Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Current list[edit]

September 21[edit]

Im' a rocket man[edit]

Unlikely typo, this is actually the only page title that begins with Im'. The pageviews show that this isn't being actively used. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Iceland–Turkey relations[edit]

this redirect should be deleted, the outcome of recent AfD was delete not redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. An AfD being closed as "delete" does not preclude a useful redirect being created at the same title unless the deletion discussion actively considered and rejected the redirect (which didn't happen on this occasion). However, there is no mention of Turkey on the target page (and no mention of Iceland at Foreign relations of Turkey either), so the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

IPhone 2[edit]

This redirect was retargeted by Ï¿½ last year. The iPhone 3G was the second-generation iPhone, so I struggle to see why it was retargeted. --Nevéselbert 22:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

MV Amaco Cadiz[edit]

Delete. It was a typo on creation. No history is lost. No language issues. I tried a speedy delete, but someone knew the rules better than I. Rhadow (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of gairaigo and wasei-eigo terms far from complete[edit]

I'm not seeing how the use of "far from complete" is a plausible/useful search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - harmless, stats show a low but consistent trickle of activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the "far from complete" part. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. The target is essentially a dynamic list that may never be complete so I don't see that the redirect is misleading in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Thryfuulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects are for either the index-worthy access points to an article, or for any plausible search terms. This is neither. We don't create redirects for any of the myriad possible ways to state something about the target article. – Uanfala 08:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the "far from complete" part. This seems to be a joke redirect. Deryck C. 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to help clear the backlog and close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 8. Per WP:RELIST, if anyone not involved can assess consensus in this discussion, it can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector and Thryduulf. This is neither confusing or misleading, so there's no benefit to deleting it. Arguments along the lines of "We don't create redirects..." miss the point: what is being discussed is not whether such redirects should be created, but rather whether this one, now that it has been created, ought to be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, the redirect might not be misleading at present, but it can potentially become such in the future: if the article gets expanded enough so that the description "far from complete" stops being true; and when this happens editors might or might not be aware of the existence of the redirect in order to bring it here again. Also, it is true that we discuss individual redirects, as created, on a case-by-case basis, but any such particular discussion does have some general ramifications. We don't have anything that gets close to a formal system of precedents, but the sum total of all RfD discussions creates the environment of expectations of what is kept and what gets deleted. An individual discussions doesn't set a precedent but it does contribute to the eventual implicit endorsement of redirects of the given type. – Uanfala 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


This redirect without "-ing" exists at the target, but that title, Faff, does not exist on Wikipedia. (Content at Faff has apparently been deleted several times.) This redirect seems to be the only variation of a word which has a redirect to this page. With that being said, the best course of action may be to delete per WP:NOTDICT or weak retarget to wikt:faffing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or soft redirect. With almost 400 hits this year, it's clear that people are looking for this and I don't see why it couldn't be added at the target. "Faff" does have both noun and verb senses. Whatever the decision here, Faff should link to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Shhhnotsoloud. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I can also support a Wiktionary redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly advice Wiktionary redirect. I moved to England at the age of 16 speaking fluent Hong Kong English and it took me 3 years of immersion to fully understand what "faffing around" means. With 400 hits in 8 months it's clear that people are searching for this. {{wi}} exists precisely for this sort of purpose. Deryck C. 15:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Deryck Chan: Not trying to debate your point in my following statement, but I just noticed that Faffing is linked at Pfaff (surname), and this page receives about the same amount of page views on average. I have no definite way to determine if this is a coincidence or not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but refine section to Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States#F. I would support a Wiktionary redirect if there was no content at all, but we have a definition in a glossary list with encyclopedic context, so we ought to point there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Thryduulf. It's not article-worthy, but already has a glossary entry, so redirect both Faff and Faffing to it (use {{Anchor}} to create an anchor point). It's pointless (and potentially even disruptive) to do "to Wiktionary" soft redirs when we have an encyclopedic glossary entry on a term. [If you want a backgrounder on why it can be disruptive, ask on my user talk page; but it's old history, and the fact that we can have encyclopedic glossaries at all, when properly written, is no longer even slightly controversial.] We shouldn't create redirs for every entry in every glossary, but if there's proof people keep looking for it, we should have one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: you make a good point and so I no longer support a soft redirect in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not redirect: wiktionary redirects shouldn't be created for terms that are covered on wikipedia. – Uanfala 10:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to help clear the backlog and close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 7. Per WP:RELIST, if anyone not involved can assess consensus in this discussion, it can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per Ivanvector and SMcCandlish. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The LSE[edit]

LSE is a disambiguation page. At first glance, London Stock Exchange, Lahore Stock Exchange and Luzern–Stans–Engelberg railway line can all be referred to as "the LSE". feminist 13:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to LSE. No prominent usage of "The" in the school's logo or branding for it to claim primary topic over the other LSE's. [1] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to LSE per above discussions --Lenticel (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Wolf (TV series)[edit]

Redirect with two incoming links (Li Qin (actress) and Darren Wang) to a DAB page with no relevant entries. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. NB the TV series is redlinked in Chinese Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A different TV series. The one I found is Chinese, not American. Narky Blert (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


This word does not seem exclusive to streams of water, but rather heavy rains or waterfalls. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading or maybe redirect to WP:NPP Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Torrent which is a dab page as R from adjective. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC) updated 14:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Torrent per AngusWOOF. A much more natural and expected destination. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete None of the eventual targets actually connects to the normal meaning of the word, making the DAB page entirely useless. Really all we could give would be a definition, and we don't do that. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning delete, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about this. FYI, torrential rain redirects to rain. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Torrent since potential targets such as the dicdef is found there. --Lenticel (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to Torrent: only one of the many entries there is relevant, while one of the major meanings/uses of the word (for referring to rain) isn't covered at all. If kept, this is a straightforward candidate for soft redirecting to wiktionary. – Uanfala 10:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking previous vote. Is there another use for torrential besides describing rain or storms? It could go to Rain but there's already torrential rain for that. Narky Blert, Lenticel reconsider? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, or failing that soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree with those above who've argued that the Torrent disambiguation page offers nothing of use to someone searching for "torrential". I don't think the term is uncommon enough for a soft redirect to be necessary, but that's really a subjective assessment and it would be a better solution than retargeting to the dab page. The ideal solution would be to retarget to a section in the Rain article in which "torrential rain" is mentioned (perhaps Rain#Intensity), but no such mention exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Not mentioned in target PRehse (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - if anything, it could be a redirect to Visakhapatnam#Neighbourhoods, and it could be mentioned there. But as a redirect to the steel plant, that does not appear to be the best idea. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Lean Keep it needs to be mentioned in the Steel Plant article as one of its developed townships, if not, the main township for its headquarters. [2] [3] as Ukkunagaram translates to Steel Town. [4] [5] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Country metal[edit]

Not mentioned in target, not sure if this is a notable topic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Li Ying'ai[edit]

WP:XY (it's the Chinese pronunciation either for Lee Young-ae or Ri Yong-ae) and WP:FORRED (neither individual has anything to do with the Chinese language, so neither a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT nor a disambiguation page is appropriate here). (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Deryck Chan:'s opinion on redirects like this is usually worth listening to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Though the person is Korean, a Mandarin redirect to the Korean person does no harm, especially per WP:RFD#KEEP. Also, the XY and FORRED are just supplements not to be used as rules. I could not find widespread results, but at least I found this book citing a title that uses the name. There are other people named "Li Ying'ai", like the physicist and some comrade(?). George Ho (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. Thanks Thryduulf for pinging me. I think this is a valid {{R from alternative transliteration}} from her official hanja name. The evidence we've gathered so far also point towards the South Korean actress being the primary topic and the only other relevant person with an article is already hatnoted per WP:2DAB. Deryck C. 11:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Vinton's Greatest Hits (1990 album)[edit]

Highly unlikely search term for an obscure album. Vinyton had several greatest hits albums of more note, while this one had no secondary coverage whatsoever. It will not be re-created, at least not in its prior form, so the edit history is useless. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Iggy Pop Biography[edit]

Anyone searching for a person would likely be looking for a biography. feminist 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep There's a Further Reading section in the Iggy Pop article that contains his biography, the most likely book searches are looking for. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does anybody actually come to WP to search for biographies? You'd expect to find references to biographies at the target if any). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target is a biography of Iggy Pop, and the existence of WP:BLP should make the answer Richooncho's question obvious. We should not create redirects like this to every biography, but there is absolutely no benefit to deleting any that are created. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Iggy Pop wrote an autobiography, and this article mentions some biographies by third-party people about him. It also mentions one shelved biopic. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 18[edit]


WP:RFOREIGN not a French-related topic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps set it up as a "redirects here" with hatnotes to Canadian passport and List of passports for the general list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a plausible {{R from misspelling}}? – Uanfala 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate as "French passport" and "passport" are plausible entries. The "Wiktionary" template should be also added. Otherwise, I do not object to deletion as Wikipedia is neither a search engine (despite having our own search engine) nor a dictionary. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


