn't want another Bill Cunningham (politician) incident, so I thought I'd step in and finish it just in case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, if you're going to make a redirect from a taxon, you're going to have it point to the taxon one up in the hierarchy. Species to genus, order to class, etc. The main reason to deviate from that would be for monotypic taxa. If Acidobacteria only had one class, which had one order, which had one family, which had one genus Acidobacterium, it might make sense to redirect this way and discuss them all in one place. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the nearest supertopic for this subtopic is the family article, so is a closer match than the phylum article, thus being a better redirect target -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Chunghwa Yinmin Konghwaguk[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - non-English redirects with minimal hits. Sideways713 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are Korean, and Korean is an official language of China. Siuenti (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Korean language in China. According to Languages of China, Korean appears under "minority languages" and not "official languages." Either that article is wrong or Siuenti is wrong. Whatever the case may be, the language is notable enough in China to have its own article, so retargeting there makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to delete due to 58's comment per WP:XY. There's a few potential retarget options, but nothing obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Names of China#People's Republic of China gives Junghwa Inmin Gonghwaguk as the Revised Romanization of the Korean for PRC, likewise Junghwa Minguk for the ROC. Thus I assume "junghwa" refers to China literally, and that the first two of these redirects can be kept as plausible guesses at pronunciation. However the third, Chungguk, seems too far off (vs. junghwa) to be useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Chunghwa Inmin Konghwaguk is the McCune-Reischauer spelling. Chungguk is the MR spelling of the Korean form of the short name Zhongguo and is mentioned at the bottom of the Names of China#Zhongguo and Zhonghua. Regarding Inmin vs. Yinmin, the Library of Congress uses initial Y in some cases when they spell stuff in MR [4], I don't know if that rule applies in this case, but in any case because of all the different flavours of MR (original, LOC, North Korean), it could be a plausible misspelling (though IIRC we usually delete misspellings of alt-language names). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yilbon[edit]

At the suggestion of 67.70.32.190, I have split these redirects and re-grouped by target, for ease of commenting. These are Asian-target redirects from the Leondeon IP. These are nominated separately because it's possible this is a known pidgin dialect and as such these targets could possibly have an affinity for this language/dialect, however I think they are still of limited use to an English audience and propose deletion. I will restate rationale in the new grouped threads in a moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Ilbon (a plausible romanization of the Korean for "Japan"), since it's getting plenty of hits and Japan is arguably a Korea-related topic. No opinion on Yilbon, which isn't getting nearly as many hits. Sideways713 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If Ilbon is a plausible romanization, is Yilbon also? Or a plausible misspelling? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget both per Sideways713. Using the other redirects we've been discussing as examples, it seems that "Il" and "Yil" are interchangeable in this Romanization system when they start a word. Ilbon is explained at that target, Yilbon is plausible enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bearbrass[edit]

Name of non-notable business, not mentioned at target apart from one reference. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to History of Melbourne. "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp." Sourced and mentioned at History of Melbourne. Though its in the title of a book cited at the Melbourne article, its but not mentioned otherwise there.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it make sense for this term to be mentioned in the main Melbourne article? Would a section, either there or at History of Melbourne, on early names for the city be appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: "Before being officially named, the town had several interim names — including Batmania, Bearbrass, Bareport, Bareheep, Barehurp and Bareberp (in June 1835)." I think the issue with expanding upon any of the villages, is that there may not be much reliable info available, except from sources that consist of lore and speculation. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject though, perhaps I'm incorrect. Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word America[edit]

WP:NOTDIC - TheChampionMan1234 05:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. This does not discuss the use of the word. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

«Aeroflot»[edit]

The «/» symbols combined with English title is implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete as is implausible. Rubbish computer 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as plausible - @TheChampionMan1234: @67.70.32.190: @Rubbish computer: In Russian it's common to put common names in quotes. I created this redirect since some Russians also do this in English. For example in this page by Rossiya Airlines it shows the names of the airlines and air programs in quotes.
    • In English this practice is plausible because Russians do the same thing once they start using English:
    • "About Us": "Today «Rossiya Airlines» is the largest state aviation enterprise and the leading airline in the North-West region of Russian Federation"
    • "History": "On 28 January 2011 "Rossiya airlines" open joint stock company was established in St.Petersburg. " (they use the English-style quotes here)
    • Example from S7 Airlines: "S7 Airlines: "From 2005 “Siberia” Airlines has been operating flights under the S7 Airlines brand." and "In February 2004 the airline was awarded in the «Market Leader» category by the American Air Transport World magazine, a prestigious magazine in the aviation sphere, and a year earlier the airline had been the first in the Russian civil aviation winner of the Flight International Aerospace Awards of the Flight International magazine (Great Britain) in the «Corporate Strategy» category."
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
With two types of quotes that fail MoS, which requires straight quotation marks. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Found examples from Aeroflot in this document: "JOINT STOCK COMPANY «AEROFLOT - RUSSIAN AIRLINES”" (page 1/54) and a bunch of different forms on p. 3/54 -- p. 4/54 says: "The Company in the capacity of the legal successor is the proprietor of «Aeroflot» trademark." WhisperToMe (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: If it is plausibly used in such a way when writing in English. Rubbish computer 09:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS applies, since guillemets do not appear on any standard English-layout keyboard (and I have both US and UK ones, as well as Belgian and Hungarian ones). Whatever the kinds of quote, these should also be avoided: we don't have "Aeroflot" or 'Aeroflot' or “Aeroflot” õr „Aeroflot” so I don't see why we should have guillemets. WP:NOTENGLISH, even if it appears in text that is English, these symbols are not. They should have been translated along with the rest of the article (I don't leave guillemets in my French translations). Mos recommends straight quotes: MOS:QUOTEMARKS, and explicitly does not recommend curly quotes, guillemets and low-high quote marks. What applies to article text applies to titles, even moreso. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

November Yankee[edit]

Possibly retarget to One November Yankee, no other notable usage of this term. - TheChampionMan1234 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support ChampionMan. – Illegitimate Barrister 03:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chigaygo[edit]

Non-notable business, as well as implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Cicagho[edit]

Implausable misspelling. - TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as is implausible typo. Rubbish computer 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this strikes me as someone trying to pronounce the city with a Chicago accent. The "ho" at the end is throwing me off though and without any sources actually using this pronunciation, it's not helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - entirely implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles, California maps[edit]

Delete as I believe this to be misleading. There used to be an article at this title, but it looks like it got redirected to Los Angeles. Someone searching using this term is probably looking for a gallery of maps, like what can be found at commons:Category:Maps of Los Angeles. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a gallery, so any such search will leave the reader disappointed. If someone wanted a general article on Los Angeles, they'd search for that instead of "Los Angeles maps" or variant. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Tavix: Could you believe this? I was actually searching for Rs to Los Angeles and noticed this, but decided not to nominate them, as I nominated a whole bunch of Rs to Main Page the other day and there are way more ones that need to be nominated, I didn't feel like doing this again. - TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TheChampionMan1234: You did the same thing to me! I was planning on nominating the main page redirects sometime this week, but you nominated them before I could get around to them. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

نيويورك[edit]

Not an Arabic-related topic, weak retarget to Little Syria, Manhattan, although deletion would be better. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. Oppose retargeting as misleading; the redirects simply means "New York". In general it's not a good idea to grasp at straws trying to find a random target which has some vaguely-plausible connection to both the meaning and the language of the redirect. Also, plenty of people besides Syrians speak Arabic and probably have their own (notable or non-notable) neighbourhoods in New York too, so that would fall under WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 09:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

大埠[edit]

This refers to several place names in China, but not to San Francisco, nevertheless irrelevant language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Dabu, the (tonemark-less) transcription of these characters and the only place in English Wikipedia which offers any help to someone looking for 大埠 right now. Oppose retargeting to Chinatown, San Francisco since "大埠" refers to the whole city, not just to Chinatown. If some enwiki article like History of the Chinese Americans in San Francisco later mentions the 大埠 name for San Francisco, it might be a candidate for adding to the dab page per WP:DABMENTION. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment what dialect uses this to mean SF? Isn't the city something with a "3" in it, in Chinese? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the usual name in modern media across all dialects is 三藩市 ("Three Fences City"). Lots of old folks still call it by the former Chinese government translation 舊金山 (Old Gold Mountain, which on Wikipedia redirects to San Francisco). A book from 1962 says overseas Chinese in the U.S. came up with 大埠, so it's probably a Taishanese or Cantonese thing, but I'm not certain. FWIW, the closely-related name 二埠 (also mentioned in that book) redirects to Sacramento, California. (Just to make things confusing, there's a U.S. documentary whose Chinese name is 大埠 [5] and whose English name is "Chinatown" [6].) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dabu which lists two choices for this value. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Dabu. Rubbish computer 09:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Anus Williams[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G10 by Chillum (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D3 (offensive or abusive) and WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Cannot find any proof of creator's contention that this is a "common misspelling". Six views in last three months. Fewer than 500 hits on Google, and most are mis-hits (e.g. court cases or medical journals where "... anus. Williams ..." appears), with a few clearly insulting (i.e. not accidentally misspelled) webforum threads. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Driver (Working Title)[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. "Driver" isn't a working title, it's the official name for the video game series. Even if this is a working title, this would still be a strange disambiguator... -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled projects[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles (or never happened). They should be deleted as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

OBAMA![edit]

Implausible search term. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: looks made up. Rubbish computer 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • KEEP! Why would you delete this? It points where it should, it's unambiguous, and it's exciting! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep WP:CHEAP as a shout at a political rally -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    That violates WP:DEM - TheChampionMan1234 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    WP:DEM -- Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy How does that do that? Are we just ballotting and counting votes? Or are we evaluating the rationales behind the opinions? WP:DEM means that this is just a WP:VOTE, which it isn't, since I've provided an opinion to base my position on, a !VOTE (NOTvote), like WP:CHEAP and the usage in the real world in association with the topic that this redirect targets. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1,000,000,000,000,000[edit]

Delete this is not a name of a large number. It is a numeral. Marsbar8 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

JC Nicholson, Jr.[edit]

Delete per WP:BLP. J. C. Nicholson is Dylann Roof's circuit court judge. While he is mentioned at Dylann's article, I don't think it's a good idea to redirect him there. He's seems like he could be notable as he's been in the legal system for 40 years so I'm also suggesting WP:REDLINK as an option. Also, this seems to smell of WP:RECENTISM due to the high profile Dylann Roof case, but I'm not sure if this would be his most notable case or have any lasting notability from it. Since he's mentioned, Dylann Roof will appear in the search results but there's no need to make that connection obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per all of above points Rubbish computer 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget - I cannot find another article on Wikipedia with Nicholson's name. For this reason, Roof may be his most notable case. If not, I am open to suggestions about where to retarget the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I found two articles about Nicholson personally, and a bunch more (out of which I picked three) non-trivially discussing the legal principles behind a ruling he made (as opposed to discussing an accused while trivially mentioning that Nicholson presided over a trial). See box below for a draft article. I haven't included anything about the Dylann Roof case yet. Dunno if it's enough for WP:N. Comments? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Create article - according to WP:JUDGE a judge can be presumed notable if they preside over a "high court" (defined by WP:COURTS) which the South Carolina Circuit Court is not, by my understanding. However, this subject pay pass on WP:GNG grounds as 58.176 and their draft suggest. The article should live at J. C. Nicholson and it would be fine for the other redirects to point to it. Trout Jax 0677 for indecision in page titles and sloppy page moves leaving behind all of these redirects to be cleaned up. If it's determined that Nicholson is not notable, then the redirects should be deleted per WP:BLP1E - there's more to Nicholson's career than distilling it down to one court case, and it's not right for us to do that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also support creation of an article about the judge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to article using the content in the collapse box above (nicely done). I'd suggest in future this would be better off done in the draft namespace and just referred to from here: but it's refreshing to see that someone suggesting an article be created actually suggests some content. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Royal Infirmary[edit]

This redirect was formerly a disambiguation page that only contained partial title matches. As a redirect, it is not mentioned at its target article. Also, I don't think that Infirmary isn't a good retargeting option since it seems that this term doesn't refer to infirmaries. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore this revision and adjust so that it's a WP:SETINDEX rather than a dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore as a Set Index Article as suggested by User:Ivanvector. Don't think they existed when I created this disambig article. Excuse the rant but... This is the reason so many people loose interest in editing. People insisting strict adherence to a set of rules, when the rules are in a constant state of flux. How many 5000+ word articles in the Wikipedia namespace is one expected to fully read to be able to make an informed comment? Seriously, we need disambig and set index articles? Is the difference that huge? I tried to read the definitions and the discussion behind them to make sure I fully understand them, but I'm losing the will to live. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment/vote: Restore as a WP:SIA per above for reasons that AlistairMcMillan just stated. In a nutshell, good faith editors are a good thing to come by, and as a SIA, I could see the page working. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Valetudinaria[edit]

Hospitals aren't exclusively tied to Spanish. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

S0s[edit]

Not mentioned at the Steven Spielberg article. This seems to be fairly ambiguous, but I'm not seeing any obvious retarget options. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I slightly prefer my retarget, only because I think galaxies are the only thing listed at the dab which are likely to be referred to in plural form. I'm not opposed to targeting the disambiguation page, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled film projects (concluded)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - "untitled" redirects which don't point to works which are actually untitled are unhelpful and confusing to readers, and harmful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Preauthorized comment