This redirect should be deleted because it is appearing in Google results for phrase "Control-M" but the redirect target page has no content about the subject. Wattssw (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep There is referenced mention of Control-M in the article: In 1999, BMC acquired the Israeli firm New Dimension Software, with its workload automation software CONTROL-M, for $673 million cash. Redirect was outcome of an AfD. Pavlor (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Unlikely capitalization for the plural form of "Crank". The redirect does not seem to be a stylization of any subject on the target disambiguation page Crank. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as effort was made to see if stylization was appropriate. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep this was a {{R from CamelCase}} created in 2002, we generally don't delete these. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Compared to its target, the redirect is not CamelCase. If it was, the redirect's target would be titled "Crank S" (with a space.) This redirect was created by what seems to be a malfunctioning bot. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as an {{R with old history}} per Champion. user:Conversion script was neither a malfunctioning bot, nor the author of this redirect - see the user page for details, it was originally created by Larry Sanger on 6 February 2001 (when Wikipedia was less than a month old) [6] as an article which has evolved into today's Crank (person). In the very early days all Wikipedia articles had to have at least three letters, the first and (third or greater) being capital letters, so one-word titles conventionally had the last letter capitalised, e.g. CrankS rather than Cranks (why the plural form and not CranK I don't know, but it's quite likely that pre-dated the article titling policy - the oldest version of nostalgia:Naming conventions dates from November 2001, but that likely isn't the earliest version). There was no way to distinguish between what would today be "Cranks" and "Crank S" as both would be camelcase CrankS. Cranks redirects to Crank, so we could also class this as {{R avoided double redirect}}. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    "user:Conversion script was neither a malfunctioning bot..." The bot's block log tells a different story. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Those blocks were in 2006, the edit it made to this redirect was in 2002. It was not malfunctioning at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


WP:DICDEF redirect that is misleading since 1) all subjects on the target disambihistion page cannot be "unload"-ed, and 2) from what I can tell, there are no existing subjects on Wikipedia named "unload". Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Please can this be retargeted to NetScaler? The redirect was originally created before the NetScaler article existed; now that the page exists, it seems most logical to move the retarget this redirect. Please note that I have a COI as I am making this request on behalf of Citrix as part of my work at Beutler Ink. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Centreville Community School[edit]

Redirect about a non-notable elementary school. Capitals00 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Angola[edit]

No Hindus known or mentioned in country. Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - the page linked to makes no mention of Hinduism. Lineslarge (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in American Samoa[edit]

Since the 56,000 people in American Samoa are Christian 98.3% Other 1% Unaffiliated 0.7% and no mention of Hindus, this is a misleading redirect. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If the stat for "Other" mentions Hindus then reconsider. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Algeria[edit]

No discussion of Hinduism at target except a general statement it is neglegable in North Africa. The refined by section target goes to a nonexistant section. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Albania[edit]

Previously not dealt with here. There is no mention of Hinduism at the target. Further the detailed info at the target and the demographics of Albania suggest there is not a large enough group of hindus in the country to warrant discussion. Hinduism_by_country#By_region Europe-Balkans section says the entire region has 449 Hindus/0.001% of population. Some of the Hinduism in X redirects could be sent to the country page, but not this one. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not listed in the "by country" list. Hinduism in Balkans and Hinduism in Croatia can go to Hinduism_by_country#By_region AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC) updated 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

National Indie Excellence Awards[edit]

National Indie award is not mentioned at the target page. And it sounds like marking it as a vanity award is an opinion rather than a fact (though I guess I feel that way about listing any awards on the vanity page...). ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:G8 and WP:G10 - simply a backended way of labelling these awards as a vanity award, a derogatory label in this context. Originally targeted Vanity Award, a page which never existed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable award. [7] created by Smarketing Inc. and founder Ellen Reid (not the musician) who also created the Beverly Hills Book Awards and Body, Mind, and Spirit Book Awards. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - while certainly an utterly non-notable award, it appears that "National Indie Excellence Awards" and "Indie Excellence Awards" are synonymous, and the latter is mentioned on the target page. And calling it a vanity award, using the definition on the target page, seems pretty spot on. Onel5969 TT me 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The link for the Indie Excellence Award in the Vanity awards article is out of date, so it doesn't explain that it is a vanity award. Can you find another news source that categorizes it as a vanity award? Having links to the rules of the award leads to original research / synth. For example, here's Salon's assessment of National Book Foundation's National Book Awards. [8] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's another article by Publishers Weekly [9] and a discussion by New York Times on vanity publishers [10] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IOS 12[edit]

No information about this version of iOS is known so this redirect should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. See this link where a similar point is shown. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 03:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or Retarget to iOS version history. At either location people will learn the most recent version is 11 and will be able to find out about the next version when there is information about it (even if that is not called "iOS 12" this will be a plausible search term for it). Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. If there is nothing at the target yet, the redirect is WP:CRYSTAL until something is announced ... which will probably happen next year. Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Though these words have become more known with English speakers through the recent years, as it stands, the redirects are not mentioned at the target article, they are WP:FORRED (Spanish: wikt:fideo). (Note: Fideo is a {{R from history}}. The page was redirected to Noodle as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fideo.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dabify Ugh, good point. There are multiple Fideos that could be used as a disambiguation and the Syrian city isn't primary topic even though it has an article. Some people use it as a nickname, and then there's Fideo 9 channel, and Samu Castillejo is nicknamed El Fideo and Ángel Di María is nicknamed Fideo. There's also Sopa de fideo and List_of_noodle_dishes#Spanish / Vermicelli. Characters in Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Inazuma Eleven named Fideo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would someone be willing to draft a disambiguation? Are any of the terms known as "Fideos"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Entry created. As there aren't really that many entries per section, that can be removed if desired. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

United States military occupation[edit]

This redirect was incorrectly nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military occupation, where none of the !voters except one applied WP:RNEUTRAL, and alternative redirect targets and outcomes for the page were not considered.

This could be retargeted to List of military occupations, where tables are sortable by occupying nation. Or this could be turned into a page with links to the aforementioned list and maybe United_States_Armed_Forces#Personnel, which would discuss a "United States military occupation" in the context of a job, or Military history of the United States to capture instances which might not be listed at the list. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - "Military occupation", as a phrase, has a specific meaning so strong that directing it toward specific jobs (i.e. Military occupational specialties) would be misleading the readers, even if some militaries do talk about "occupational specialties." Anmccaff (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The occupational codes is a good link to have on a possible page. I've drafted such a page below the redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I really like that draft, and I feel that with a term that can mean so much its probably the best way to do that. Garuda28 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I too really like the draft article. and I think we should go with it. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2006 Louisville vs. West Virginia football game[edit]

Not in target article shoy (reactions) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this game doesn't have any particular notability that it needs its own redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The game was notable. WV was undefeated and ranked #3 before being upset by Louisville. The more natural redirect is to 2006 West Virginia Mountaineers football team#Louisville, where this game is actually discussed. I suggest redirecting there instead of the current generic redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
An equally apt redirect would be 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia where this game is also discussed in detail. Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cbl62's proposed redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 05:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to either 2006 Louisville Cardinals football team#West Virginia or 2006 West Virginia Mountaineers football team#Louisville and add a hatnote at the target to the summary of the game on the other team's article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Yep, that's WP:XY alright. If the game is truly seen as notable, an independent article could be attempted. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I find this !vote astonishingly contemptuous to readers - "We have content about this game in two places, but we're going to go out of our way to make it difficult for you to find either of them because I don't like that it isn't covered in only one place primarily." Sorry, but that's the exact opposite of what we should be doing here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's not ideal, but I prefer something that draws attention to the (purported) need for an individual article than arbitrarily picking one or the other place. Do you want to adjudicate between arguing Louisville and West Virginia boosters? --BDD (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the article with the more significant coverage per above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK if the game is notable per Cbl62 and WP:XY; how would you decide to retarget to one team over the other? That's why there's a search engine to show both articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • If the articles are equally comprehensive then it really doesn't matter which you pick, otherwise choose the most comprehensive one. This is not XY, that is for where you have two different subjects, equally likely, covered in separate places. In this case we have one subject covered in two places, the target is not ambiguous. The search results, when people actually get to see them (and are not just told there is no article by this name, would you like to create one) aren't actually helpful in this case as neither the snippets shown nor the article titles give any indication that the article covers the subject being searched for. I'm also not sure why you think a redlink would be better than simply pointing to the coverage we already have? Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Simply put, I have faith in our readers that they can interpret search results to get relevant information everywhere we have it, over being arbitrarily being forced into one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Your faith in readers is good to hear, but no matter what their ability (and there will be a wide range), but even the best of them will not able to find the articles without seeing relevant search results. Even seeing any search results is far from guaranteed, let alone relevant ones (which I failed to find yesterday, despite having more than a decade of experience with searching Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Content on this game exists, but in two articles, which is not covered by WP:XY, which is limited to cases where the topic a reader using the search term cannot be identified because of ambiguity. Here, we know exactly what is covered, but just have the coverage in two places. Both look about the same in quality, but I'm leaning towards redirecting it towards the Louisville page because it has one more source, was the home team [11], and was the team that won the upset victory. A hatnote to the other could be added. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems that there is at least consensus to not retain the status quo. However, at this point, that seems all as the "delete" and "retarget" opinions seem roughly split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If I had to choose I would choose the Louisville one since that is what is mentioned first in the search string. But then it would only be kept as "someone found it useful" as individual games in a schedule of games don't usually get their own link. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it is an XY situation and just a game. No need for a redirect. Let the search engine do its job. No one is going to type that exact search string with the vs. and order of names etc. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Legacypac: It isn't an XY situation though. XY is where there are two topics that we only cover separately, this is a single topic that we have coverage of as a single topic. If you read the comments above you will discover why this is not just any game, and why people will be looking for it. As for search results, when people find them (which is sometimes three clicks away from where you arrive, and requires the search engine not to broken) the existence of this redirect will greatly aid the search engine in determining the correct results for similar queries. For example if someone types in this string without "vs" rather than "vs." then with this redirect the search engine will almost certainly return this redirect as the top hit, without this redirect it is more likely to return random pages that contain a few words of the string but are not about the topic someone is seeking. The search engine is not magic and cannot read thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

Black and ethnic minority[edit]

Delete. These phrases do not occur at Demography of the United Kingdom or at Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom, although there is a mention at Black people#United Kingdom. The expression may have utility outside the UK and I think the redirects are best deleted to let Search do its job Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or retarget as above unless common use outside of the UK is demonstrated (not just hypothesised). —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget. These terms are very commonly used in the UK and we don't help anybody by deleting them - the search results are not predictable and are just as likely to find mentions in other articles as the article where it is explained (and that's when people actually get search results, which are sometimes several clicks away from where they land). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Retarget per BDD. Thanks for the ping, I agree with your assessment. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to Black British. Tavix, that's the main article for the section you proposed, and the phrase is also used there. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'd like the Black and ethnic minority entry to stay please. The expression is used in the UK - I came to the Black and ethnic minority page because I was trying to clarify an article in the online Guardian which used BME without explanation. Being redirected anywhere else would have, and obviously has, complicated my query. Digging what I'm looking for out of a generic "Black people" article just isn't practical and neither do I think I'd find the discussion I'm seeking. JohnHarris (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    John, I don't follow. The redirects currently point to a UK-specific page, and we mostly seem to be discussing other UK-specific pages as retargeting options. Do you really want to delete the redirects? --BDD (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian Navy[edit]

For starters, "Navy" isn't mentioned at the target, and I haven't seen evidence of the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police being called a Navy (from my experience, Navies are typically separate from Police). Furthermore, my search for "Macedonian Navy" is overwhelmingly about the navies of the ancient Macedonian kingdom ("navy/ies" has 17 mentions on that page). With how ambiguous and controversial the word "Macedonia" is, I propose this redirect be deleted, although I'm okay with it being retargeted somewhere that describes the ancient Macedonian Navy (perhaps a section at Ancient navies and vessels?) -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term - even landlocked ones (See Brownwater navy) and this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence and the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. If we information about the ancient Macedonian navy then that article can be added as a hatnote. The name of Macedonia is controversial, but only because it also refers to a region of Greece and it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous with it - and even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
With the possible exception of the Vatican City, every country's navy is plausible search term Sure—if they have one. this redirect got 131 hits between 1 and 30 August and 1,399 last year. Search results only tell you that a redirect was used. They don't say how they were used or if someone arrived at the target they were wanting. Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on your experience, we base them on evidence I'll cast your snide remark aside, no worries. the article makes it clear that despite the name this organisation is a branch of the Macedonian armed forces not the civilian police force [citation needed] so it is exactly what people will be looking for when searching this term or clicking on a link to it. Not according to my search results. "Macedonian Navy" overwhelmingly refers to the ancient Macedonia. it is not plausible for almost all sub-national regions to have navies so "Macedonian" in this context is not ambiguous Ancient Macedonia wasn't a sub-National region, it was a kingdom with a navy as I linked above. even if it were then that would be a rationale for a hatnote or dab page, not deletion. But we'd need a second entry. There's still no evidence presented that the current target is known as "Macedonian Navy". -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
We should not require people to know the answer to their query before they have searched for the answer to it, it is likely that every country has a navy of some description so we should have redirects in place for the likely search terms such as this one. If you think that the target is wrong then why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? We don't delete demonstrably useful redirects (as this is) if they go to the wrong target, we retarget them. In this case disambiguation is needed (which is never a reason for deletion), and hatnotes can do that just fine (either way, assuming we do have something about the ancient navy). In your haste to persue your deletionism, you've completely overlooked the fact that I didn't say it wasn't ambiguous, I said it was not plausible that it is ambiguous with a navy of the modern Greek region - I know the ancient territory was not a sub-national region, but I was not talking about the ancient territory as you would have known if you read what I actually wrote. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy, that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
it is likely that every country has a navy of some description Do you have evidence for that claim? Fortunately for the project we don't decide what things are based only on what you think is likely, we base them on evidence. For what it's worth, List of navies says otherwise (and Macedonia isn't mentioned there at all, navy or no navy). why are you proposing deletion instead of retargetting? It's a vague search term (noting that Macedonia is ambiguous) and we don't have a good target for it. I mentioned in my nomination that I'm fine with retargeting somewhere that describes the ancient navy. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) mentions it several times, so that would work, but I would prefer a section or article that actually describes that Navy. In that regard, I think WP:REDLINK deletion to be beneficial here. I know the lake police are not called the Macedonian Navy Then there shouldn't be a redirect of that sort to that target! Going back to your first sentence, if someone is looking for "Macedoinian Navy", it would be confusing and misleading to redirect them somewhere that isn't called Macedonian Navy, whether that be correct or incorrect. that's why this is tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}. It's not though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't assert "it is likely that every country has a navy of some description" the signficant majority of countries in the world today have a navy or equivalent water-bourne military force, therefore "<country ajective> navy" is a reasonable search term that should lead somewhere. Re not being called the navy - this is the entire point of having {{R from incorrect name}} and arriving at a target that is about a branch of the Macedonian armed forces that carries out duties on water is neither misleading nor confusing (as for the lack of tag, I thought the category was how I found this one, but obviously not. I'll tag it now). If something is ambiguous we disambiguate it (via a hatnote or dab page), we don't delete it, even if you don't like it - unless we only have information for one of the topics in which case we point to that as we do here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
For a redirect to be a cromulent {{R from incorrect name}}, it first has to be a search term that is actually incorrectly used to refer to the subject. There has still been no evidence provided to suggest that might be the case. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean other than the usage figures I quoted? I know that this is where I would expect this redirect to lead so it stands to reason that at least some of those thousands also use this search term to find information about the topic of the article. Some will probably be looking for the ancient navy, but not all as for example [12] and [13] demonstrate. And that's with less than 5 minutes searching. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I also found a third, z15 [dot] invisionfree [dot] com/illyria/index.php?showtopic=62 but that trips the spam blacklist so I can't directly link it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that's something. I'm looking for a reliable source so a sentence can be added to Macedonian Lake Patrol Police that it is sometimes incorrectly/alternatively referred to as the Macedonian Navy. That way, it would be able to meet WP:DABMENTION in case it is decided to disambiguate the title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know why the insistence on a reliable source, as I've clearly demonstrated this is a name that is used for the target which is what matters for redirects. A rigid reading of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline would for the same reasons be a detriment to our readers and therefore a perfect application of WP:IAR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rather, it's confusing and/or misleading to have an entry in a disambiguation with no mention of the term in the article. Since that is a detriment to our readers, WP:IAR would not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the disambiguation page would say that this is a term that is sometimes used to describe the target (see evidence presented above) nobody would be confused or mislead. In other cases, we can safely assume that someone using this search term knows what a navy is/does (if they don't then they can easily look up the navy article where the lead makes it clear that the activities the Lake Police undertake are covered) and that Macedonian can refer to the modern nation of Macedonia - nothing misleading or confusing about this at all. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's an awfully long string of assumptions you'd have to make to get there. If that is a common set of assumptions, it should be easy to add a reliable source to the article. There'd be no need to violate WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf in that we can expect users to search for the navy of just about any country. In a case like this, whether they're being clever or whether they don't realize Macedonia is landlocked, I want to do something for them besides just giving them search results, which may suggest we'd one day have an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 20#Andorran Navy for a similar discussion with, IMO, a good solution.
So how to proceed here? Unfortunately, Military of Macedonia redirects to Army of the Republic of Macedonia, with no mention of a navy. Does this police force function at all like a navy? If so, the redirect could be acceptable. Ideally, I'd like a sentence at Republic of Macedonia#Military or Macedonian Lake Patrol Police stating that Macedonia doesn't have a navy, and/or that the lake patrol is something like a navy, if that's at all accurate. We could then point to one of those places, and maybe add Macedonia to the list at Navies of landlocked countries. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Navies of landlocked countries#Non-independent units and a blurb stating that while the Republic of Macedonia does not operate a military navy, it has the Macedonian Lake Patrol Police as a waterborne border police force. Ben · Salvidrim!  15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    That would suffice for me. While a sourced statement about the country's lack of a navy, or the lake patrol's functioning as one, would be ideal, we should be fine with a statement that's simply easy to verify and unlikely to be challenge. Either "As a landlocked country, Macedonia has no navy" or what you've suggested fit those criteria. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @BDD: However, it's important to keep in mind that Ancient Macedonia did have a navy, and it's easily the primary topic from my fairly exhaustive search on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The how about Convert to SIA as drafted here? Ben · Salvidrim!  22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A couple issues with that. First, with the Ancient Macedonian navy being the primary topic, a disambiguation wouldn't be necessary per WP:TWODABS. Second, if the lake patrol article is to be used, "Macedonian Navy" is going to have to be mentioned there to overcome WP:DABMENTION. Sure, it'd be easy to add a sentence somewhere, but sourcing it would be problematic from what I've seen. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with that set index suggestion. Dabmention is not a hurdle as (a) this is not a disambiguation page, and (b) the associated explanation removes any possible ambiguity and will not leave anyone confused. Style guidelines (which is all the status dabmention has) must never be treated as more important than helping readers find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Spotted lady beetle[edit]