Googolplexian[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Names of large numbers#The googol family. It seems to me so obvious that the suggested redirect is better that I assume it is uncontroversial, and so I am making a WP:SNOW closure. In the unlikely event that anyone has a reason for disagreeing with the retargetting, the discussion can be re-opened. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This should be retargeted to names of large numbers where it is mentioned. It has no mention on googolplex. and the rationale for that action. 2602:306:3653:8A10:A5F9:6698:1C0B:9739 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Banana bean[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn, with no other person than the nominator having advocated deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find any evidence that banana bean is a common name for Verbascum. Various sites scraping Wikipedia have picked up the term, but it seems to have originated here. There's nothing very "bananay" or "beany" about Verbascum. There doesn't appear to be any other topic which would be an appropriate target for this redirect Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Withdraw Nevermind. "Banana bean" is a apparently a very obscure common name for Mucuna pruriens. Will retarget. Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gardia[edit]

I cannot find a good retargetting option for this redirect. This redirect previously targeted Giardia lamblia until the target was changed to Police due to being the term of the "Irish police". From my research, the term for the Irish police is actually spelled "Garda", but is a WP:FORRED violation either way. And as shown, Giardia lamblia isn't a spelling match, and it's a partial title match anyways. Either way, I am neutral on retarget to Guardia since Guardia is a disambiguation page, and I personally am not a fan of misspellings to disambiguation pages due to the possibility that someone could truly be looking up a term by the actual spelling in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Guardia and add Giardia into the "see also" section as a mispelling choice -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added Garda (disambiguation) in the See Also of the DAB at Guardia, since I can see this being a misspelling for the Irish Garda Síochána, to which Gardaí redirects, as does Gardai without the diacritical mark. The lede there states that "Gardaí" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is used commonly by Irish English speakers as well as by Irish Gaelic speakers, so it's not foreign, it's assimilated into Irish English.
On balance, then, I think we should retarget to Garda Síochána as a {{R from misspelling}} but because it is cognate (I presume) with the Spanish and Italian that may be a WP:SURPRISE; although we have Garda Síochána#Terminology (as the first section) which explains this all, we don't have etymology. We could add a hatnote for the misspelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Look up gardai or garda in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Comment. Wiktionary gives the etymology (of Irish garda) as from Old French language, so I suppose they are cognate. We should probably add an {{etymology}} to the article. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

New Gold Mountain[edit]

Name not mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Correct endonym, particularly among the Chinese diaspora in Melbourne, albeit slightly obscure. The solution may be to mention it in the History section, or retarget to either History of Chinese Australians or Australian gold rushes. (Declaration of interest: I have family in Melbourne.) Deryck C. 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan:: Interesting, having lived here for most of my life, I have occasionally heard of this term, but in no circumstances that refer to Melbourne (the city), so its probably better to retarget this to somewhere that the term IS mentioned. --- TheChampionMan1234 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This is a completely implausible redirect without context but could plausibly be the basis for its own article one day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly redirect elsewhere) Never heard the term used, nor can I find mention of Melbourne being refereed to as New Gold Mountain. Victorian goldfields (p. 8), or goldfields in Australia more generally ([7][8]), yep, but not Melbourne. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I created the redirect, so I'm obviously in favor of keep. This discussion and the delete votes above are the results of some white kids who have never heard of it and therefore think it should be entirely deleted from the encyclopedia. Aside from it being a perfectly accurate (albeit "Chinglishy") exonym (not endonym), their objections run headlong into WP:BIAS. Whatever admin wraps this up should keep it, pending some need to dab the page elsewhere. (And no, it never refers to the gold fields generally any more than Old Gold Mountain refers to the California gold fields instead of San Fran.) — LlywelynII 04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment:I will vote Keep if sources can be found. Rubbish computer 23:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Max Read[edit]

Max Read resigned from Gawker. Don't think his name should redirect to his former occupation anymore. GamerPro64 02:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - he's still a creator (as indicated by the article) and we don't have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But the redirect goes to Gawker Media, not Gawker.com. One being the company and the other the website proper. GamerPro64 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, the Gawker Media article lists him as a creator. Gawker mentions him several times within the article. I didn't notice until you mentioned it that they are separate articles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think that's a good idea. That's the sort of redirect that BLP1E is meant to protect individuals from. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:REDLINK if nothing else. He seems, maybe, to have possibility of a biography; given the divergence in current targets creating that biography seems to be the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop beating my wife[edit]

The creator is insisting on this being a double redirect, to the point where he/she used {{nobots}} to try to exclude the normal double-redirect fixing bots. This probably isn't what we want here; I don't much care whether the result is deletion, fixing the double redirect, or creation of an article of some sort at the current target. Anomie 11:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Elvey, can you comment on this? Why would a double redirect be desirable here? I suppose the technical solution would be to soft redirect the desired title to the desired redirect. But how would this be helpful to readers? --BDD (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm interested in Elvey's rationale as well; they're currently on a block which will expire shortly. Regardless, the double redirect goes to loaded question; "stop beating my wife" is not one (it's not a question at all) so this redirect is misleading. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to throw in WP:POINT as well. Elvey seems to have created this just so that they could make this comment in an ANI thread which they were blocked for disrupting. This perhaps falls under WP:G2 or WP:G3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I bold-ly removed the double redirect per WP:2R since double redirects don't work, and will be corrected anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. At first, I couldn't understand why this redirect even exists. After reading Ivanvector's explanation, it makes slightly more sense to me, but I don't think this is serving any useful purpose. "Should I stop beating my wife?" seems to be a minor meme according to my Google searches, but I see no reason to suspect that anyone would ever search for "stop beating my wife". It's not even a question, so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to loaded question. Deletion seems the only reasonable course of action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a classic, canonical example of the loaded question, and one used illustratively in that article. But the exact phrasing "stop beating my wife" is an unlikely search target.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: This appears to have a very obscure connection with its intended subject. Rubbish computer 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a question, it is a command -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Elvey posted this response on their talk page:
You ask for my rationale. I gave rationales in my edit summaries. You didn't see that, I guess. "As noted when I created it, this works better as a double redirect, as the destination page doesn't explain what the term means [yet]." If you don't agree with that, by all means undo my last edit or PROD it. Fine by me. I'm just trying to improve the encylopedia with that editing. However:
When did you stop beating your wife says:
"There's a famous joke question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The structure of the question is funny — or disturbing — because" and "The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife?" and "What's the best answer to the classic media training question: “When did you stop beating your wife". Plenty verifiable to RS.
Perhaps "When did you stop beating your wife?" should be listed as a commonly-used example at Loaded question. Agree? Then a normal redirect would make sense. Agree?
--Elvey(tc) 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) copied from User talk:Elvey by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)
In response, I think that you may be right that it could be added as a common example. However, "stop beating your wife" would still have an obscure connection to the topic. Mostly I think that it's problematic because it's not a question. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And that this is redirect is not "stop beating your wife" but "stop beating my wife", which if it is a sentential form would be an imperative. Si Trew (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Powel Lord III[edit]

Please delete. Spelling error. Should be "Powell" with 2 L's.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I actually declined the speedy delete on those grounds. This redirect could actually help readers who made the same mistake in spelling. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Plausible misspelling, redirects from typos are useful. Rubbish computer 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Почетна страна[edit]

These are all names of the Main Page in other languages, this is an unlikely search term on the ENGLISH Wikipedia as they would not get information in that language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This is the English Wikipedia, the mainpage on all Wikipedias is easily accessibly by click on the Wikipedia logo, so this is no help in navigation. Further, these are very misleading since they do not lead to the mainpages of these languages. Nor are these even valid dictionary entries, since they lead to the main page portal, and not to the topic of a "main page" or "home page" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete! I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I wanted to nominate the entire list instead of a few random ones like BDD mentions here. There really is no reason to have an "exception" for main page WP:FORREDs, the same rationale for deletion applies to them. I'd argue even more so because the "main page" isn't a search term, it just happens to be what the home page is called. They are easily a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" so WP:RFD#D8 applies here. I simply don't understand why someone would be at a random English article and decide that the best way to get to a different language's Wikipedia would be to type "main page" in that language. That doesn't even work, because they'll end up at the main English page and not the main page of that language, so its confusing (WP:RFD#D2). The way to do that would be to go to wikipedia.org and NOT en.wikipedia.org. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN. Irrelevant languages for the subject. Rubbish computer 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all' as above. To my surprise, though, they are actually all marked as {{R from other language}}, all but one with the correct language code. Si Trew (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Downloading ebooks[edit]

WP:NOTHOSTING - TheChampionMan1234 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Arm bone[edit]

This redirect is ambiguous. There are multiple bones in an arm, and none of them are exclusively known as the "arm bone". Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm also okay with this target.--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Epic 2[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no mention of any sequels at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ryan Beatty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by slakr. (non-admin closure) – Paine  10:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CNR; he has nothing to do with the Wikipedia namespace. -- Tavix (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete housekeeping; this was moved to the wrong pagename by accident at the end of 2012 which ws corrected at the beginning of 2013 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CNR. Rubbish computer 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:G6 - botched page move. It was a declined AfC submission which was then moved anyway by a user called "Miller Public Relations". Anyway the history is intact so the redirect is pointless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Tidal stream generator[edit]

Wikipedia namespace redirect to an article whose subject has nothing to do with Wikipedia --Richard Yin (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR created for no discernable reason -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete That is horribly confusing. Rubbish computer 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I don't just mean that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it unnecessarily creates confusion. Rubbish computer 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:XNR per nom. Apparently created by a user who didn't understand how wikilinking works, but did understand how to create a redirect. Hrm. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Charya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University[edit]

Implausible typo, but created as result of move so not WP:R3 Muhandes (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete:From an implausible typo. Rubbish computer 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

GlassFrog (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted G6 by Verrai (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that either the redirect page or the target was ever a disambiguation page, and a disambiguation page isn't needed, so I think this redirect should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is useless and confusing, so it should be canned per d2 and d5. – Paine  21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I've tagged a few of these over the last week as G6 with the rationale: "this redirect has a "(disambiguation)" qualifier and its target is not a disambiguation" and I haven't been declined yet. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Tavix's point. Rubbish computer 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

First football game ever played[edit]

If you're searching using this name, you're going to have a bad time. The article doesn't really address this, especially because there are so many codes and the evolution of the sport is such that you can't really pinpoint which game happened to be the "first" ever. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY mostly. In addition to nom's rationale, which football? If it was "first NFL game" or "first FIFA match" then we could probably find a target; "first football game" is just far too vague. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely vague -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-Causes only confusion, fails to lead to anything like a target, gives the false impression that there is an article or section conclusively addressing this. Rubbish computer 14:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Pety + the Heart Breakers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G5. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D8, implausible search terms created by a sockpuppet that seems to like creating junk redirects. Check out Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 17#John, Paul, George 'n Ringo for more details. G5 could apply here but I'd rather play it safe and take it here. -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all and mass rollback the user's contribs. They are a banned user and not welcome to contribute here. I would tag all of these with {{db-sock}} but I'm busy at the moment. {{db-sock|TyrusThomas4lyf}} for anyone else who wants to. If any of these redirects are useful, another contributor will recreate them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally would have done that, but it was much easier for me do it this way using {{rfd2}}. Besides, now we have a record of it and anyone who sees a plausible search term can identify it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The References of the Article Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

For some reason, the references from Mahatma Gandhi were split out for a brief period in 2005. This redirect was left over from that. I don't see this as a likely search term and I don't think someone would want to search for just the references in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete references sections don't need redirects pointing to them. All articles are supposed to carry references sections at the end. Looks like a fork and rollback -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 67.70.32.190's points. Rubbish computer 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon locations (Kanto)[edit]

Another batch of Pokémon redirects. These are locations in Kanto, the setting of the original video games. It's described briefly at Pokémon universe#Kanto, but nowhere in enough detail to mention these specific places. A few of these are redirects from merges, but since it will never be appropriate to have such detail (see WP:NOTWIKIA and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE), attribution shouldn't be a concern. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment if these are real locations in the real world, then the edit histories of the merged pages should be displaced to "X (Pokemon)" and the current titles become redlinks. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any of them are; that would be interesting. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon lyrics[edit]

We have a List of Pokémon theme songs, but it doesn't include lyrics, and it never should. BDD (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Man of Steel sequel[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. This is an "untitled" redirect pointing to a project that has a title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: That film originated as a Man of Steel sequel; but it is now a separate entity. Still, MoS actor Henry Cavill has stated that a sequel could happen, so this redirect may stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - it has a title. If Cavill is speculating on a sequel, it's trivia that fails WP:CRYSTAL, but a brief mention in the film's article is probably ok. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible redirect because the target already has a title --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 Rubbish computer 17:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled film projects (L-N)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - "untitled" redirects which don't point to works which are actually untitled are unhelpful and confusing to readers, and harmful to navigation. To save time, I have created User:Ivanvector/UntitledDelete, and I hereby authorize it to be inserted in any Rfd thread concerning "untitled" redirects for films and musical recordings. Use {{subst:User:Ivanvector/UntitledDelete}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing Rubbish computer 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Republic of Kanto[edit]

This started life as a WP:MADEUP history of Pokémon's Kanto region (Pokémon universe#Kanto), complete with descriptions of its politics and history. All entirely fabricated, however, along with the "Eastern Republic of Kanto" name, which does not appear in any Pokémon media. BDD (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Party pooper[edit]