Used to redirect from Coleomegilla maculata, but the main article was recently moved back to the species name because the article directly stated the common name spotted lady beetle was vague and shared with other species (i.e., 7-spotted lady beetle, 9-spotted, etc.) I don't see this broad of a term being a useful redirect for any particular species. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. This is a common name (and therefore a very likely search term) that refers to multiple species (and so is ambiguous) - this is the entire point of disambiguation pages. Also, as a {{R from move}} this will not be deleted without a very good reason - both to maintain attribution and not to break incoming links from outside Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Game Boy Advance Network Boot[edit]

The phrase "network boot" is not present in the target article. These redirects may fail WP:GAMEGUIDE as a specific function of the Game Boy Advance that is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. (Note: Game Boy Advance Network Boot and Game Boy Advance network boot are both {{R with history}}s.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete the first two about GameBoy Advance as network boots aren't a term specific to GameBoy Advance. However, GBA Network Boot could have a weak redirect to Generic Bootstrapping Architecture which is abbreviated as GBA and concerns booting in a network environment. However, even that term isn't really prevalent in any searches. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all The history of the redirects is unreferenced, so there's really nothing to "preserve". Appear to all be superfluous redirects.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bondage yoke[edit]

We don't actually seem to have coverage of this topic in the encyclopedia. Yoke only describes animal yokes; bondage yokes are for human BDSM play. I propose deletion. -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete probably better off created as a stand alone article --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per bd2412 --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that there is not (yet) any description at the suggested retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Best Blue[edit]

This claims to be a redirect from alternative name, but it is in fact a short-lived series that was never notable enough for an article. It is mentioned at List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump, but that article currently has no incoming redirects. Xezbeth (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump. Had some coverage in 2015 and 2016 for having an English adaptation, but was a one-shot at most so it wouldn't be a loss if it were deleted.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Best "Blue" (an album) as the use of "The" in such titles is unpredictable, frequently ambiguous and/or mis-rememberd. A hatnote can be added to the target suggested by AngusWOOF if there is actually some content there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There's only the listing, so not much content for Best Blue manga. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with that too. There might be a hatnote for Best of Blue as well. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That seems a sensible suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


The connection is unclear due to a lack of mention at the target. If reliable sourcing can be found, perhaps WP:REDLINK deletion would be beneficial. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak dab There is a character named Quath in Tides of Light and Furious Gulf in the Galactic Center Saga books by Benford, [14] [15] There's a misspelling of Qarth for Game of Thrones [16]. The sources for Quath or Kwath Ayurveda are almost all random blogs and not so reliable websites. [17] None of these redirect suggestions are that strong through so I wouldn't mind delete either. Soft redirect to the dictionary could also apply. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I'm a lot more forgiving of WP:DABMENTION than many, there is no information about any of these things at any of the targets and there is no entry at this title in Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there is enough information at existing articles to support a DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf and NCFF. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

London Naval Conference (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete, because the target page is not a disambiguation page. This page was speedy deleted in March 2017 for that very reason, but was undeleted by Patar knight with the comment "Restore per:". This comment appears to me to be irrelevant, since Treaty of London in fact is a disambiguation page, but London Naval Conference is not. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Create DAB with the three entries in the hatnote at the target page, which would've functionally done almost the same thing with the hatnotes, and move it to the base title. London Naval Conference should be moved to another title since it does not appear to be the primary title and is attracting a lot of mistaken links which could be fixed if the DAB page was at that title. I'ved drafted a DAB page below the redirect with a see also section to other relevant DAB pages. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Patar knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Should redirect to Basket of deplorables with a hatnote linking to the "deplorable" wiktionary page (see here). There is no Wikipedia article for any topic called "deplorable"; and readers searching it are most likely desiring the Clinton phrase, particularly as use of the word to refer to Donald Trump supporters has spiked in the last year. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Should it be a dabify then, with those two items? Deplorable word seems like a notable term from Narnia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Early peoples[edit]

Not the same thing. I think we have better targets for this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Fatally wounded[edit]

This redirect is ambiguous. It could also refer to Murder or Casualty (person). Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment wouldn't this fall in WP:EUPHEMISM as with "mortally wounded"? Do we really need a provide a link for that? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment. The redirect got 49 hits last year, so I think it is useful for people search for this term to be taken somewhere appropriate. Even if we don't use it in articles and would not link it even if we did does not mean that people will not look it up, although search results indicate that it is frequently in use. The uses seem relate to the following situations: Battles (and other military actions), paramilitary actions, criminal activity and duelling in that approximate order of frequency. Other situations are possible of course, but are not as frequent. The criminal activities involved are it seems not normally (attempted) murders but people being shot (by criminals or by police) during a crime and/or during an (attempted) getaway. It seems to exclusively refer to people who did not die immediately but who sustained wounds/injuries to which they succumbed some time later (hours to days are common, weeks to months are not rare). For all these reasons a straight redirect to Murder is not something I would support. There is at present no Wiktionary entry at wikt:fatally wounded, and I am undecided at this moment whether one would be accepted (phrases generally need some degree of idiomaticy, things that are only the literal sum of their parts get deleted) but if one did exist I would not object to a soft redirect. More thinking is needed before I can make a firm recommendation about this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. 49 hits per year is firmly implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • 49 hits per year is almost one person every week on average using this redirect - unquestionably a useful redirect if there is an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe that less than one hit per week is unquestionably implausible and will !vote to delete a redirect with such unbelievely useless statistics almost every single time. Thank you for repeating your opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
        • You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that deliberately making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for is incredibly arrogant and contrary to the project's fundamental goal of increasing access to the world's knowledge - and this would be true for even a tenth of this number of readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
          • That's a great idea in theory, but we have strong evidence provided that this redirect is not being actively used. That is a classic WP:R#D8 situation on our hands. Additionally, redirects like those are WP:COSTLY since there is no benefits derived because it's not being used. And that's not even touching the "content they are looking for" argument, because it has not even been determined what someone using this search term may be looking for to begin with. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
            • The problem with that argument is that we have evidence that almost 50 people a year are using this redirect. Unless you have somehow redefined mathematics such that 50=0 without my being aware of it of course. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.—Jimmy Wales" note "every single person on the planet" not "every single person, except those who want to use search terms used by fewer than a few hundred other people each year". A high-quality encyclopaedia requires that those reading it are able to find what they are looking for, and where we can determine that we provide redirects regardless of how many people use it. There is no threshold below which people do not matter. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
              • We're talking about a rate. I usually discuss implausibility of redirects in hits/day. Certainly the hits/day on this redirect is pretty damn close to zero. If, in order to get to a sizable number, we need to start discussing the hits/year, yeah, that is deep into the realm of implausibility. Remember we are talking about a useless redirect here, that has nothing to do with Jimmy Wales' grand philosophy of Wikipedia—frankly that is irrelevant here. I see you continue to bring up the "find what they are looking for" argument again. A simple page view tool does not determine whether people are finding what they are looking for, or even actively using the redirect for that matter. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
                • Why does a redirect only become plausible if it is used multiple times per day? We want people to be able to find all knowledge, not just knowledge that is looked for multiple times a day. The page view tool does not show whether people are finding what they are looking for, but it does show that they are using this redirect to look for something. It is our job to do our best to determine what that something is, and point them in the right direction, not to delete it because they don't use it often enough your own arbitrary threshold. And as for Jimmy's vision, everything we do on Wikipedia should be done towards making that vision a reality in some way, and we don't do that by deleting things because not many people want to use it on a daily basis. Should we delete Castle Hill Railway (Bridgnorth) because it is was only used 12 times last year and people can find the content in other ways? Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • Let's start with a hypothetical redirect that is literally never used, 0 hits going back years. Hopefully you can agree that is deletable. On the other end of the spectrum is the most used redirect (is there a place that lists the most viewed redirects?). That is obviously useful and should be kept. Somewhere along that spectrum is the "threshold" (more like a grey area) where the cost of the redirect becomes greater than its benefit (c.f. benefit-cost analysis). I've never provided a definition of where this threshold lies, I'm simply asserting that this redirect meets it. You do not, and that is fine, I respect your opinion on the matter. I do not believe people are using this redirect to find what they may be looking for, so I am claiming that Jimmy's vision is irrelevant with respect to a useless redirect. Finally, yes, I believe that redirect is useless, but let's not bring WP:OTHERSTUFF into this discussion (I thought you have learned that by now?) -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous. There are a number of plausible targets for this, including wound, injury, death, etc. Rather than send readers to an arbitrary destination, let them use the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Created as a redirect to Scottish independence referendum, 2014 in August 2014, then retargetted by an IP a month later to the current target. Apart from the Scottish referendum, is there any other independence referendum known as "Indyref"? feminist 17:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Think I created this one, and didn't spot the change. I think it should be redirected back to the original target as I don't know of any other use of the specific term. It was widely used at the time of the Scottish referendum and now people refer to a possible new referendum as "Indyref 2". Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Retarget back to Scottish independence referendum, 2014 with a hatnote to Independence referendum . I did find two uses unrelated to Scotland, [18] relating to Catalonia and one relating to Kurdistan (used in the google snippet but not in the part of the page I could see), however to find those I had to use a search term of "indyref" -Scotland -Scottish -SNP and go to the second page of results, so the Scottish referendum is the clear primary topic. There is already a hatnote to the proposed second referendum, but indyref2 (or indyref 2) is by far the more common way of referring to that topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to restore, per others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Republican Party of the Russia[edit]

Unlikely search term with extra "the". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. When this redirect was created, the target article was at Republican Party of the Russian Federation and this looks like a straight truncation of that but neglecting to remove the "the". Stats indicate that it isn't being used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vera Van Wagner[edit]