The subject of the redirect is not described at its target article. Also, the redirect Party pooper was previously an article that doesn't seem like it would pass an WP:AFD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak soft redirect to wikt:party pooper. I normally don't like doing that to random words, but I can see the value in doing it when there is potential for an article. In case someone wants to write an article on the subject in the future, there might be something salvageable from that previous article. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak soft redirect to "wikt:party pooper" as Tarvix's rationale convinced me.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Psychological significance of hair[edit]

The article doesn't discuss the psychological significance of hair. The word "psychological" doesn't even appear in the article. Someone searching this would be disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I sort of agree they're different concepts, but I think that it might be more likely that someone typing this is looking for psychological effects of baldness, rather than hair itself. I would think that would be a more likely thing to look for information on. It's a weak !vote. I also don't really object to deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-There is no exact article for this to lead to; there could potentially be one through WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget (slightly) to Hair#Social role. If you were searching for this I suspect you'd either expect to find (A) something on the role hair plays in human identity, interpersonal relations, etc, which is sort of covered there and under the linked-to article Hairstyle, or (B) something on the meaning of hair in Jungian analysis and dream interpretation. I can't find a good target on Wikipedia related to sense (B) and possibly dream interpretation is considered too WP:FRINGE to cover in depth, but if such content did exist it would probably go in the article Hair right below "Social role" rather than meriting a separate article. Redirecting to a section a long way down the Hair article is more useful than just pointing to the top. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:1stpartysources[edit]

Retarget to Template:Third-party. Primary sources and first-party sources are not synonymous, though there's often overlap. I'm starting the discussion rather than retargeting it myself because I'm not sure how common "first party" is anyway, and it may be deemed sufficiently opaque for deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani[edit]

Delete as useless and derogatory (see Qadiani; using actual name without the non-neutral word gets to same target), created by hit'n'run editor years ago as part of a pile of weird POVish redirects. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've combined these nominations, since the rationale and target is the same for each. Please let me know if you think they should be discussed separately. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nominator. Oddly Hazrat is an honorific; using an honorific and a religious slur in the same redirect is just weird; the first one is also misspelled. Our Qadiani article says that the word is used in official Pakistani documents, so on one hand there might be a case for keeping the redirect on those grounds, but on the other hand we wouldn't keep a redirect like Anne Frank Jew. These should go. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete-There are not redirects from, for example, African American Barack Obama or British David Cameron. Rubbish computer 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly retarget The fact that Qadiani is used in Pakistani government documents in general terms wouldn't be justification for keeping a redirect to a random member of this religious community (the analogous toponym-based slur "Romish" has been used in U.S. government documents to refer to Catholics [9], but that wouldn't support retention of a hypothetical John Kennedy the Romish redirect).
However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani specifically (and possibly other alternative spellings) is a potential search term, even if insulting; see e.g. this passport application form on the website of the Pakistani Embassy in Sweden. Someone who came across that would likely try to look it up in Wikipedia to figure it out. It might be better to retarget the insulting term to somewhere that the controversy is specifically discussed; there was previously a mention of it on Pakistani passport, but was deleted in 2011. I might re-add it if I can find better WP:RS. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfs[edit]

Delete opaque shortcut used on only three redirects (before I orphaned it); ambiguous with all the other R from s---, at minimum. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect documentation should have clear names. Also RFS has articlespace uses -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is common practice – Template:Rfs is just one of many hundreds of redirect shortcuts/aliases just like it. {{-r|r tsh|R template shortcuts}}, to include {{-r|rtrt|R to redirect templates}}, are commonly abbreviated this way. And not for anything, but shouldn't we wait for decisions before we orphan proposed redirects? – Paine  11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I came across {{rfs}} because I jumped into the endless sea of {{R from surname}}s to try to find ones which need to be updated into {{Surname}} set-indices. Here's my three edits to revert if you would like to return to status quo ante while the discussion is going on. But I don't see the benefit of converting existing uses of {{R from surname}} into {{rfs}}.
Most of Category:Redirects from template shortcuts aren't really shortcuts, and certainly not TLAs, but simply alternative descriptive names or leftovers from mergers. Many redirect acronyms are used little or not at all, e.g. {{rfn}} or {{rfm}} (which is used properly once and has one mislink left over from a different meaning of the same acronym from ten years ago). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since I often prefer the use of shortcuts myself (to save time while categorizing redirects), the only reason to convert to a shortcut might be if another edit(s) is being made to the redirect. IOW, it's at best a "trivial" edit. I do disagree with your statement about the template shortcut category. There are nearly 2,000 redirects in that category (which does not count thousands more that still need to be categorized), and "most" of them are very similar to this shortcut you want s-canned. They are one-, two-, three-, four- or five-letter or letter–number combinations, and "most" of them are "ambiguous". I'm certainly not the only contributor who uses them, and I use them during the vast majority of my editing time. This particular redirect is linked on the template page using the {{-r|tsh|Template shortcut}} template box, so it is right up front there for any editors who categorize redirects of all kinds, including surname redirects, and who like to use shortcuts to save time. There is no good deletion rationale that persuades us to delete any of these. – Paine  16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As the nominator mentions, this is far too ambiguous. {{R from song}} and {{R from school}} are two extremely common Rcats, with plenty of other potential uses. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely ask you to reconsider, BDD, as your influence in this matter will, I'm certain, tip the scales. The category is chock full of shortcuts just like this one, many just as ambiguous and yet useful to those who may use them. For those of us who have used these shortcuts for many years to save time while tackling the humongous task of finding and categorizing redirects, shortcuts just like these are truly gifts from the gift givers of the universe. I said above that there is no good deletion rationale that can persuade us to delete any of these useful shortcuts. Please, this once, please consider that it just might be true. – Paine  14:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Paine, I appreciate your diligence when it comes to Rcats, but we want their profile to be raised, right? We want more people to contribute to tagging redirects, and to understand the robust system we have in place for that. Precisely for that reason I want to move away from ambiguous abbreviations and other opaque designations. That's why I always break up {{redr}} into individual Rcats (when I'm already editing a redirect). I want these tags to be clear and easy to use; I'm sure you want the same. You may be accustomed to having shortcuts like this save you time, but how much more time would it save to have more editors working in this area, and how much better for the project? --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is of use and appears most likely use of Rfs. Rubbish computer 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say that? There are 12,356 redirects from surnames, but 15,794 from songs and 18,239 from shortcuts (only 2078 from schools, to my surprise). --BDD (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Unfortunately I guessed that this would be the most likely one. Please cross out my above comment. Rubbish computer 15:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Compromise: I'm someone who does a lot of WP:RCAT tagging, so I know where Paine is coming from. I also can see the problem that {{rfs}} delivers because it's so ambiguous. It'd be one thing if this was an established shortcut for this, but since it was only used three times, it's not. I also don't see how helpful the rcat shortcut is in the first place, because someone could easily assume its {{R from song}}, {{R from shortcut}}, {{R from school}}, etc. Keeping all this in mind, here's my compromise: Delete this shortcut, but create another less-ambiguous shortcut, such as {{rfsur}} (R from surname). Can we all agree to that? -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Compromise: I second the above Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that I appear to be outnumbered here, and what this deletion will open up is that someone will start through the categories and find every shortcut they can that may be deleted from this precedent. And thank you, BDD, for your compliment, which I do consider high praise. This precedent, though, might very well lead to many other such proposals, like the ones I already mentioned in the "nowiki" code above. It's not just rcats – it's many other templates and many other shortcuts to pages other than rcats and templates in general. This shortcut, added to the top of the rcat documentation page, is just like a great many others, so if this one is deleted, then you'll need to dig in your feet for the barrage of other similar shortcut proposals that will inevitably follow. Joys to all! – Paine  18:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be careful about that, see WP:BEANS. This would be a slippery slope to apply precedent to, and would discourage any mass nomination of this sort. From what I could gleam, I don't see too many more rcats that would fit in this same boat (highly ambiguous, no usage) so I'm not sure how useful it'd be to raise any alarms of this type... -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I understand your frustration here. Yes, this will probably lead to some similar discussions; just think of it as growing pains associated with bringing Rcats into the light. And, humbly, I think my position on template shortcuts is in line with usual consensus here: they're only problematic if one could reasonably expect it to refer to something else. For example, I wouldn't object to {{rfq}} or {{rfy}} redirecting to {{R from quotation}} or {{R from year}}, respectively, as there's nothing at RFQ that would be likely to have a template, and nothing at all at RFY. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand, and I shall probably use Tavix' good suggestion and create {{rfsur}} if this one is deleted. Ftr, though, I must continue to stand on my strong "keep-this-harmless-shortcut-redirect" !vote (till the bitter end Face-wink.svg) – Paine  03:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Londýn[edit]

Not a Czech-language related topic. - TheChampionMan1234 04:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. The topic is a native English language topic with no affinity for Czech -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:RFOREIGN: redirect from a foreign language with no relation to the topic. Rubbish computer 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

IPhone availability, sales, and pricing[edit]

Per WP:NOPRICES. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

EyePhone[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Eye phone was deleted in 2007, Eye Phone never existed in the first place, this is implausible, (more so than the two mentioned above due to the fact that it is an combined word.) - TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I nominated this a few months ago and the target was Attack of the Killer App. Since then, it was retargeted to iPhone by Sonic N800. I still think it should be deleted because it's vague. It could be a plot point of a single Futurama episode, a misspelling of iPhone, or "references to new technologies combining phones with something eye related" (see the previous RFD for examples). -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Attack of the Killer App. My previous rationale still applies: this is an exact match for the device that forms a central plot point of the Futurama episode, and if there is going to be a mobile comms device created which interfaces directly with the eye, it's highly unlikely that Apple's lawyers will allow it to be called "EyePhone". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Attack of the Killer App, per above. Rubbish computer 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Egg curry[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ägg[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Eggs are known worldwide. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nothing on the Agg dabpage which uses an omelet umlaut, so not worth retargeting there either. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN Rubbish computer 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Untitled film projects (A-J)[edit]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all, and perhaps blacklist any title starting with "Untitled". I mean, there are going to be some exceptions (I recently created Untitled Second per a recent discussion) but us lowly users can request creation from an admin for those odd cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete several of these are extremely generic; others are just incorrect with names having been acquired so no longer viable search terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing Rubbish computer 18:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Marthandavarma (novel) Characters[edit]

Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation: no such list exists for the film. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the main article is called Marthandavarma (novel), not "Marthandavarma" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This list article is created as a sub article of Marthandavarma (novel) as part of re-condensing the main one, and so the disambiguation redirect titles are formed very much in a way to convey the content of the list in relation to the main article, and in no way misleading to any user/ reader who is even new to the topic related; if otherwise kindly notify. The nominator comment "no such list exists for the film", implies about a different page as it can be comprehended. – (harith (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC))
  • Delete all except List of Characters in Marthandavarma novel. The redirects with (novel) are unnecessary disambiguation and don't serve any purpose for readers; they only serve as hindrances for editors in case these targets get moved around (which it seems is likely). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Unnecessary, but not ambiguous, or misleading or otherwise harmful. CfD uses naming conventions like this, so I can conceive of a reader searching this way. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rawhide's Clint Eastwood Sings Cowboy Favorites[edit]

I do not see this mentioned in the target article. Also, the redirect was formerly an article, but it probably wouldn't pass an WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Clint motherfucking eastwood[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. See comments below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete-Just looks WP:MADEUP Rubbish computer 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on, this doesn't warrant any "discussing". I've speedied it. Please consider marking purely abusive/disruptive redirects for speedy deletion rather than listing them here, see Template:Db. (Sorry I don't know how to close these things.) Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Star Is Born (2014 film)[edit]

Probably delete per WP:REDLINK, amongst various reasons. Several sources I found per a popular search engine show that the release date of this film has been delayed to at least 2016, possibly due to one of its former cast members exiting production. (So yes, definitely REDLINK since it seems as though there is enough information, and the year is wrong.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleteas there isn't any 2014 films by this name. This is why we have WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redlink it per nom. – Paine  21:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boss Perot[edit]

This is not mentioned in the article. Also, I'm not able to find any references that show this as a valid nickname for this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Esp[edit]

Ambiguous with the semi-protected edit request response template, {{ESp}}. I suggest per WP:XY that the existing transclusions (there are 76) be corrected and this redirect be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Correct transclusions and then retarget to Template:ESp because people are way more likely to make an edit request than make scientific notation numbers. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That solution works for me too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK[edit]

WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. It is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Shortcuts to policy should reflect that philosophy and help people understand the policy so people can follow it. This redirect does not do that. There isn't a section or phrase in WP:NOT stating that Wikipedia is not for getting other people to do your homework. However true that may be, it isn't policy and people shouldn't use this longcut to pretend that this is policy. Fortunately this hasn't been used as such (yet), but I don't want to take any chances. Strong delete as it is a harmful and unhelpful masquerade for policy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong retarget to Wikipedia:Do your own homework, preemptively per SimonTrew who I'm sure has something to say about this one. As a redirect to a policy this is definitely harmful, but there is an appropriate target and it's very old. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase isn't used in that essay either. Wouldn't that be WP:RFD#D2 confusing? -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: In my opinion, WP:RFD#D2 doesn't apply to Wikipedia-namespace shortcut redirects since the phrase/acronym is deemed useful and not its usage anywhere. I mean, shortcuts like WP:OFFICELIST or WP:NCSP wouldn't exist if they had to mentioned in the page's text as a requirement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between humor and a ridiculous longcut that exists for no reason. You're comparing apples to oranges here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: I'd have to disagree. You're using "useful" which is a different argument than "confusing." Both of your examples are well known and useful shortcuts, and are not confusing—one of which being a well known acronym (Naming Conventions SportsPeople) and the other is a list pertaining to office actions, hence WP:OFFICELIST. We don't have this here. We can debate the usefulness of this shortcut (my opinion: not useful), but I do believe that WP:RFD#D2 applies to shortcuts. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing with you on that front. That retarget is a much better option than the status quo. I just don't see how that's a useful option. Someone would be much better off citing the full name of the essay or one of the shortcuts instead of this. It also comes off as a little condescending, doesn't it? -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: True ... I mean, what's up with the several dashes? Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see what you mean. The dashes are weird. Not harmful probably, but odd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Do your own homework per Ivanvector; weak delete per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework. Ah, yes, yet another "short"cut from the days of yore, from 2007. {{Sarcasm|You just want to keep these forever!}} Trouble is, if you don't keep them, many links external to Wikipedia would likely be broken, darn it. – Paine  22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework: more relevant and it seems futile to endlessly list what Wikipedia is not, even in the form of redirects. Rubbish computer 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework, of which I was unaware. I must admit (which is why Ivanvector says "pre-emptively to SimonTrew", abvove), I tend to use this phrase when I feel people have not done their research before bringing something to a discussion (particularly here at RfD): that's usually me grumbling in bad faith and not much relevant to this one, though. WP:NOTHOMEWORK and WP:NOT-HOMEWORK are red, though, and stats are about 0.1 hits a day, so the probability of external use of this longcut is perhaps small. Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't have said that, at any rate. The sentiment I've seen you express with "do your own homework" is better explained by WP:BEFORE rather than WP:HOMEWORK. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of reddit jokes that are posted every thread[edit]

Delete. The target article doesn't contain a list of this sort (and shouldn't). -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Burn center references on Reddit[edit]

Not seeing any burn center references... -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

🚢[edit]

Couldn't this image also refer to a boat? Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is U+1F6A2 🚢 ship. Most platforms show a cruise ship; Android has a tugboat or ferry which are nonetheless fairly large vessels. Contrast with ⛵ sailboat, 🚣 rowboat, 🚤 speedboat. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep since it's defined as a ship. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Longest[edit]

The redirect's target is a disambiguation page, and not all uses of the word "long" on the disambiguation page are adjectives. That, and the word "longest" could be used as an adjective to describe distance or time, so even it as a term is ambiguous in the sense of encyclopedic subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I oppose this option since the article "Length" on this Wikipedia defines and is exclusive to "distance" with no mention of "time". Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The use of "length" for time is derivative of its use for distance. And "time" is just another dimension in spacetime so is a distance. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think that its use for time is derived from its use for distance? The two seem pretty coterminous etymologically right back to proto-Germanic. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Longer however is a song article; short is a DAB, shorter a different DAB, and shortest is red: so that's not much help as an analogy and I can't think that comparatives or superlatives of other dimensions would be any more relevant. Yes, it fails WP:NOUN, but DAB pages are there to disambiguate, and the target does that, if WP:NOTPERFECTly: it would be a WP:SURPRISE if "Long" did not mention "length" as well as meanings for surnames and so on. A surname, for example, is (or was) often an adjective, but we have those... Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironic Christianity[edit]

No. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Buoyancy Operated Aquatic Transport[edit]

This is actually a WP:NOTWIKIA violation (but took me some research to discover.) This is the name of a imaginary invention created on an episode of Phineas and Ferb that is shaped like a boat. It is also not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - I think it would be harmless to keep this given Steel's findings, but if it's not mentioned at the target then we should probably delete it. No incoming links, very low activity (I had to go back a few months to find a single hit). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I updated my rationale; the redirect is not mentioned in its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Amathev[edit]

This redirect has had several different, unrelated targets during its almost 6-year existence; however, some of these retargets seek like vandalism. Other than that, the current target doesn't seem correct, and I cannot find a good, accurate option for retargetting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Art/Draft[edit]

Unlikely search term. The word "Draft" isn't even in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ibrahima Camara (Senegalese footballer)[edit]

Nonsensical redirect. Highly unlikely to be a plausible search term, plus what happens if / when the player moves clubs? Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom, redirecting non-notable players to their current clubs is nonsense. GiantSnowman 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Giant, redirecting NN players to a club is ridiculous, and would need huge amounts of policing (which I can guarantee wouldn't happen) when the players concerned moved to other clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

William III of Provence[edit]

This is a {{R from page move}} based on this duke's proper ordinal title based on reliable sources, however if there are no reliable sources for William III then this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Note: this William III is definitely a distinct person from the William III above. Don't merge these discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - oh my, this is a mess. This article was originally an article about William II of Provence but named him "William II (or III)", which reflects that the reigns of various counts of Provence overlapped due to a competing claim from the counts of Arles (who claimed the title Margrave of Provence). Later, this became an article about William III (a different person), who succeeded his father Rotbold III of Provence as margrave but didn't succeed to the title of count until William IV's death some time later. Even later, a descendant William Bertrand of Provence (who is known as William V) ... you know what, I can't figure this out right now, and I need to go buy cherries and all the farmers' markets are closing soon. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete it as WP:RFD#D5 confusing nonsense. Hope you enjoyed the cherries (I have loads here but I don't like 'em.) Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to William II of Provence, who some sources identify as William III. I've spent the past few days trying to recompile a family tree for these rulers of Provence (you can see my work at User:Ivanvector/Rulers of Provence - it's not sourced and probably not all that accurate) based from this source (also used extensively in the articles). The source picks a William who is the son of Rotbold I as William I, though he was Count of Arles but never of Provence. Our William I "the Liberator" is referred to in the source as William II "la Libérateur"; his son William II is William III in the source, and also "William II (or III)" on Wikipedia. William II (or III)'s son is William IV here and in the source, and William V is a cousin of William II (or III). Then, more confusion, as William II (or III)'s grandson William VI Bertrand is called William V here (and also called Bertrand I or II). Ugh. tl;dr: William II and William III are the same person seemingly no matter what way you look at this, and they are not William V, so retarget. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Note: the source uses middle French names, so William = Guillaume
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Retarget and hatnote. Since Ivanvector has done the research, seems sensible to go with those conclusions. I don't quite know what would be reasonable hatnotes but we can sort that out with the usual BRD etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sea Turtle Or Seaturtle[edit]

Here's a bizarre redirect. This isn't a case where a word has two genuine spellings (see: Colour or Color). "Sea turtle" is almost always (correctly) spelled with two words (for example wikt:sea turtle gives "sea-turtle" as an alternative form, but not "seaturtle". To me, the only way someone would plausibly type this into a search bar would be to compare the difference between the spellings of "sea turtle" vs. "seaturtle" and that's something we don't have. I still think it's implausible due to the capitalization of every word (including "or"). Delete as confusing and per WP:RFD#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I am wondering what is the "correct" spelling. Most of my etymological dictionaries are in store but I can see both being right (if wrong) if you see what I mean, there is a word for it I don't think periphrasis that words become conjoined over time, so both I think should be acceptable. I can certainly not see that it should go anywhere other than where it does. It is neither a turtle nor lives in the sea, primarily, but that is the kinda QI question we get here sometimes. It reminds me of the turtle in Alice in Wonderland, but that seems a long way out. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Si Trew's argument is a good reason to have a redirect from Seaturtle (which we have had since 2004) but searches like this to find the spelling are best directed at Google (interestingly the ngram for the two spellings show that while the single world has always been vastly inferior to the two word version but has had peaks of popularity in 1819, 1842 and 1910). Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that's true, the conjunction (disjunction?) of "this or that" is probably the killer; I hadn't really noticed that. I'll try to find counterexamples simply for proof. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The obvious one, William Or Mary brings up on a search William and Mary i.e. the King and his bint. So I think you are pretty much on solid ground, could not find much with "or" as disjunction even when searching very specifically. Delete it then. The only thing I was thinking about, in A Brief History of Time, Hawking mentions that a woman at a conference he gave says it was "turtles all the way", for how the world stands up. (A kinda Perpetual motion or Reductio ad absurdem gag.) This was a joke on Hawking's part, but maybe an RS one; even so, it seems far out since the turtles were patently not in the sea. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep it is a couplet noun form -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment and I must admit I am wavering, parties who for libel reasons are not named in United Kingdom legal cases are often called N or M (not Norm, unfortunately). We do have that, but only as the title of a book by Agatha Christie. We have, for example John Doe (Jane Doe targetting there), but not John or Jane Doe. The "or" is really the crux of it, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment'. Fusion (phonetics) was probably what I was stabbing at, which is listed at Fusion, a DAB page. Although not so much phonetic but lexicographic, but that still will serve the turn. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. It has an unambiguous target and it's only confusing between sea turtle (the article) and seaturtle (the redirect to the article), which is confusing apples with apples. WP:NOTFAQ, but visiting the article answers the question regardless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it is confusing apples with apples, nicely put. There is no harm in it except if it sets a precedent for every other redirect in the universe being "X or Y". Si Trew (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, you're right, so we have WP:XY. But this is really "X or X". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's more like "Xc Or Xi" where c = correct name and i = incorrect name. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Çomment. I thought "Seaturtle" was also quite a successful racehorse but can't find much on a gsearch about that so must be thinking of something else. Racehorse search gives me "Metro the Painting Racehorse" apparently has an oeuvre called "Sea turtle 042706"(here, unreliably, at wordpress.com). Green Sea Turtle is a three-year-old French filly by Turtle Bowl (Irish) out of Lunacat (French) but has only just started racing and has not won a race yet and so presumably not at all notable; here at the-racehorse.com. So I think that's a dead end but throw it out in case someone can search better than me (very likely). Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Neon Light[edit]

Redirects to a song. In my view, it should redirects to Neon lighting. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 10:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Neon Light (disambiguation). I think the WP:DIFFCAPS is significant enough that someone searching for "Neon Lights" is looking for one of the entries at the dab rather than "Neon lighting" and we should reward them for that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You're right of course (I think reward is a bit strong, but certainly not slap, I thought our job was to help people find information) . "Neon Lights" surely kinda means the bright lights of hollywood, Broadway, the West End and so on whether or not it they are made of neon. The stuff I have below is for other redirects where we have various halogens being redirected in very peculiar ways, which are not helpful to a technical audience, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I forgot the obvious two. We don't have flourine lamp nor flourine light nor florine lamp nor florine light. Tom Lehrer will be turning in his grave. (There were the only elements that he had known at Harvard, but since we put him in then there were many more discarvard.) Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Argon lamp could go to Argon#Lighting which briefly discusses the use of argon in incandescents as well as pure and mixed argon gas-discharge lamps. However there is also a brief mention at Neon lamp#Colour. We don't have an article that discusses the development of the argon lamp, because as far as I know all noble gas discharge lamps are identical to neon lamps but with different gas mixtures, so not really worth writing separate articles about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that retargeting to Neon Light (disambiguation) would violate WP:MALPLACED. We could certainly move that page over this redirect if there was consensus to disambiguate, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I hadn't noticed that. I think it'd be fair to interpret the retargets to that dab as a "move over redirect". -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

📵[edit]

This is U+1F4F5 📵 no mobile phones. Driving safety is but one reason among many to forbid mobile phones. There is no appropriate target, so delete. Gorobay (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Emojipedia has drawings for this on different platforms. Doesn't display on my Win7 system. Delete per Gorobay. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if all version were the same a picture of a cellphone with a red line across it would not necessary imply driving while taking phone in the first place so I agree.--76.65.42.44 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's irrelevant how or whether the glyph is rendered: we can't and shouldn't guess what fonts people use (or if e.g. they are using a blind reader). As redirects on the whole these emoji are harmless if they go to the right target; but in this case it doesn't. So... Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. I see a weak retarget to section Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, I guess, but there are óther places where, in some jurisdictions, mobile phones by law must not be used, so it's not just a matter of etiquette... petrol station forecourts, aeroplanes, and so on (as Gorobay originally implied but did not enumerate, and I'm not sure we want an article on it since it will vary considerably by jurisdiction). Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

🏴[edit]

This character is U+1F3F4 🏴 waving black flag. “Black” in Unicode character names means not ‘black’ but ‘filled in with ink, as opposed to just an outline’. It can be displayed in any color and should be retargeted to Flag. Gorobay (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • According to several sites (such as emojibase.com) this emoji is part of the Unicode 7.0 update that just came out last year, and hasn't been included in many devices' operating systems yet. As such I can't find the usual drawings of the icons on different platforms: they don't seem to exist. I agree with Gorobay's explanation: this represents a flag that is filled in with colour, rather than specifically a black flag (contrast with U+1F3F3 🏳 waving white flag which is not filled in/just an outline) and so I agree that retarget to Flag is best. For both characters, should the other come up. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget per nom and Ivanvector. —Fitnr 18:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am inclined to disagree with the proposed target for U+1F3F3 🏳 waving white flag, which I would take to surrender, and black flag to disease: however these have so many meanings that perhaps they are better deleted as WP:RFD#D5 confusing.
Í am not sure that Gorobay's explanation of what "BLACK" and "WHITE" means in the Unicode descriptions is correct: for if so, better descriptions would have been "WAVING SOLID FLAG" and "WAVING HOLLOW FLAG" or something like that. That BLACK and WHITE are used to mean solid and hollow is a new one on me: could you give any reference to the Unicode spec. for that?
I am not particularly familiar with this code page, and it seems to me Unicode is veering away a bit from its remit with these emoji by drifting into what a glyph should look like (coloured or not) rather than what a code point should mean. For example, we now have country flags (described here at an Apple blog, along with how OS X renders people emoji to have non-white options) which would be nonsense if not rendered in (an approximation to) the proper colours. But then, Unicode has U+1F3C1 🏁 checkered flag (🏁 is red, but I guess we would take to checkered flag), but nowhere says it must be a black-and-white checkered flag or in any way otherwise implies its rendering. (Interestingly that glyph does render as a checkered flag on my Windows 7 Starter edition).
I'm not sure how relevant all this is: but it is certainly a function of the user agent (browser) and not Unicode to determine the colour: perhaps the upshot is that these are just badly named in the Unicode spec. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
BLACK and WHITE have meant SOLID and HOLLOW since Unicode 1.0. Gorobay (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande First Studio Album[edit]