The page redirects to an article in which the subject is not mentioned. Seems like a pointless redirect (and hence a pointless page). WWGB (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, misleading. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The only article-space mention of her name I can find is in the title of a source at List of oldest living people, but that would be a particularly bad target as Ms Wagner is no longer living. There are several talk page discussions that mention her, and from what I can make out her age was not verified to the satisfaction of editors working on the oldest people articles so it seems unlikely she will get an entry in future. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. A redirect device by one particular editor interested in the US supercentenarian projects, but unfortunately when they die they are removed from the article the redirect leads to, as in this case. Unless there is another more valid article to which the redirect could be pointed (which there appears not to be currently), the redirect should cease. Ref (chew)(do) 16:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There isn't a list of former supercentenarians being maintained here. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Businesses in Nashville[edit]

Target does not contain such a list. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Computer administrator[edit]

Should this point to System administrator instead because that already has a hatnote. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget - the administrator of a single computer is usually the prime user themselves. And a collection of single computers in a business setting would all be maintained by a system administrator. Therefore retarget to that. Ref (chew)(do) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above as that page provides a bunch of options in case the searcher wanted a more specific occupation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per all the above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration[edit]

Doesn't exactly tell readers what they are looking for. This search suggests that the searcher wants information about Trump's policies here, and staff beyond the AG.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • delete or rename as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, there are no articles that talk about the Justice Department during the trump administration. The current target is not a good fit because there were significant developments in the Justice Department before Sessions took over (see Sally_Yates#Dismissal). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Succession[edit]

Retarget to War of the Spanish Succession, per Austrian Succession. --Nevéselbert 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

French War[edit]

Could refer to several wars fought by the French. --Nevéselbert 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Excecution of Marie Antoinette[edit]

Per WP:RTYPO. --Nevéselbert 08:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. With 169 hits last year it's clear that this is a very plausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that I created it because I personally misspelled Execution. Misspelling that word that way seems to be a very common spelling error. Furthermore, the execution of this figure is one of the most famous executions in history, if not the most famous. This means that when they misspell "execution", there is a good chance that they are referring to this subject. I am the creator of this redirect.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

British revolution[edit]

Britain is hardly mentioned at the target. Creating a disambiguation page might be a good idea. --Nevéselbert 08:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

NInth Doctor[edit]

Per WP:RCAPS. --Nevéselbert 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. A more useful rationale would be that this is typo (the "I" is capitalised) which is not being used and is not otherwise a particularly useful redirect to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - not apparently a title created in error and moved later. Not a useful or common typographic error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not entirely implausible, but I still think we should delete per the above comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

William V of England[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. --Nevéselbert 08:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Both are very likely to become kings in due course, in which case Frederik would almost certainly be Frederik X, but there's already an article Frederick X, Count of Hohenzollern. William will not necessarily be called William V, and if he is called William, he won't be "of England" unless the crystal ball also predicts the breakup of the UK :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Lord Wellington[edit]

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


I doubt there is a primary topic here. I propose a retarget to Mar (disambiguation). --Nevéselbert 08:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This has redirected to the current target, apparently without issue, since 2005. I have added Gospel of Mark to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. "Mar." is a common abbreviation for March (month). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - one of a set of common abbreviations for the New Testament Gospels: see Mat., Luk., Jhn.. While I think there's benefit to keeping this consistent, I'm not positive that this is the primary use. I think that it's probably harmless per Thryduulf's note. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of Great Britain[edit]

She was not Queen of the whole of Great Britain. --Nevéselbert 08:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. This is a good example of when a {{R from incorrect name}} should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments as an understandable {{R from incorrect name}}. Similar to how United States Secretary of JusticeUnited States Attorney General. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I think the redirect is correct, but just pointing out that this could also be confusing with Elizabeth II who is the first Elizabeth to rule Great Britain. But I find that error somewhat less plausible. It's more likely a reader knows that there was an Elizabeth who ruled the same country (more or less) as the current Elizabeth, so types "Elizabeth I of Great Britain" to find her article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

James VII of the United Kingdom[edit]

He wasn't even James VII of England, let alone the United Kingdom. --Nevéselbert 07:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. If there is ever a James VII of the United Kingdom (which seems unlikely in my lifetime at least) then this can be retargetted, but until then the present target is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are a few Jameses around the Act of Union period when the various crowns of what is now the United Kingdom were not quite consolidated, who are numbered in multiples like this; these links are incorrect but highly plausible. While United Kingdom monarchs can choose any regnal name they wish upon their coronation and at least the next three in line are male, it's unlikely any of them would choose James, as the earlier English Jameses were Catholic or Catholic sympathizers, and James VII and II's descendants were pretenders to the throne for a time. It's more likely they would choose George, or their own names. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehnry viii[edit]

Unlikely misspelling. --Nevéselbert 07:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

King who died with a hot poker up the ass[edit]

Possibly vandalism. --Nevéselbert 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Likely qualifies for a speedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the "Controversies" section of the article, "Accounts that he had been killed by the insertion of a red-hot iron or poker into his anus slowly began to circulate, possibly as a result of deliberate propaganda. [This story] became incorporated into most later histories of Edward...". Many people know this story, but not everyone will remember which king it was so this is actually a useful search term for those looking to jog their memory or verify whether the story they have heard is true. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I've heard of the story, and don't know which king it happened to off-hand, but I question the utility of this redirect. It doesn't show up in search autocomplete until "king wh" is typed. People might just as likely search for "king killed by hot poker up the ass", "hot poker king", "king tortured by hot poker", etc. Should we make redirects for all of these? External search engines can deal with this far better than Wikipedia redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Redirects like this help external search engines, and over 200 people used this redirect last year so however they are searching they are finding this redirect and being taken to the content they are looking for. I don't see any reason why we should make it harder for them. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I admit that I initially thought Thryduulf and Ivanvector were on crack cocaine when they voted to keep this redirect, but on further reflection their reasoning is not completely bananas, as the anecdote about King Edward II's death is arguably what most people know him for. My main issue is with the wording of this unprintworthy redirect. As "Ass" is a vulgar American term, one might argue that King who died with a hot poker up the arse would be more fitting. I wouldn't, as the term "arse" is also a vulgar British term. With all things considered, I would reluctantly support moving this redirect to King who died with a hot poker up the anus without leaving a redirect (such terminology would be more befitting of both a king and this encyclopaedia).--Nevéselbert 22:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTCENSORED applies here - we do not bowlderise redirects just because some people find them vulgar. Those additional redirects can be created if you wish (although "rectum" rather than "anus" would be more anatomically correct), but this is a search term that people are likely to use. Further, WP:ENGVAR encourages the creation of redirects from one national variety of English to others as American English speakers will search for articles written in British English and vice versa. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • This is not a search term that people are likely to use at all, especially considering the odious terminology. Per WP:OR: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Are there any sources for "King who died with a hot poker up the ass"? Nope and nope. My proposal is not unreasonable, in that I am only proposing that we only change the last word. Most of the redirect will remain the same and readers will hardly feel the difference. I am assuming good faith but your refusal to compromise here is bizarre.--Nevéselbert 23:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
        • 207 people used this redirect last year, so your assertion is unsupported by evidence. It's not a bizarre refusal to compromise, it's a perfectly valid objection to unnecessary censorship that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Also, WP:V is a policy that relates to article content, not redirects (otherwise we would have to delete most {{R from incorrect name}} and {{R from misspelling}}, along with many {{R from synonym}} and {{R from search term}}). Redirects exist for one or more of several purposes, including enabling people to find the article they are looking for even if they use a search term that is different to the article title - exactly what this redirect did 200 times last year. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete 207 hits/year to a target that got over 1,000,000 hits over the last year meets my definition of implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. If Thryduulf refuses to compromise, so will I.--Nevéselbert 01:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:POINT. If this redirect is kept (as it should be) then I will personally create the "arse" and "rectum" redirects as they are probably equally useful. However WP:NOTCENSORED is a core policy that is not open to compromise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Monarchs of the United Kingdom[edit]

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801. --Nevéselbert 07:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep all (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all per {{R from incorrect name}}. These are all likely search terms, and most are well used (both Georges of the United Kingdom got about 2500 hits last year for example) so they are clearly serving a purpose in directing readers to the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all per above. In addition to what Thryduulf said, confusion with the crowns in the 17th century or so may make some of these accurate in different contexts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anne I of the United Kingdom[edit]

The United Kingdom did not exist during Anne's reign. --Nevéselbert 07:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep (Standard response to all of these.) Redirects do not have to be technically accurate and often reflect potential search terms. The evolving nature of the United Kingdom and royal numbering can confuse and these are understandable search terms. Timrollpickering 08:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

James the Shit[edit]

This is a pretty NSFW nickname. I propose we retarget this to List of monarchs by nickname#S. --Nevéselbert 07:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The nickname is either NSFW or not, and the target is irrelevant to that. Per WP:RNEUTRAL applies here in that non-neutral redirects should point to the correct target, and in this case the current target is correct as it has (in the War in Ireland section) mention of the nickname in context and with more information than the list of nicknames. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Maybe retargeting to the specific section at James_II_of_England#War_in_Ireland might be preferable, but in any case, there's no reason why it shouldn't point to the current target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: As may be, but being NSFW isn't a valid deletion ground. Ravenswing 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: That it is NSFW was not meant to be my rationale for deletion, as I am not proposing deletion. I am striking my proposal of retargeting to List of monarchs by nickname#S, as I agree with Patar knight's proposal of retargeting to James_II_of_England#War_in_Ireland, as that is where the offensive nickname is referenced.--Nevéselbert 22:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