Delete. Unlikely search term. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep both - these point to the right articles and are unambiguous, despite being incorrectly capitalized. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both The redirect makes it easier to locate the articles on Grande's first and second studio albums. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have boldly decided to merge these two discussions. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both, unambiguous and harmless. The red flag would be if the word "untitled" or "upcoming" was thrown in there, but we're good. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Piece of junk[edit]

Given that this redirect's current target is a disambiguation page, I don't feel that this redirect is appropriate since it leads the reader to think that both the phrase is ambiguous, and that the terms "piece of junk" and "junk" are synonymous. From my experiences, the term "junk" in this phrase refers to waste or scrap, but this phrase more relates to a broken item, so I'm not sure there is any good target for this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment "Piece_of_shit redirects to "shit" and "piece of junk" is a synonym for "piece_of_shit" when that is applied to inanimate objects. And the article "shit" covers the term "piece_of_shit" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I cannot support this option since if I looked up this term and arrived at "Shit", I would be WP:ASTONISH-ed, especially when I wasn't even thinking of the word "shit" at all. I'd support deletion over this option. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though I've dabified the Junk page a bit and mentioned the phrase in the Waste-linked entry, I'm still torn between leaving this redirect as is vs. retargeting to the Waste article. The latter might be confusing to readers, so I lean somewhat toward the former. – Paine  17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

BTTT[edit]

No longer mentioned at the target article; I can't find any other notable uses. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Updated rationale below. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep -- The term appears to have been removed from the target article in this edit, which removed all the B's, with no edit summary, back in 2006. As the term does seem to be attested, I've re-added it, and as such, I think this redirect is still as (borderline) appropriate as it ever was. Thanks for reminding me of it! JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Now the question becomes: is this a good idea to soft redirect seemingly random initialisms to an appendix list at Wiktionary? I know we're not a dictionary, so my opinion of Wiktionary soft redirects are not to have them unless either a) they can be turned into an encyclopedic article or b) "they are likely to be re-created". Using that as my guide, I don't think either of these things are going to happen with this redirect, so I still think it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What about historical reasons (i.e. the content was originally added there)? Overall, I'm neutral -- I don't think the redirect does any harm, but I also don't think it does a whole lot of good. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Stage Races[edit]

Different or not? 333-blue 09:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment, or is it a race on a stage, or a race of stagecoaches? Probably not, but for example the Wells Fargo and other stagecoaches definitely aimed to be the fastest way to the West. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Dichoptic (zoology)[edit]

Delete as the wiktionary page for "dichoptic" doesn't contain any specific information about "zoology." -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dichoptic presentation unless that article is intended to be only about human eyes; if that is what was intended if should be specified and a redirect to the Wiktionary page would be more suitable. Anatomy of animals is part of zoology if the zoology article is correct. Peter James (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither the Wiktionary page nor the article on dichoptic presentation has any specific information on "zoology." It doesn't mention animals or anything along those lines. That makes this redirect either incorrect or confusing. I don't think it's a good idea to "assume" either unless we know for sure dichoptic presentation is notable in zoology. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it possible to expand Dichoptic presentation to the point where retargeting there would be clear?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How many stars are there in the sky[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ - TheChampionMan1234 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment The bullet point at WP:NOTFAQ that addresses FAQs is about writing an article in the form of a FAQ. This is different: a redirect that anticipates that someone might run a search in the form of a question, which isn't unheard of, and leads to a page that isn't a violation of the aforementioned bullet point. So I don't believe WP:NOTFAQ is pertinent here. However, how likely is it that someone will type in any arbitrary question that someone might anticipate that is related to a topic on which Wikipedia has an article? I dunno. I think that this sort of thing is to be encouraged. I'm just trying to decide how much harm it does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "edit" WP:XNR to helpspace is not reader content, editors are a subset of the readership, not the entire readership. Pages are not restricted to Wikipedia either, since the editorship of pages is a key concern for publications in the world at large. This navelgazing redirect is a very bad idea. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete "stars" the target cannot answer the question posed, since there is no way to answer that question, as we don't know how many stars exist (and all stars are in the sky, so this is equivalent to asking how many stars exist). -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Delete WP:NOTFAQ these are FAQ-like questions that would appear on FAQ pages, therefore are content that should not appear on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a repository of FAQs. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTFAQ does apply here, because it is part of what this project is and that it is not a repository for FAQ questions. Since these are FAQ-like questions, we shouldn't have them (unless there is a good reason, such as the question being integral to the article). -- Tavix (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What is a "FAQ question", as opposed to any other kind of question? Are you saying it would be OK if the questions are infrequently asked ones?
The very definition of a FAQ is that it is a pre-arranged list of questions. Every manner by which one can have a question answered isn't a FAQ. A customer support chat feature on a product's website isn't a FAQ. The Wikipedia reference desk isn't a FAQ. A natural language search engine that returns pages that answer a question one has asked in the Search field isn't a FAQ. If it isn't a pre-arranged list of anticipated questions, it isn't a FAQ.
Here, we're discussing a case where someone asks a question (whether frequently asked or never asked by anybody in the history of the universe) that somebody else happens to have created a redirect for, and one gets redirected. There is no list of pre-arranged or mutually associated questions here. There is no FAQ here. Therefore, this situation is referenced neither by the name of the shortcut WP:NOTFAQ nor by the explicit description of the prohibited situation to be found at that location. If somebody wants to expand WP:NOT by consensus to discourage the creation of redirects that are in the form of a question, that's fine with me. Right now, it doesn't cover this situation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's look at this from a navigational point of view, because that's what redirects are: navigational tools. Let's say you typed "How many stars are there in the sky" and got to the article on Stars that way. You might think that you'd be able to navigate Wikipedia in that manner, and be disappointed to find out out that most other questions aren't redirects. There's two ways to fix that problem: 1. delete all of the non-significant questions (because we are not a depository of questions, a la "FAQ") or 2. add in every possible question that you can think of, which is an impossible and onerous task. Looking at the options here, I'd much prefer #1. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no argument with the rationale you've just given. But I can't resist noting that avoiding inconsistency in navigation isn't a FAQ-related concern. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I would say they are related because I feel that WP:NOT is applicable to all aspects of the project, not just articles. WP:NOT was written from an article point of view. It is impossible to write it in a way that is "all-inclusive" to other aspects of the project (eg: redirects, templates, portals, etc). You could have a "strict constructionist" interpretation and say that WP:NOT only applies to articles. However, I have a "living tree" interpretation of WP:NOT in that it is shaped by and influenced from consensus, and consensus at previous RFDs have held that WP:NOT applies to redirects (especially WP:NOT#DICT, and there are other examples). Therefore, by saying WP:NOTFAQ, we can say that since Wikipedia is not a repository for Frequently Asked Questions, we should hold our redirects to that same standard and delete redirects that are (more or less) "frequently asked" questions. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Each of these redirects is not a FAQ, it's an individual question. If the provision had been meant to apply to individual questions not in the form of a FAQ, it would have been worded to apply to individual questions whether or not in the form of a FAQ, rather than expressly limiting its scope to FAQs. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The provision clearly doesn't apply to everything on Wikipedia because Wikipedia has WP:FAQ and WP:FAQ/Overview and WP:FAQ/Contributing and WP:FAQ/Blocks and so forth. So it doesn't even cover every FAQ in Wikipedia, only articles with FAQs in them. Therefore, I'm even more inclined to trust that its scope limitation is intentional and not meant to be interpreted as referring to "everything that looks like a question everywhere on Wikipedia". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
By definition, a FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) is a question that is frequently asked. An individual question can be asked frequently, hence making it a FAQ. You're thinking about a FAQ page, which is different than an actual FAQ. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The focus of WP:NOTFAQ is lists of FAQs. There is no list here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I see a list of FAQs in the nomination. It contains 5 questions. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't understood that the discussion was about whether to delete this nomination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all of us want to delete this nomination and not the redirects in this nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The last item (How does one edit a page) is different from all of the others and should be considered separately. This is a very old page that predates Wikipedia namespaces. It eventually evolved into the page at Help:Editing, which has the content history back to the Phase I cache bug in 2001, Wikipedia's first year. This is the URL that people were sent to when they wanted to know how to edit a page on Wikipedia, before the early Wikipedians decided to separate the encyclopedia itself from the help pages and other peripheral material. This does not, by itself, prove that the redirect should be kept; that depends on the policy about old cross-namespace redirects, and I'm no longer involved in that sort of discussion. But this redirect certainly has very different claims to legitimacy than the others in this list, and it should be considered separately. —Toby Bartels (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT[edit]

I don't think it's possible to post this as a reply to someone's query and not come across condescending. Not a good redirect. Brustopher (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It certainly is possible to interpret this benignly, and it will always be possible to write [[Wikipedia:Be bold|So fix it]]. Moreover, it is commonly used. There is no reason to break links on hundreds of talk pages. Gorobay (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term seems to target its best subject in the Wikipedia namespace, and seems appropriate as well. Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful, even if you don't). It clearly goes where it should. Furthermore, to nom's point, I only use it when I intend to be condescending, i.e. when someone complains about a problem that they could easily fix themselves, especially if it looks like drama-seeking, I might reply "[[WP:SOFIXIT|So fix it]], then." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanvector (talkcontribs) 01:48, 27 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Snow keep - this is a widely used shortcut, deleting it would break a zillion links and inconvenience many users. Sideways713 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:SOFIXIT. It's very off-putting, to the point of being rude. Not a helpful sentiment at all, especially when used as an edit summary when reverting someone. If used on a Talk page in reply to a newbie who is querying something, the original WP:Be bold is a better sentiment anyway. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems an appropriate synonym, convenient Rubbish computer 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, sometimes this sentiment is exactly correct, and in particular, AfC declines should *never* be on the basis of 'looks a little rough around the edges' when the decliner could instead just WP:SO:FIXIT themselves. Agree that this can be offputting, but so can WP:NICE and other common redirects. The redirect is not to blame, don't shoot the medium, shoot the messenger, in other words. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Project Fi[edit]

No content, implausible redirect - I doubt the topic is notable for creation as an article in itself as it is not easily verifiable. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The topic of a redirect does not need to be notable; that's the whole point of having a redirect rather than an article. Clearly plausible search term (4,824 hits in past three months). Verifiably associated with Google (see e.g. Wall Street Journal [10]). And actually discussed there (Google#Products and services, at the bottom; might want to add an {{anchor}} so that users following this redirect can actually see the description of Project Fi rather than having to scroll to find it.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. I actually disagree with the nominator that this subject doesn't seem notable, given what is currently in the article which this nominated redirect currently targets. Most likely, this subject will have a different name later in its existence, but for now, if this is the only name it has, might as well free up the title so that it can become an article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is bikini bottom?[edit]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect to @The Traditionalist: I have telescoped these into one listing, as being all on the same lines of reasoning. All or none. Si Trew (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And Delete all, of course, per WP:NOTFAQ, as The Traditionalist implies. Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I was thinking about doing this too.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NOTFAQ. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all the rest. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all others; especially "vet" (ambiguous, so bad target) and "bikini bottom" (completely wrong target) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this is starting to WP:TRAINWRECK, I have boldly decided to split out the "controversial" redirects. Please feel free to modify/clarify your comments if you think they are no longer clear or relevant. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinging eds who have already commented, as a courtesy: The Traditionalist Si Trew 67.70.32.190 Dispenser Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NOTFAQ Rubbish computer 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC): except first, which should be deleted as is obscure

What is the meaning of life[edit]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all, of course, per WP:NOTFAQ, as The Traditionalist implies. Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the meaning of life questions because they are mentioned in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the meaning of life Has non-insignifcant traffic likely related to a best selling electronic travel guide. — Dispenser 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Regarding what is the meaning of life, it wouldn't be right to retarget to The Guide; in that work it was the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, not the "meaning of life" per se. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all others. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this is starting to WP:TRAINWRECK, I have boldly decided to split out the "controversial" redirects. Please feel free to modify/clarify your comments if you think they are no longer clear or relevant. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Tavix, who has pointed out that both of these open-ended philosophical questions are actually addressed at the target. Despite failing WP:NOTFAQ, this is an appropriate use of a question redirect. Striking my earlier !vote, although I still oppose retargeting to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the matrix[edit]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all, of course, per WP:NOTFAQ, as The Traditionalist implies. Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the matrix Marketing term and an arc-phrase used in conjunction with the movie. It also happens to be the name of the website (whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com) listed in the credits. — Dispenser 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the matrix per Dispenser. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the matrix which should be tagged as a {{R from quote}} (It's something Morpheus says to Neo) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this is starting to WP:TRAINWRECK, I have boldly decided to split out the "controversial" redirects. Please feel free to modify/clarify your comments if you think they are no longer clear or relevant. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the matrix per above. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Takeba[edit]

Ambiguous. Yukari Takeba is not the only Takeba on Wikipedia. Better to delete the redirect and let the search do its job. Reach Out to the Truth 03:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, or make it a {{Surname}} WP:SETINDEX for Lisa Takeba, Taeko Takeba, and the fictional character. Either one would be better than this. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant rant as an aside, this is why I hate {{R from surname}}s. They point to the first person who happens to get a Wikipedia article, who is almost never the most important person with the surname, but instead some random fictional character or sportsperson. Then, when articles on other people with the same surname get created, no one notices & updates/deletes the surname redirect. Then people who type the surname redirect into the search box get redirected to some random section or substub instead of seeing search results or a proper list of people with the surname. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate it's already been shown here there are atleast three topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Anthroponymize per all of the IPs. Since I think this is a snowball, I will draft a page below the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of planets[edit]

Target does not answer this question. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, at least not directly – so what is your suggested solution, Tavix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talkcontribs) 07:50, 26 July 2015‎ (UTC)
Since this is redirects for discussion, I'd like to see it discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not so: it was vague prior to the definition of planet being set by the IAU, subsequent to which Pluto did not meet the criteria. So we now know definitely whether a celestial body is a planet (by definition) or not. However, we certainly don't know how many of them there are in existence. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete We cannot answer this question when we don't even know ourselves. Reach Out to the Truth 01:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 67.70 and Reach Out to the Truth. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. and retarget to List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System#Planets. This is a helpful search term for those who may still not be sure whether there are eight or nine "planets" in the Solar System. There is also some confusion between "planet" and "dwarf planet" (a type of planet), as well as "double planet" and other similar terms. So this is one of several possible search terms readers will use to learn about planets and about the IAU decision and their clarification of the definition of "planet". In addition, this redirect has been around for more than four years, so its deletion will quite probably break external internet links. – Paine  03:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That is the completely wrong place to point it. That would make people think that planets only exist in the Solar System, which is clearly wrong, as many planets exist beyond the Solar System. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You could be right; however, when I think of "number of planets" in these times of changing definitions of "planet", I think of the planets in this Solar System first, before I think of exoplanets in other stellar systems. On the other hand, astronomers when they think of "number of planets" will probably be thinking of the present number of exoplanets that have been discovered. The target I suggested isn't etched in stone, so if anybody has a better target in mind, then that can certainly be discussed. In any case, this redirect should be considered a "keeper" and not be deleted. – Paine  05:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • After further thought, I struck out the retargeting above. It appears that this redirect's present target was well-chosen, as it contains helpful links to the many different kinds of planets from those in our Solar System to exoplanets, and even mythical ones. So my !vote is now just a simple (strong) "keep". Thank you, IP 67+! – Paine  15:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

User:Sesotho kinship[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Should never have been brought here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Implausible cross-namespace redirect seemingly left over after mistake moving. Page did not exist at this address for any length of time, no incoming links, no need to keep. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete housekeeping; result of a bad move that was immediately fixed -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete criteron WP:G6 - cleanup from botched page move. I assume uncontroversial since the user who created it is the user who drafted the article, and they immediately moved the article to mainspace themselves. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gymnodiniales[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. My brain needs to catch up with twinkle. It's a stub now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from an order to just one of the genera within it, whose intervening family - Gymnodiniaceae - is a redlink. Maybe useful when first created, but now actively harmful for navigation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 1983[edit]

There were no Legislative Assemble election in Delhi in 1983, as Delhi was under President's rule since the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Next Legislative elections were held in 1993. So this page shouldn't exist. Instead it has been correctly placed under the name of Delhi Metropolitan Council election, 1983. So this page should be deleted. Logical1004 (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - misleading, since there was no Legislative Assembly to elect in 1983, if I'm reading nom's comment right. There was no election, anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Victoria Taylor[edit]

The subject of this article was deleted via a full deletion debate a few days ago. A CSD G4 nomination was declined because "we haven't had a discussion on the redirect". I disagree; "redirect" is a valid close on AfD. If the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit, then we should go with that. Pinging @Sandstein: who closed the AfD, @Mz7: who created the redirect after the AfD closed and @JamesBWatson: who declined the speedy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As the AfD closer, I'm of the view that the AfD does not prevent (or mandate) a redirect. The issue of redirecting was not discussed. The AfD was concerned with whether we should have a separate article about the topic, to which the answer was "no". Creating a redirect is not incompatible with that outcome. The redirect should therefore be discussed on its own merits. As long as the subject is discussed in the target article, and readers are likely to search for it, I think that a redirect is useful. To both questions the answer seems currently to be "yes."  Sandstein  08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I initially had no opinion at all about whether the redirect should be kept, and I certainly wouldn't have taken part in this discussion, except for the fact that Ritchie333 has chosen to ping me, so I came here just to reply to him. In the course of checking things in order to be able to properly answer him, I found further information which led me to form an opinion on the redirect, and I shall give that opinion below, but first I shall reply to Ritchie333's criticisms of my decline of his speedy deletion nomination. (1) Yes, of course "redirect" is a valid close on AfD, but that does not mean that a close of "delete" means "delete and ban anyone from ever in the future deciding to create a redirect with the title". (In fact, it is very common indeed for a redirect to be created when an AfD has concluded "delete".) Ritchie333's speedy deletion rationale was "a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" (G4). There is no reasonable way of thinking that a redirect is "substantially identical" to the deleted article, so how anyone can think that is a valid speedy deletion reason I can't imagine. (2) "If the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit, then we should go with that." Yes, but I don't see anywhere that "the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit": I see only that the community has decided that there should not be an article about Victoria Taylor. That leaves completely open the question of whether she should be mentioned in connection with Reddit in other ways than in an article about her. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Victoria Taylor is mentioned three times in the article Reddit. She has received a significant amount of news coverage in connection with Reddit, so it is likely that people will search for her on Wikipedia. If they do, the redirect will take them to the information about her. What is more, that information will be in the article about the subject in relation to which she has received public attention, so it will almost certainly be exactly what they were looking for. Thus, the redirect serves exactly the purpose for which redirects are intended: directing readers to information about a subject which is not notable enough to be the subject of an article, but which is mentioned in an article on another subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There are several other non-notable people by the name of Victoria Taylor also mentioned in Wikipedia: wife of Charles Taylor (Liberian politician) (the top hit in Google News if you restrict it to pre-2015 results); candidate in West Sussex County Council election, 2013; etc. We could create a page full of WP:DABMENTIONs. I'm not a big fan of these but RFD has accepted that as a solution a few times (e.g. Mandy Lee from a couple of weeks ago). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This probably warrants a discussion elsewhere, but I had always thought a "Delete" close at AfD means "not even a redirect, thanks". Otherwise I think it should have been closed as "Merge / redirect with Reddit". On a number of occasions, I have declined CSD A7 tags with a rationale similar to "have you considered a redirect?" When I applied the G4 tag, I suggested anyone who disagreed (and I anticipated somebody would) to go to WP:DRV. Still, we're here now so this is a good place to thrash this out. I don't particularly mind the redirect existing, I was just concerned that consensus and process was being circumvented, and that would upset people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. My interpretation of "delete" at Afd is the same as Ritchie333's: that "delete" means no page at all, no redirect, nothing. But in this case it does not seem to have been offered as a solution at all. Sandstein invoked BLP1E in the close, which specifically prescribes redirecting to an article related to the subject if the subject is not separately notable, and this is a case of that, so we should not object to the redirect on G4 grounds; declining and listing at Rfd was a thoughtful decision. As JamesBWatson has pointed out that people are likely to search for her here, and NinjaRobotPirate has identified some other Victoria Taylors mentioned in articles here, a redirect fails WP:XY, and a disambiguation page is better than search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops, it was 58.176 who identified other Victoria Taylors. Credit where credit's due, yo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No disambiguation, which should be reserved for (mostly) blue links (notables). Good search term, and those readers who search for other non-notable VT's will be savvy enough to include other details in their search fields. Presently, to search for just VT on a search engine other than Wikipedia's takes readers to pages of Reddit-associated VT. – Paine  15:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Victoria Taylor gain a very significant amount of notability more than any other Victoria Taylor currently. The redirect leads to a section of reddit that covers her role there as well as her role in the veritable shut down of reddit after her firing. 87.231.139.167 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per WP:RECENTISM. Clearly, there aren't any notable "Victoria Taylors" so a dab of WP:DABMENTIONs is the best solution. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment — Page creator here. I was the nominator of the first AfD and !voted for deletion in the second. My thoughts generally echo what Sandstein and JamesBWatson have already said. A fundamental difference I'd like to point out is that redirecting as an alternative to deletion preserves the article in the page history, whereas in this scenario, the article and its history was not preserved—it was deleted. The primary point of discussion at AfD was whether the subject, Victoria Taylor, was suitable for an article. The consensus was that the subject was not suitable, and for that reason, the existing article and its history should be deleted. Had I recreated the article full-out, I would certainly have went against the consensus of the AfD. Had I recreated the article with the same content as what was deleted, it would have qualified for speedy deletion per G4. But a redirect aligns with the consensus that the subject is not suitable for an article. With all this in mind, I believe this discussion should proceed as if no article had existed prior—focusing primarily on the merits of the redirect and whether it is suitable per WP:REDIRECT. Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Airbus a380 emergency landing[edit]

Certainly not the only case, and we don't need an entire list of small incidents. - TheChampionMan1234 05:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep both - actually it is the only case with this aircraft. At least the only one notable enough to write about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
actually no, see [11] - TheChampionMan1234 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you're right, then. I don't think we'll write about the second incident, but delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, don't fly on A380s for a while. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
lol, why are you saying that, I flew on one for the first time, a few months ago, and all went smoothly, I felt like that I never wanted to fly on any Boeing aircraft again. - TheChampionMan1234 23:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since emergency landings are generally (in the general case) not notable; or retarget to A380 accidents and incidents section, which list notable occurrances (and not keep pointing at a single case, since it's a very generic title, so should indicate the list of events)-- 67.70.32.190 (talk)
  • Delete: should not redirect to a particular event from a general title such as this. Rubbish computer 09:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Crucal[edit]

I'm not able to find the connection between the subject of the redirect (if it even exists) and a leg. Alternately, I was thinking of this possibly being a misspelling of "Crucial", but that page is a disambiguation page, so I don't think that location would be a proper retarget. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I'm just not a fan of misspellings targeting disambiguation pages due to the possibility that the term may be purposely searched by its spelling looking for a specific subject. However, I'm neutral on the whole ordeal if consensus states otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, thanks for explaining. If there isn't an exact-match target for "crucal", and it's a plausible misspelling for "crucial", I think the potential for harm is low. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Retarget as above. I am with Steel1943 that Rs from misspellings to DABs are weathercocks pointing in all directions. Had this gone to the crux of the matter I would agree, but it seems patent to me that this means the tendons etc of the leg bone. Crucial (anatomy) is red; so is Crucal (anatomy): crux is a heavenly body, and crux (disambiguation) to which it hatnotes is no help. 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Çomment". PS I fixed my laptop so now I have four kb layouts, hungarian, us, ukk and belgian, and four physical keyboards to go with them, so please forgive obvious slips while I get used to the US layout, not used that one in a while. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It’s a misspelling of “crural”. Gorobay (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Gorobay's explanation is more plausible than a misspelling of crucial. Perhaps @Skysmith: might have an opinion as creator of the redirect. I'm inclined to keep the redirect, tag it as misspelling and perhaps add hidden comment on the redirect with rationale. olderwiser 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • After a bit of Googling, there's some evidence for it as misspelling for either crural or crucial. As such, it might be better as a redlink.olderwiser 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't actually remember all about the redirect except that it was related to my missing topics page about Anatomy. Hence the redirect to leg which, in hindsight, is not entirely obvious. In this case I think Gorobay's explanation is probably right, since the original term was possibly a typo in my original list of words. - Skysmith (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is a misspelling for a couple of different words. There'll be confusion no matter where we put it. (See also: hippocite). -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Verre[edit]

Glass is not exclusively French, so WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I understand where you are coming from with this opinion (since I share it), but due to the lack of notability with the only surname subject by their surname, I wouldn't consider the "disambiguation page-creation" option until at least 2 biographical subjects with the surname exist. At this point, at best, a hatnote should suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Move per Steel1943. If Verre is open, there is no need for the DAB to it (we obviously hat note). I think in that restaurant the meals are rather oleaginous, but that is just Verre de gris. Si Trew (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Calumite[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. My searches on other search engines find this term to be a brand name. Also, this redirect was formerly an article that seemed to he redirected due to reading like a promotion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment it seems to be a calcium-alumino-silicate mineral used in the production of glass, as a substitute for alumina, obtained from the waste byproduct slag of the iron industry -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Etre Supreme[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Cult of the Supreme Being. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFOREIGN The Traditionalist (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Is this even a proper French saying? French for God is Dieu. For some reason this makes me want a hamburger. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I guess it could go to Cult of the Supreme Being (French: Culte de l'Être suprême). Somewhat prefer deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think in the US, we just call it a Quarter Pounder. I believe the version with cheese is the "Etre Supreme with Cheese". --BDD (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to where Ivanvector says. His somewhat preference is a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I think: Neither do I, but I think that is where it should go. (I checked the French linkups.) Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go along with it, then. Retarget per, uh, me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector's findings. Also the appropriate use of "per me" is hilarious. Please don't kill me. --Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bóg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFOREIGN The Traditionalist (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice research by the way. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Someone who frequents these boards is keen on expressing frustration that fellow editors don't do their WP:HOMEWORK, and I'm trying to be better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bóg in Hungary would be a placename (it isn't), and in Spain: this is WP:RFOREIGN and WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to vagueness per discussion above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bumsla[edit]