List of accolades received by the Spider-Man franchise[edit]

Seems that this redirect was the former name of List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series. However, seems the page was renamed since it was about the original film series, and not the Spider-Man franchise as a whole. However, the subject of the redirect is not mentioned or referenced in the target article, the article about the character itself. In fact, I'm not able to find a franchise article for Spider-Man. Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as too vague with no franchise article. Perhaps Spider-Man#Awards but those seem to be just for the comic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


WP:FORRED. Heads do not have affinity to Malay or Indonesian. Steel1943 (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. This page was originally created when Kepala Batas was moved to this title, but the person who did that also moved the same page to a bunch of other titles that were clearly vandalism. Kepala Batas is a disambiguation page, but I can't find any evidence that any of the subjects listed there are referred to as just "Kepala". Everything else I've found would be similarly a partial title match too. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Girth Of The Chest[edit]

The word "girth" is not present at the target article. For that reason, the helpfulness of these redirects, due to the possibility that their subject is not discussed in the target article, is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Horribly implausible search term, equally implausible association. Ravenswing 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The redirect was created because I was trying to match articles from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia to content here, to see what was missing. The JE had this article with this title, on chest measurements of Jewish men in the 19th century -- which may be something other sources also exist about, for other groups at other times. So I created a redirect to chest, which now redirects to thorax, as the most likely place such material might be located. I see there's also a red-link "chest girth" at EN 13402, so this is a more-or-less standard term, and presumably there is material about it out there somewhere.
No preference as to whether the redirect is kept or not. Jheald (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bust bodice[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Per searches through third-party search engines, the subject of these redirects seems to be an article of clothing independent and possibly unrelated to their current target. So, it maybe best to delete these redirects per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per WP:REDLINK. My research suggests that this is an item of clothing dating from the Edwardian era and which could be considered an evolutionary step between a bodice and a bra, but this is not my area of expertise. I'll ping the Fashion and Women's History projects (the ones who've tagged the Bodice and Bra articles) about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of bras. Searches show the term used for some historical clothing. [19] some show it is the predecessor to the bra [20] [21] and the term "bust bodice" is mentioned in the Edwardian era section. Delete proper noun version. If that isn't suitable then bodice would be preferred. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Brassière or bra[edit]

This redirect's usefulness is questionable since it uses the word "or". However, Brassiere does currently redirect to Bra (though Brassière does not exist), but if that ever changes, this redirect would definitely have a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Very implausible search term. Ravenswing 06:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - 9 hits in 30 days is reasonably high for a redirect that's not linked from anywhere. XY doesn't really apply since both targets are the same; it's probably harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be willing to wager that nine hits on this precise search term involves someone clicking on one of the autofill results as he begins to type in "Brassiere" than on any sense that any human being was intending to type in "Brassière or bra". Ravenswing 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No notable use of "X or Y" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


WP:FORRED. The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and bras do not have affinity to the Italian language or Italy. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Delete per precedence at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9#Big tits. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Aye, I'm not seeing an obvious association between the terms. Ravenswing 06:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete noting that the linked discussion closed as "delete all". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Bra brand[edit]

There seems to be no list of bra brands at the target article, nor am I able to locate a list of bra brands on Wikipedia. (Note: This redirect is a {{R from history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Terry Christensen[edit]

This redirect could be considering the biography of living person that does not have its own page in mainspace. Was G6 but the tag was removed by @Kusma: speedy deletion declined. AaronWikia (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: The creation of an editor who eventually received a community ban from creating redirects, due to the creation of hundreds of absurd ones to bolster his edit count. This one, like so many others Dolovis made, fails WP:XY; the subject's two seasons as general manager of the Firebirds does not make it a more obvious redirect target (for example) than the six seasons he spent coaching at Michigan State University, the five he spent as head coach of the Tallahassee Tiger Sharks, or his numerous other posts. Ravenswing 04:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Of these possible listings, the Tiger Sharks one is the only article that mentions his name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Classic case of WP:XY a reader would not expect to go to any one specific team a player played on if they were searching. Better served as a redlink. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Racial differences in crime[edit]

Delete as misleading and confusing, and something that should be a redlink so an actual article gets created. The target (which is up for renaming here because "Race and crime" is intolerably ambiguous) is not about the general subject of "race and crime" nor about the narrower but different one of "racial differences in crime", but is entirely about racial disparities and bias in the criminal justice system. We actually appear to have no article at all yet on alleged racial or ethnic differences in criminality; the closest I can find is passing mention at Statistical correlations of criminal behavior, and the academic discipline of biosocial criminology (i.e., trying to figure out if there even are any such differences). Last I looked, the scientific consensus was that crime rates are a socio-economic matter without any proof of a genetic component. Redirecting a title about whether such a connection exists to a page about minorities being prosecuted a lot seems very unwise to me, and could even be taken for some kind of "we can't prove it but they sure go to jail a lot, so it must be true" implication. Given the frequency with which people make race-and-crime connections – which has shot up recently along with the increase in the US, UK, Greece, and other places of jingoistic populism and white nationalism – we clearly need a WP:FRINGE-compliant article on the subject, not a bogus redirect to the wrong page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It's a confusing situation (see my comment at Talk:Race and crime#Requested move 6 September 2017) in that an article on "race and crime" really ought to address material that relates to "racial differences in crime", but the present article doesn't. The difference in meaning between the two phrases is a somewhat subtle one, but as the nomination suggests it's an area where it's worth being sensitive. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I would think one would find "racial disparities and bias in the criminal justice system" at Race and crime#Racial disparity, though I can appreciate that this area needs attention. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Racial Socialism[edit]

The terms "racial socialism" and "racist socialism" do not appear at the Nazism article, and even if they did, I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a good target. Both of these redirects were created by Cupacinosus; those two actions were the only edits recorded for this user. At one point, there was an article titled "Racial Socialism", but it was speedy deleted per G5 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial Socialism). The concept of "Racial Socialism" is discussed at Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism. Apparently, the term is used to describe the ideology of an individual named Ben Klassen (see also the discussion of the term in this book). Consequently, I propose we retarget Racial Socialism to Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism and delete Racist Socialism, but given that these are likely controversial terms, I think it's a good idea to get input from the community on these redirects. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep racial The term gets used in other books as well that aren't specific to Klassen [22] [23] [24] [25] and those are mostly in the context of Nazism. Delete racist socialism as that term is not used in those books. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget Racial Socialism to Creativity (religion)#Racial socialism and weak delete Racist Socialism per nom. The only context that we currently have is in the section at the Creativity article, not in the Nazism article, and so the redirect should point there to give readers some information on what they're looking for. I feel that "racist socialism" might be fine as a redirect to the same target, but it's edging on POV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus above to delete "Racist Socialism" but more discussion is needed regarding "Racial Socialism"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

V for Victory: Gold-Juno-Sword[edit]

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

V for Victory: Market-Garden[edit]

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

V for Victory: Velikiye Luki[edit]

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

Bernie Sanders NPR interview[edit]

See this related discussion. Bernie Sanders has been interviewed by NPR many times, so this is likely to WP:SURPRISE. I was going to link to a few, but you can find many for yourself simply by plugging this phrase into your search engine of choice. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that the section (#2015 Bernie Sanders interview) still prominently exists in Rehm's article, though I would think for due weight that it should be reduced (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


So here I am looking over WP:NFRINGE, and surprise surprise, we have an essay on fake news? Well, no we don't; we have a strange XNR to Fake news.