Delete: This is the Latin name of the city, yet the city is in the Czech Republic. Doesn't seem strongly related to me. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Although noted as a Latin name in the article, I couldn't find any source for this; it seems to be a legitimate name, but one that mostly appears in Jewish contexts. (In some places it's called Hebrew or Yiddish, but the best RSes I could find, e.g. [12], simply note it as a name used by Jews. It was originally inserted in the article as a "Hebrew/Latin" name, way back in 2006, but the "Hebrew" was later removed.) Whether this makes it any more relevant to a city in the Czech Republic, I'm not sure, though the article does mention that "in the 17th and 18th centuries, Mladá Boleslav was an important Jewish center." Sideways713 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Generally, I'm quick to support deletion for foreign language names, but Latin is a bit of a special case. Since Latin was used as a scholarly and diplomatic language in Europe for so long, I would argue that older European cities like Mladá Boleslav do have a connection to Latin. Readers may come across the Latin forms in old books, treaties, or secondary sources referring to the same. In this case, the Latin name is also apparently important enough to be mentioned in the lede. This would be a surer thing if the city existed in Roman times, but I'm still comfortable with it as is.
That's all if this is really Latin. I don't really know Latin, but the name doesn't look especially Latin to me. Even if it's just Hebrew or Yiddish, though, I think Sideways713 demonstrates that this is a legitimate, useful alternative name. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • keep per the above comments, on balance this seems to be a genuine alternative name for the city. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep lingua franca langauge used in local publication scholarly works for the period in which Latin was used as the language of the educated classes. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not English, not Latin as lingua franca is, not remotely related to English: Slavic. My first thoughts were either Burma or Bum slap. I don't think this is helpful to an English-speaking audience. WP:RFOREIGN. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep mainly per BDD. I'm not sure what language it is either, but it definitely seems to be a valid alternative name for the city. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was partly convinced by the arguments against Latin being a valid WP:FORRED redirect for this, but the area which is now the Czech Republic was part of the Duchy and then Kingdom of Bohemia, a part of the Holy Roman Empire for about 800 years. Latin was certainly lingua franca in the Empire, so it's certainly valid for this redirect. I can't say if it's the proper Latin name either, but it was in the article prior to this discussion, so I'm convinced enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

United States of America/OldPage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Old page that was previously information that was copied over from CIA World Factbook, turned into redirect. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 02:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Since the redirect contains merged material in its history, our copyrights do not allow deletion (as this would also delete credit for the authors). See WP:Merge and delete for more information on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MAD ; rename to United States (America) without leaving a redirect behind at "OldPage", to get rid of the WP:SUBPAGE location. (or some other viable search term name (or existing redirect which contains no history))-- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary and implausible. This would be a perfect candidate for what I like to call the "Qantas Flight Numbers" treatment. (See: Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history and you can follow the redlink to the RFD discussion.) -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic aid. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since subpages are no longer used in mainspace, those that remain are redirects with old history, and there are still lots of these around. From the category, These redirects are kept to retain edit history, and to avoid breaking links that may have been made externally. 'Nuff said. – Paine  11:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arabes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a really improbably mispelling to me. I say we delete it. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. English has confusing plural rules. See English plurals. Someone could easily think that the plural of Arab is Arabes, especially for speakers of ESL. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. By the time someone types "Arab", the plural "Arabs" will have popped up. No need for unlikely misspellings. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. @Bermicourt: search suggestions are only available to people with javascript enabled who are using the internal search tool. There are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia, including following links from bookmarks and external websites. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep likely misspelling, as it's a common ending for English plurals and is the spelling used in French and Latin. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is not a common English spelling for plurals, and WP:NOTDIC to teach people how to spell. This is WP:RFOREIGN as Peter points out, that it is French. I can't think of a single other English noun that has an E in plural before an S. WP:RFD#D8 makes no sense. (I can speak a bit of French and Arabic by the way.) Other arabic-derived terms such as berbers, barbars (via Greek and Latin), kebab (or kabob or kabab) from Turkish does not go to Kebabes nor Kabobes nor Kababes, We have kebabs -> kebab but not kabobs; the various alternatives are listed there but none takes the Magic E -> Silent E in the plural. I know we should write English as She Is Spoke but this is just wrong and WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - For JavaScript-less browsers, typos, and non-native English speakers.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral comment - Yeah, what a strange plural this is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector: Why the relist and not a close? There's twice as many keeps as there are deletes and the keep !votes seem to have the stronger arguments. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In my view, this feels like it's not quite done. On one hand, it could be a plausible misspelling of a pluralization; on the other, it's a redirect from a foreign language with no affinity for the target. The discussion is certainly going in a particular direction, but I thought more discussion was appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, thanks for explaining. (By the way: I asked it purely out of curiosity, I'm not criticizing the decision.) -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll try to manhandle my way to a better explanation. -es is a common plural ending in Latin and Greek in 4th conjugation if I remember correctly (only did woodwork at school), which then declines according to the rules of that declension (e.g. Forceps -> Forcipes), so it is a common misconception that those words derived therefrom must be plural when they are in fact singular. But it is in no way common in English to add an E rather than to elide one. It does happen occasionally, usually with an apostrophe, for disambiguation, but this is generally handled by the 19th century rules on apostrophes, which are rather a jumble. For example it is not St Jameses Park (there is your "-es" for you) but (St James's Park (that is what we write today): the "-es" one may have in speech is represented by apostrophe ess in written text. Greengrocers' apostrophes are not Greengrocers' apostropheses, even though apostropheses would agree in Greek, as would thesis with theses. In short, this is not English. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of the -es added in English for many fricatives/affricates (such as "watches"), some vowels ("potatoes"), as well as "-f" sometimes becoming "-ves" in plural, so a misspelling in English influenced by other plurals in English and existence of the spelling in other languages. Peter James (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hardware system[edit]

The term "hardware" isn't exclusive to computers, so these redirects could be seen as misleading. Also, the redirects' term is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, clearly this is extreme computation bias due to our using computers -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename redirect to Electronic hardware, a more general article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab at Hardware. It's a much more broad topic than just electronics. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to Computer hardware: The "System" bit is telling. I doubt one would describe B&Q or Home Depot as a hardware system. (I just describe them as creditors...) Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but they are certainly hardware retailers. A plumbing system or a mains electrical system would be a hardware system. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hardware per Ivanvector. I think this term is too vague to be narrowed down to electronics or computer hardware--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Indian film projects (concluded)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per all the rest. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Invisible sky man[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 as this is a "novel or obscure" name for God. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good one – (that was some "good shoot, man! You know what 'shoot' is, doncha man? That's 'shit' with two o's, man!") – Paine  15:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. (or move to "Old guy in the sky" – **naht**) – Paine  15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seriously?--216.186.185.230 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Undeveloped The Office spin-off[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

We do have The Office (U.S. TV series)#Proposed spin-offs, but this redirect implies something different than what we have there. Both "entries" in that section were developed: one just evolved further into Parks and Rec and the other developed into The Farm (The Office). -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What are monocotyledons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, WP:NOTJEOPARDY!, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

デジタルバーサタイルディスク[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORRED. DVDs aren't exclusive to Japanese. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Google translates this to "digital versatile disk" but they are not special to Japan in any way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dynamic address translation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I am finding, it seems that this term is not synonymous with "virtual memory". In fact, I would say that these redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK since it seems that this term could be its own encyclopedic article/subject. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Question in Google Books, I see a lot of books using "dynamic address translation" to mean some sort of network address translation (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details); is this usage actually correct? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that this redirect might be a connection with that term as well. However, from what I have found, the closest match that relates to "network address translation" (NAT) is "dynamic network address translation" (DNAT). However, it seems that DNAT and "dynamic address translation" (DAT) are two different concepts. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Virtual memory is not generally dynamically readdressed: in fact, that is the point. Physical memory -> Computer_data_storage#Primary_storage may be readdressed through or by virtual memory allowing computer applications still to run in the same address space.
The VAX/VMS Software Handbook 1981 gives details, if you need sources, and someone else said they also had one, but neither of us completed the tidying up (or to put it less generously, the other editor didn't bother to start on it.) Si Trew (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

V ram[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to VRAM by nomimator (me). Steel1943 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The redirect is not explained or identified on the target article. Assuming that this term is an abbreviation for "virtual RAM", the closest article match I can find is Virtual memory, but the term is not mentioned by its specific name in that article either. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to VRAM. (The first revision of V ram, prior to redirection & AFD, was also about the same topic now covered by VRAM.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I'm just going to implement that change, and close this request. (Not sure how I didn't see that.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Random Access Memory?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to the question mark at the end of the title of this redirect, I don't see this being a plausible search term. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete Don't know why I created this one. Sorry for any problems this caused. Nightscream — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 24 July 2015‎

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How ram works[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ per nom ; also extremely vague. Random-Access-Memory have no relationship to battering rams -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Goulddigger[edit]

Delete. Improbable typo; intentional misspelling to refer to Goulding or, more likely, a Gould. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible typo. According to Urban Dictionary, this is an informal term for "a fan of Ellie Goulding" --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep More likely to be an error from an English-language learner, but it seems like a plausible enough error in English. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Enguerue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No idea what this means. - TheChampionMan1234 05:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This was originally a redirect to Ankara. In December 2013, a vandal redirected Ankara to United Kingdom, and a bot "fixed" the "double redirect" before the vandal had a chance to self-revert. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Engürü is a valid alternative name for Ankara, according to Turkish Wikipedia. However, Enguerue is not a valid alternative spelling of Engürü. The German-to-English rule of respelling "ü" as "ue" doesn't apply to Turkish, and isn't seen in reliable sources or even unreliable ones. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - implausible, per 58.176's explanation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per 58.176.246.42 due to the widely known convention of converting umlauts from German in English, people may misapply this for Turkish, making this a valid {{R from mispelling}} so it should retarget to Ankara -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. That derivation would make sense if "Ankara" was an English word. It isn't. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Abdin (surname)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. Sorry about doing this early (I'm an oldtimer); feel free to revert if desired. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, confusing. The disambiguation qualifier would imply a redirect to a surname article, but it's not. -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep -- It looks like Abdin is just a variant romanization of Abidin, which is an already-existing surname disambiguation page. Since we do have multiple articles on people with the surname Abdin (and more once the variants are included), I think re-targeting the page in question to point at the relevant disambiguation page would be better than deleting it, and I have now done so (feel free to redirect if desired). I am not particularly familiar with Arabic, so I may be in error about the romanization. If a more knowledgeable person speaks up, please listen to them instead! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget as JesseW has already done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Richard Parker (footballer)[edit]

This page is all a bit screwed up, basically there is no footballer called Richard Parker. There was previously a page created under the name, but the player's name was later found to be Reginald Parker. Beatpoet (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Richard Parker (rugby league). While "footballer" almost always means "association footballer" in Wikipedia usage, Footballer redirects to Football player, which includes rugby league. So technically, we have one article on a footballer named Richard Parker. I see the potential for confusion. I'm not super concerned about it if there's no other article for readers to find, but deletion does make sense. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's also worth asking why we ever thought Reginald's name was Richard. If it's the mistake of one editor, fine, but if it's an error made in reliable sources as well, then it's definitely worth noting somehow. I see he's listed as Richard at brentfordfchistory.co.uk, the only web source on the article, though I don't know how reliable that is. Could we be confusing two people here? --BDD (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • BDD, I believed the player was called Richard Parker because he was listed in the Timeless Bees Brentford book under that name. That book is incredibly reliable and this player's name is the only one that has turned out to be wrong. brentfordfchistory.co.uk is reliable too, but I think it has borrowed many names/stats from Timeless Bees. Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 lists Parker as Reginald, and that book is pretty much the definitive record of players of that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatpoet (talkcontribs) 14:51, 15 July 2015‎ (UTC)
Keep Thanks for clarifying. If such an important Brentford F.C. book has listed him under this name, I think we should keep this, tag it as {{R from incorrect name}}, and mention it in the article. Something like "Reginald Parker, sometimes erroneously cited as Richard Parker, was an English footballer..." --BDD (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - if a number of RS use this name (even if it is wrong - presumably because of an old new report or something) then I view it as a possiblt search term and therefore a valid redirect. GiantSnowman 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per BDD, it seems like this is a genuine error in some RS, so could be a plausible search term. page needs cleaning up to make this explicit. Fenix down (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Richard Parker (rugby league), since rugby players are also called footballers, a hatnote can be added for the mispelling. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Northeastern Australia[edit]