I get the history here. I realize some have taken serious issue with Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, the original target, but this is just asking for people to drop WP:FAKENEWS in discussions as if there were a policy on it. There is no such policy, or essay, or anything, and the only place I can see this redirecting is RS, which itself makes basically no sense, since the two are basically perfect antonyms. If this isn't going to Zimdars' then I don't see any particular reason why it should exist. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Notification very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WP:Zimdars' fake news list otherwise delete. I created this redirect under the hopes that Zimdars' fake news list would eventually develop into a community-driven list of "potential" fake news sites. I still think that's worth pursuing, especially if people are questioning the original list. Either way the XNR seems unhelpful and Zidmars' list seems like the only other fitting target MusikAnimal talk 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list, which seems like a useful resource and is apparently the only discussion of the term in the Wikipedia namespace. The question of the utility of that page or the accuracy of Zimdars' conclusions is separate from the question of the utility of this redirect, so I find it hard to understand Guy Macon's March edit summary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, and strongly oppose any retarget to Zimdars (Stricken because I revoted in the relisting) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC))
  • Zimdars herself has completely repudiated the version of her list that we have enshrined on that particular page. Her current list[26] has a completely different list of categories and organizations, and she has asked everyone to instead use her current list, which she says is more accurate.
  • Zimdars has publicly acknowledged that the list that we have made part of Wikipedia was just a handout to her students listing unreliable sources she came across in her students' papers. Seriously. That was her criteria for inclusion.[27]
  • Zimdars also said that the list "wasn’t intended to be widely distributed" and that "people are taking it as this list of 'fake' sites, which is not its purpose."[28] She also said "I see where it’s reported with the headline "List of Fake News Sites," and that’s a completely inaccurate headline. It’s a list that includes several fake-news sites, but also sites that do offer regularly good journalism but rely on clickbait-style headlines on Facebook or sometimes exaggerated descriptors to reel people in. But to lump all of those sites as fake has me worried"[29]
  • Zimdars offers no no real explanation of the methodology used other than "I looked at it and decided", nor is there any peer review of the list. Clearly Zimdars herself never intended to present it as if it was actual academic research.
So, one might ask, why don't we update our version? Because her old version was reproduced in the Los Angeles Times but her new version has received zero coverage from any reliable sources, and any such updated page would not survive MfD. The existing page should not have survived MfD, but it did.[30] Anyone feel like taking another crack at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Given what Guy has just said, my first choice would be to delete outright... my second choice would be to create an actual (new) essay on the topic. I think it would be inappropriate to relink it to Zimdars list given that she herself has repudiated it . Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For those who don't know, Guy Macon has argued against Zimdars' list in several discussions. While I've disagreed before, I find his arguments in this discussion reasonably convincing. Assuming that all the statements above can be backed up (such as the statement that Zimdars has repudiated the original list), I would probably support deleting WP:Zimdars' fake news list. But that's a separate issue from the discussion here. In terms of what to do about the redirect, I think it should be retargeted or deleted—keeping it in its current form is confusing and unhelpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: Zimdars repudiating the original list, I can confirm that what she deleted from public view is the list we have on our page. (I don't know of any archive of deleted material, but when I first checked the doc was pretty much a word-for-word copy of what is on our page. I checked it carefully back when I asked her to put a Creative Commons Attribution license on it so it wouldn't be a copyright violation, which she did.) Now it has been replaced with a new list at the same URL with new categories and many of the originally listed sites removed.[31] This article from the daily Dot[32] confirms that she deleted the original list and vaguely hints that she was working on what she considers a better version. The fact that she later uploaded that better version to the exact same URL where she had deleted the original list makes it pretty clear that she has repudiated the original list and would like everyone to use the new list. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The question probably is: is any Wikipedian using one of these lists for their wikiwork, and would these people appreciate the existence or not of another redirect there? —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-targeting to Zimdars per Guy Macon and also because Zimdars lists The Onion as a "Fake News" site. (There's a big difference between fake news and satire, even if they sometimes struggle with Poe's law.) I also think the cross-namespace redirect is problematic, so count me down as a Delete with no bias toward somebody creating a meaningful essay in the future. It could also redirect to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It actually is listed as satire (category 4) MusikAnimal talk 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's the problem with calling something a "fake news list" when it contains 121 items, only 24 of which are labeled "fake news" (this is another strong argument for deleting the FAKENEWS redirect, BTW). Not that Zimdars' didn't label other parody sites as fake news; she lists, which has stories like "New York Mayor Approves Replacing Statue of Liberty with Giant Timberland Boot" and "Chris Brown: 'Everybody Worried About Rihanna, Nobody Ever Asked How My Hand Felt' ". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The current situation is clearly nonsensical. This should probably redirect to an appropriate subsection of WP:IRS. Failing that, redirecting to Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list seems better than nothing (but we should have our own curated list of fake news sites). —Kusma (t·c) 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, redirecting to Zimdars' fake news list is worse than nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If we don't have a better list of fake news sites, using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing. —Kusma (t·c) 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey! I just had an idea! Donald Trump keeps calling various news outlets like CNN "fake news". Let's list them and redirect FAKENEWS to that list! After all, "using the flawed one with the appropriate caveats is better than nothing", right? Better yet, I think I have a list somewhere of sites that the Church of Scientology says should not be trusted... (...Guy M. ducks as everyone else throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, no suitable target for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I have boldly redirected the page to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources since the cross-namespace redirect to Fake news was problematic, and because whatever consensus might be developing here doesn't seem to have emerged yet. I figure it's better than the status quo, and the redirect can always be deleted or redirected again when this is closed. ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm good with it. TJWtalk 01:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was retargetted to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources late in the discussion so it will be worth seeing whether there is consensus for this action (as the discussion prior to that point was heading towards no consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: The current redirect ( Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources ) is a big improvement on the former cross-wiki redirect, but "questionable sources" and "fake news" are different concepts. Better to just delete the redirect. The current redirect already has a perfectly acceptable shortcut (WP:QUESTIONABLE) and does not need another, more misleading one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as the redirect is currently targeting an article, but the recommended retargeting option is an essay of sorts. A shortcut with such a recognizable name should target a guideline or a section of a guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Not trying to sway your opinion, but it looks like you're still under the impression FAKENEWS goes to Fake news? MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I guess? I don't see a compelling reason not to. I disagree that FAKENEWS is unsuitable for the current target. Fake news certainly constitutes a questionable source, no? :) Frankly however I have no strong opinions, it's just a redirect. What I want to see is a community-built list of sites that are questionable, misleading, satire, or outright fake, and categorized as such, just like Zidmars' did. Something like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Questionable sources (subpage, not a section). I understand there are some concerns with the original Zidmars list, which is perfectly understandable. So why not build our own? Let's do it the wiki way! This to me would be very useful and I can see it growing into a valuable resource for the editing community. If we do create it, WP:FAKENEWS I think would still serve as a logical and handy redirect, even though the list may contain more than just outright fake news. Maybe the fake news list would be it's own section...? I don't really care about the silly redirect, I was just excited to build off of the Zidmars' list but then it was shot down. It wasn't our list anyway, so that's fine :) MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lists of all Georgian monarchs[edit]

The redirect could be considered misleading, considering that it contains the word "all". If there is a monarch missing from any list, the redirect is then inaccurate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The target is a list of lists, so we are not claiming to have a list of absolutely all Georgian monarchs any more than List of clouds is misleading because it does not list every single individual cloud or Territorial evolution of the World is incorrect for implying that the world has changed it's territorial borders. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
But List of all clouds doesn't exist, so I'm not following the analogy. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
List of clouds does not list clouds, it redirects to a list of types of cloud. Territorial evolution of the World does not have any information about the world, or an entity called "World", changing its territory. Those, like this redirect, take people using an inaccurate search term to related content. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting despite being involved to allow the 30 August page to be closed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, original page name that apparently tries to clarify that "all Georgian" means both "of Georgia" and "UK. monarchs called George". —Kusma (t·c) 15:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kusma. Note the numerous family trees linked at the bottom of the page which have multiple branches of the Bagrationi family ruling over different parts of Georgia concurrently, which would be another reason to justify the use of "all". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


If this is to be kept, both Prism (Katy Perry album) (fourth album by Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson) and Witness (Katy Perry album) (fourth album under the stage name Katy Perry) are valid targets. feminist 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Witness (Katy Perry album). Google searches make it clear that this is the primary topic for "KP4" as this was the name it was almost universally known as prior to the title being publicly released, although hatnotes to the previous album and Killer toxin Kp4 family should be added. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Killer toxin Kp4 family as this is actually something that is officially referred to as such. As for the Witness album, that was just an fanmade name used to describe the it before the title was revealed (though using that description for it is misleading as it incorrectly implied that is her fourth album when it's actually her fifth), not something that was ever official or even tentative. Something of the sort for the album is better for fansites like Katy Perry Wikia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify as Katy Perry's album has gotten some buzz in mainstream news like TMZ: [33] [34] so it should attract some searches. There should also be a note about KP4 standing for key programme 4 as used in multiple businesses and governments. [35] [36] Also Klebsiella pneumoniae or K. pneumoniae (KP4) [37] and the Killer protein 4 toxin. [38] There's also usage of the kp4 term in amateur radio in Puerto Rico.[39] [40] Amateur radio licensing in the United States#Call signs KP4 is also a type of pancreatic cancer cell line, although that is not mentioned in the article [41] and also K-index (KP index of KP4) for atmosphere stuff like Aurora Borealis [42] It's also used in random industrial parts, but those aren't really notable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC) updated 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If source credibility makes any difference, then neither TMZ or PopCrush (what you linked) are valid as both are horrid references known to often have questionable-at-best claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well there's [43], Bustle [44], Digital Spy [45], Teen Vogue [46] might be slightly better but still shows the same result, that it was used as a hashtag. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: source credibility is irrelevant here, as that doesn't impact at all on how likely a search term is to be used. Indeed TMZ using it is an indication that it is a very plausible search term as that source is very widely read and covers topics that people are likely to be searching Wikipedia for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I've created a dab page at KP4 (disambiguation) with the two albums, the killer fungus and the radio call sign. I don't understand the other things AngusWOOF has found to write short entries for them, but obviously anyone can add them. If the consensus is to dabify this can be moved over the redirect, but I still think Witness (Katy Perry album) is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the other uses are probably not that notable. A lot of them stem about just using KP and some number, so I added KP (disambiguation) at the bottom, especially the designations for the Auroras and the cancer cell line. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Desktop Stand[edit]

"Desktop Stand" doesn't sound like a computer to me. feminist 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Foreigner (Person)[edit]

I can't see how this would be useful. feminist 14:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Christ's sake[edit]