Somewhat plausible search term (getting at least a hit a day) but no plausible target (current target certainly unhelpful). - TheChampionMan1234 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget Northeastern Australia -> Queensland, which is geographically accurate. Delete Southeast Australia because it could refer equally to New South Wales or Victoria (Australia) since they are both in the south-east, or weak retarget to Victoria since our article says it's in the south-east, while our article on NSW says it's "on the east coast" (and not south). Plausible searches given that Western Australia and South Australia are both actual states. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Northeastern Australia because that is what it is. But keep Southeast Australia as it is a term that is often used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: is "Southeast Australia" used more often to refer to either of those states in particular? Or just the general geographic area? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Southeast Australia is the general area rather than just the states. It certainly includes NSW as well as Vic. It probably deserves its own short article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll move to keep pending creation of an article over the redirect, if anyone wants to, which is sort of opposite to what WP:REDLINK says but I think the current target is at least somewhat useful. We do have other non-politically-bounded "regional" articles, like Eastern Canada and Eastern United States, so an article on Southeast Australia is worthwhile if it's a notable usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bandaiyan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I see that WikiProject Australia was notified about this. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable neologism/term. - TheChampionMan1234 01:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Garaoke[edit]

Another one from the creator of Leondeon, this does not seem like a plausible typo, though, unsure if this is another Asian eye dialect spelling. - TheChampionMan1234 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I did see this when I was going through the IP's contribs but thought it was plausible enough to leave it alone, but now that it's been nominated, weak delete as implausible. G and K are pretty far apart, and on different hands for touch typists. Furthermore according to the article there aren't any languages which pronounce this without a hard K sound at the start, so it's also phonetically implausible. Also worth noting there's a karaoke DJ in Ottawa (possibly others elsewhere) who goes by "Garaoke", though I have no reason to suspect the IP is related. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I imagine you didn't mean to, but your above comment seems to assume bad faith, and that you are now the Lord God Almighty on the subject of enunciation. I am sure that is not the case, but it sounds like that. (Or rather, types like that.) Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but I assure you that when I'm assuming bad faith, I state it explicitly so that there's no doubt. I have no way to investigate what the motivation was for creating this redirect, I can only report what I see, and that's that our karaoke article only lists pronunciations from languages which use a hard K sound (Japanese and English). There may be others which use G, or P, or W, or 3, but we don't consider them notable, or we don't consider them to have an affinity for this topic. Since every language in which this has an affinity has transliterated this as a K, I see G as implausible, and failing WP:FORRED. Also, let me state explicitly that I am Lord God Almighty of nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a question of typing, a question of speaking. Perfectly plausible to me. Karaoke, after all, is a transliteration. Ga and Ka are distinct sounds in Japanese, but I can easily imagine a labial slide between the two makes a K into a G. (Put your mouths wide open and say Ka and Ga, your mouth doesn't move, your tongue slides forward and back, especially the back part of it.) Gaak! Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. This seems to be a Karaoke system business. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we have any evidence of this spelling used elsewhere, perhaps in early English references to karaoke? --BDD (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorically asks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a particularly probable search term to me. Compassionate727 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. If this redirect falls in the forest, does anybody hear? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Mild keep Not a search term (of course) but might be convenient for use in prose. For example, the sentence: “The poem, in which the speaker rhetorically asks why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” can certainly be written this way: “The poem, in which the speaker [[Rhetorical question|rhetorically asks]] why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” but if this redirect exists, it can be written this way: “The poem, in which the speaker [[rhetorically asks]] why he has lost his ability to write poetry, uses boating references” saving a pipe-link.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good thought. I had to check if that's currently the case. There is exactly one usage of this phrase in the prose of an article: Ed "Too Tall" Jones. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep per The Traditionalist 's reasoning. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: We can add it to other articles. There are plenty which contain these words. It may also be used when creating a new article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Right, I understand that. I was just checking to see the current usage of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep due to it being used. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As an R to a section in an article that does not mention it. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOUN. Not mentioned at target, nor anything similar. No WP:RS, no WP:V. I know in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, but this is pushing it: WP:RFD#D5]] nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Windows X[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose retarget to Windows 10. Now that the ‘GWX’ (as in Get Windows X) app is much discussed, this orthography starts to get somewhat used � (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Windows 10. It would also seem to me that "X" would be the roman numeral for "10." Compassionate727 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no Windows OS version named "Windows X". There are no other Roman numeral redirects to versions of Windows, such as Windows XIIWindows 7 or Windows XIIIWindows 8. It's nonsense, and speculation based on rumours. +mt — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 14 July 2015
  • Changed my mind to disambiguate Windows 10 and X Window System. I still don't see any mention in Windows 10 that it is also called Windows X, but I can see that there are some confused people out there that might think that. +mt 06:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How can it be based on rumor? This redirect was created the day the Windows 10 beta dropped. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the current target is based on "X" being a placeholder (like Windows 9x) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like we have a couple of potential retarget options. Is one of them the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If so, we should retarget there and hatnote to the other. If not, a disambiguation might be a good idea. -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Windows 10 is more likely. X Window System is really a partial title match, but could be hatnoted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. X-Windows has a lot of variant names. It would more likely refer to Windows/X (X-Windows) than Windows 10 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just some humor: The Mystery of Windows X Face-smile.svg Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. GWX is a red link, so it's apparently not that much discussed on Wikipedia. I had to look that up to see what it was: the infamous "Get Windows 10" nagware. BTW, I've removed that update from my Windows 7 system, and hidden it from Automatic Updates. "Windows X" does not support my beloved Windows Media Center, so upgrading my "Media Center PC" is a nonstarter for me. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Windows 9x is another disambiguation option, i.e. "Win x" could mean "Windows 95 and 98 OS family". A likely reason to favor "10" over "X", and to skip "Windows 9": already done that in the 90s. Windows X Some interesting commentary. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Then you have X Window System implementations that run under Microsoft Windows, such as Cygwin/X and Xming. See X.Org Server § Adoption, Windows X-server. Because of all this stuff, I suspect any actual usage of "X" by Microsoft will be limited to obscure internal file names such as GWX.exe – it's like their way to obscure the fact that file has anything to do with Windows 10... it's just an "important Windows 7/8.1 update", right? Wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders[edit]

We have List of Orange Islands Gym Leaders that redirects to the section on this topic, but I don't think any of these titles are plausible search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Implausible but probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd probably consent to delete that one if it were on its own, and if the closer wants a split result, that's fine with me. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

Aaliyah X[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. Aaliyah doesn't have anything titled "Aaliyah X" -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete as implausible synonym. The artist wasn't called as such nor did she created songs and/or albums named as such. --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Office spinoff[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff from The Office. The show was originally going to be, but that idea was scrapped early on (see Parks and Recreation#Conception). Delete as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I copied my comment from the discussion below, because that's just how lazy these redirects are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The Office is a The Office spinoff, and office spinoff can refer to oh so many things, such as Microsoft Works with Word, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Skittles (confectioner y)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, implausible typo. It's less than four months old so I don't think we have to worry about breaking any links. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, speedy per WP:R3: recently created implausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that but didn't because I figured it was too long ago. Is there anywhere that defines "recent" or is that just up to the admin's interpretation? -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Admin interpretation, I think. What defines "recent" would be an explosive ANI case I'm sure. I figured since you called it "less than four months old" then it's probably "recent" enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fresh Pickle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete (surprisingly, but that's the consensus). Deryck C. 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This was originally an article basically explaining "how to grow a fresh pickle" and was redirected instead of deleted (WP:NOTHOWTO). Now it's sitting at a disambiguation page which is completely inappropriate because there is nothing at that page titled "Fresh Pickle." The previous RFD was derailed due to an entry at List of cucumber varieties called "fresh pickle" but it was removed because no one could find any sources on it. Due to that fact, I'm recommending deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete I was one of the keep opinions the last time around but we are certainly not pointing this anywhere that says anything about a fresh pickle. Looking at the original "article" it was patent nonsense that should have been speedily deleted rather than converted to a dubious redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete absent evidence that this is actually a cultivar. Also, can a pickle really even be fresh? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That's the joke... -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Untitled Office Spin-Off[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, no longer untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Amy Poehler may have (and likely does have) other untitled projects in the works, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete there have been several Microsoft Office spinoffs that were not properly titled until release. Extreme vagueness -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kingdom of Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Monarchy of Australia. There's consensus that this is an unacceptable synonym for Australia, but that relevant information can be found there. I've also tagged the redirect with {{R unprintworthy}}. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no such place, could not find any significant usage of the term. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment technically, as a Commonwealth Realm, it is a kingdom whose monarch is Queen Elizabeth (see Monarchy in Australia ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Australia is a monarchal country with a Queen of Australia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Australia is a constitutional monarchy; it is not, and never has been, a kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Monarchy of Australia. One definition of "monarchy" is "a kingdom" (eg: wikt:monarchy). I know it's more complicated than that, but as a redirect, I think this is a good solution. I feel like that's the type of article someone would be looking for if searching with that term. I don't think they'd be looking for Australia because they'd more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name. I wouldn't object to an {{R from incorrect name}} tag. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that works, and I'll go with it. The problem I see with that is that "kingdom" (wikt:kingdom) implies an absolute monarchy where the king is the supreme ruler. That is very far from the case for the Head of the Commonwealth/Queen of Australia who actually wields very little absolute power (maybe none). However, someone searching this probably won't be disappointed with an article on the monarchy, unless they're looking for an ancient or pre-European Kingdom of Australia, which doesn't exist. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I did a little bit of research and ended up changing that definition. Take a look at other major dictionaries (I tried M-W and dictionary.com), and they define it simply as a nation/state/country/whatever that has a king and/or queen as it's head. That makes sense when we think about the modern day "Kingdom" of the United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state, so it would make that definition fit. We can apply that same definition to Australia. Even though it's not a Kingdom (capital K), we can still say "kingdom (lowercase k) of Australia" because Queen Elizabeth II (a monarch) is the head of state of Australia. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Australia has been informed about this discussion. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to the monarchy for reasons illustrated above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Australia is a federation of states, it was formed by the states for the benefit of the states not the monarch Gnangarra 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally disagree with Tavix's explanation as to usage, there is nothing in the history of australia where the term has been used, the standard appellation for the country where it is an entity in any way other than the country name is the Commonwealth of Australia and nothing to do with anything relative to any monarchy in any way, much closer to Gnangarra's explanation. JarrahTree 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that someone searching "kingdom of Australia" is probably looking for "monarchy of Australia", so let's reward them for their efforts. It's a better solution than deleting it simply because Australia is not a Kingdom. {{R from incorrect name}} applies here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Entirely plausible mistake that can be searched by anybody who does not have the slightest idea about Australian political and constitutional history and just heard that Australia has a Queen.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
if some just heard Australia had a Queen they would search for Queen of Australia Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, my position is retarget to monarchy of Australia. I don't think it should be kept at Australia because someone searching for this term would "more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name." -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bah, I'm not getting enough sleep. !vote adjusted. It's what I meant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE item 8 - "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym ..."
  • Retarget at Monarchy of Australia. It is not in dispute that the country is not and has never been known by that name, but it is a plausible that someone might assume that since there is a "Queen of Australia" (or a King perhaps, in the future), that there's a Kingdom too. It's best to direct such readers to a page that will clarify the matter for them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Gold Mountain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#New Gold Mountain

Leondeon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There are several non-notable, obscure uses of this word (mostly corporate/institutional names). However none refer to London. - TheChampionMan1234 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - implausible misspelling. E is a long way on the keyboard from pretty much all of the other letters in London. Except D, which is for delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this is supposed to be some kind of Korean eye-dialect using Revised Romanization, in which an o-like sound is spelled "eo". It's a very unlikely search term, though, and should probably be deleted per WP:RFD#D8. The IP responsible for this has created a number of other similar redirects; the non-Asian ones, at least, should probably also go if this is deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vittle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Term not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Max Read[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#Max Read

Summary of trojan war[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Summary of trojan war

Wittle[edit]

I'm getting hits that this is "baby language" for little and a misspelling for whittle, but nothing relating this to food. Should this go somewhere? -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget to whittle as plausible misspelling or soft retarget to its wiktionary entry. --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think these redirects may have been created in the event that the searcher misspells "vittles", but the "w" is quite a ways from the "v" on my keyboard. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be a cognitive mispelling or a phonetic mispelling -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Wittle to Whittle as a plausible misspelling and delete Wittles. We don't cover baby language on this wiki. ONR (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is Dickens’s pronunciation spelling of “victuals”, not a typo or baby talk. Gorobay (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep wittle is the term used for food in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Then that should be explained somewhere because as it stands now it's either confusing or a WP:SURPRISE for those who don't know that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget and delete, respectively, per ONR. Dickens's usage is not a good reason at all to keep, unless it gets explained at the target article. I doubt that usage is so notable. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget wittle -> whittle as plausible misspelling. As for wittles, didn't we determine above that "vittles" is Dickens' word for "food"? And if so, is "wittles" close enough to keep? I lean towards no. I also lean towards delete for the second one per what BDD said - it's doubtful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yummy Food[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 10#Delicious Pie. Not all foods are "yummy" (although I will add, the history shows a pretty epic edit war in November 2009). -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-neutral OR Weak Retarget to Yummy where the reader is pointed to the wiktionary entry for "yummy"--Lenticel (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment deliciousness points to flavor, so this could do so as well -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The intersection of Clinton & Fidelity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, not mentioned at the target's article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - high potential of being a WP:BLP violation and non-permissible WP:POV redirect. I think WP:G10 should apply. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The truth is more innocuous, though the redirect is still unhelpful. According to this source, this is a literal street intersection in Houston. It's just funny for its own reasons. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I believe it to be a BLP issue. If not for the connotation, why create the redirect? Ivanvector 🍁 (