Shouldn't these target the same place? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a bit of a weird one. According to the principles at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, I would argue that the expression "(for) Christ's sake(s)" is primary over either the band or the film that have been linked. It's in far more common usage in more groups than either other subject. That said, it's clearly not sufficiently notable to have its own article and would ordinarily be a good candidate for redirection. I suggest that both of the above redirects retarget to Christ's sake (disambiguation) which would list the blasphemy, the band and the film. Hatnotes for the articles. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm ok with the proposed DAB. The curse is obviously the common meaning, and the band named themselves after the curse for shock value. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note, per WP:MALPLACED, that if a disambiguation page is made, it will need to be at Christ's sake. bd2412 T 01:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Christ's SakeKeep Christ's Sake as primary, which has a hatnote to the film with "For" in it, and if you're really concerned about the original phrase, then add wiktionary boxes on both. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) updated 03:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Blasphemy, "Christ's sakes", "Christ's sake" and "Christ's Sake" should all redirect to Blasphemy, and then Christ's Sake (the band) should be moved to "Christ's Sake (band)". –Davey2010Talk 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That would work if the primary topic is that article, but it isn't even used as a primary topic example on the Blasphemy page, so Wikipedia favors pointing to subjects that have an article first. If you want to keep Sakes to the Blasphemy page, that would be fine too, since that isn't the exact name of the band and would favor keeping the phrase. An argument can also be made to redirect to Profanity. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, "chrissake" doesn't have an entry, although it is mentioned as quotes in multiple articles, and Jesus H. Christ has its own article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not target Blasphemy as that article can't reasonably be expected to accommodate hatnotes for the various blasphemous phrases that probably redirect to it. The band isn't the primary topic, it's the only one whose article has any claim to the title, and its lede could easily be expanded to say what the band's name means, for the benefit of those readers who use wikipedia as a dictionary. I see scope for a dab page only for For Christ's Sake, which is the name of several works mentioned in various articles. – Uanfala 12:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig at Christ's sake or For Christ's sake listing all the targets for both terms and redirect the other terms to it. The band article should have hatnotes to blasphemy and this disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting despite being involved to allow the 20 August page to be closed. An uninvolved closer may asses consensus at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to "Zaria"[edit]

Delete "Zaria" is a city in Nigeria. I can't find that these spellings are used for this city. These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. "Kayson" once redirected to the cargo ship "Cason" ) -- (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • DAB or SIA: Zariyah was an old spelling for Zaria. Zariah appears to be a rare variant ([48], [49]). Given the use in given names as well, either implement 1/ a DAB, or 2/ a name SIA with a See Also section which provides a link to Zaria that also lists the two older spellings. DAB is probably cleaner? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be consensus for deletion here, but should there be a name article, a disambig or a set index and at which title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Chewable vitamins[edit]

The word "chew" or any variation is not located in the target article. The subject of the redirect may be notable enough to be mentioned in at least a section of an article, but it doesn't seem mentioned at its target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Natural or Synthetic Vitamins[edit]

The subject of this redirect does not seem to be mentioned in the target article. Also, the use of the word "or" in the redirect makes it seem like a WP:XY issue anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuel molecule[edit]

Not mentioned at target page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this redirect was previously a stub article [50] before being boldly redirected. With not much effort that old revision could become a decent set index if it is thought that this is a useful term (my guess is that it might be used in situations like introductory-level biology teaching). Complicating that is that google suggests it's also used in discussions of biofuels and fuel cells, so maybe it needs to be an index of two different sets? Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • delete GBook searches present a splattering of hits in widely divergent fields, particularly wrt fuel cells as well as for metabolism. "Nutrient" is obviously wrong in that much of what we think of as nutrients (proteins and vitamins) are not primarily used for metabolism. Fuel is a poor target because it is concerned entirely with non-biological energy. I just don't see anything that isn't going to end up as incomplete or a dict def. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad Court Thinggie[edit]

Not referenced or mentioned at target. Seems to be a name for mistrial invented by and exclusive to The Simpsons. Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The joke exists because people have trouble remembering the actual term. Search on Wikipedia is still pretty lackluster. The redirect helps get someone on the right track. Sturmovik (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I get the joke, but Wikipedia is not Wikia; this phrase is exclusively tied to The Simpsons. If this phrase is located somewhere on a The Simpsons-related article on Wikipedia, that would be a perfect place to retarget this redirect. However, as it stands, the redirect is not mentioned at its current target, and adding the phrase to the target could put WP:UNDUE weight to the connection between a fictional phrase created by comedic writers and the subject of "mistrial". Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target is correct and Sturmovik explains why it is useful for some people, and I don't see it as harmful in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It could reasonably redirect to Marge in Chains, but isn't mentioned there. We should assume our readers are more competent than Lionel Hutz. —Kusma (t·c) 15:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Marge in Chains as {{R from quote}} "I move for a bad court thingy" "You mean a mistrial?" Term has not been notably used outside of the episode context. See also "law talking guy". IMDb episode quotes Delete "Thinggie" variant, unless there's proof that thinggie is the script spelling on the episode. Delete is also okay if the term doesn't attract searches. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd think Lionel Hutz would be a better target, though it would still be best to incorporate the quote there or Marge in Chains to make the redirect more helpful for readers. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Current events[edit]

Replace without deletion. I'm planning to replace this redirect with the contents of Template:Current events/sandbox, which is a mobile-friendly redesign of Template:Current events header with added accessibility features. The redirect currently has no transclusions, and some links from non-mainspace pages, but I wanted to ask here first, to make sure this is safe. Note: the page history must be kept for attribution, due to a merge to Portal:Current events/Sidebar. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Question. Have you discussed this with the current events project? I'm reluctant to support this unless they do, but if they think the redesign is a good idea then I don't really a reason to object. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion's at Portal talk:Current events. Getting good feedback about the redesign, but waiting to hear from bot maintainers to make sure I don't break them. I'll ask there too if it's okay to clobber this redirect. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

Kirby (tentative title)[edit]

Misleading and not useful. There are multiple other Kirby games that have had the eponymous tentative title. The1337gamer (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Kirby (series). Since countless other games have had this title, why not redirect it to the main series instead, as a generic case? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The disambiguator "(tentative title)" is not exclusive to any existing subject on Wikipedia. Redirecting to Kirby (series) forces readers to arrive at th video game series article when they may be trying to find a film or some other form of media. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We typically tend to deal with this with a title similar to Kirby (upcoming video game). This is a reasonable delete as such. --Izno (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games.[edit]

Period at the end makes the redirect unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unless it was part of the title, any punctuation is WP:COSTLY. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not part of the stylization of the title. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's left over from a history merge to fix a cut-and-paste move. Can't see any real benefit to deleting. WP:CHEAP ;) WJBscribe (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per other deletes. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Unclear how this is either a useful search term or exclusive to Christopher Columbus. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Columbus which is a dab. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Columbus; the title of the redirect is ambiguous. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: I oppose retargeting to Columbus as that assumes that all subjects at that disambiguation page can claim ownership over something. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think a redirect of that nature would lead to the assumption that all subjects would be able to be used in the possessive. It would simply mean that there is not a primary topic for the word "Columbus's". Besides, creating a separate disambiguation page for "Columbus's" seems awfully silly because there would be substantial overlap. Which ones are you worried about? Certainly the people, places, ships, and media can be used in the possessive. (eg: "Ohio State forms a major part of Columbus's cultural identity"; Columbus's approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 97%; Columbus's sediments contain evidence of a lake) -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per others above. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Colón, Cristóbal-- Explorer[edit]

Unlikely redirects due to a mixture of sort name, dashes, and the placement of "Explorer". Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete implausible serach term with those dashes and commas. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both per WP:CHEAP - they are being used (33 and 79 times last year) and they are unambiguously referring to the target. I don't know why they are being used, but that is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. The stats are well within implausibly as well. -- Tavix (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

China Railways ST1[edit]

Delete - Implausible redirect; one other user agrees that both the redirect and its target do not relate to each other in any way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - the only thing the redirect and the target have in common is that they are both steam locomotives. 2Q (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see it in List of locomotives in China or in general news articles. Is it an alias for another locomotive? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The List of locomotives in China is exceedingly incomplete (I'm actually working on filling it out at this moment), but the ST1 was indeed an actual class of CR locomotive, that was completely distinct from the Russian Ye class. 2Q (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

H.R. 1503[edit]

This was created referring to one of the Barack Obama "Birther" bills. There have been several other H.R. 1503's since then. The section it referred to, which I recently removed: "On March 12, 2009, Posey introduced into the United States House of Representatives H.R. 1503. Posey claims that the bill, which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate, is a reaction to unsubstantiated claims that President Barack Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen." Power~enwiki (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete the bill is neither at Posey's article nor at the citizenship conspiracy theories article, so there's no information to present. However, if the deleted section were sourced and notable then it could be brought back. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; redirect is ambiguous. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to United States presidential eligibility legislation#Birth certificate where there is a sourced section about this bill and a link to the text on Wikisource. HR 1503 redirects to Beta Caeli but I can find no evidence that the dotted form is used for the Bright Star Catalogue (which is the catalogue HR 1503 is that star's identifier in), so I believe hatnotes linking both articles are best. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hookbill the Koopa[edit]

Uniquely named variation of the target subject not mentioned in the target article. The subject of the redirect may have WP:REDLINK potential (compare redirect Piranha plant with redirect Petey Piranha), but then again, the subject of these redirects may not be notable enough to not fail WP:NOTWIKIA if an article is made on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete According to Wikia, Hookbill appears in Yoshi's Island titles only as one of the bosses, but is not described in that article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; Wikipedia is WP:NOTWIKIA. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


Unnotable variation of target subject not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, according to wikia, only shows up in Super Mario Sunshine but isn't notable enough to be mentioned in that article or the Koopa one. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, plus Wikipedia is WP:NOTWIKIA. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

September 12[edit]


Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not seen in any notable news articles as that spelling, so it isn't a stylization thing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausable. Or is it Deletee? Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment it's some kind of beer for dogs, made news in 2007, but now it's just some non-notable small business. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Acronym not listed at target page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Tell Me You Love Me (TV series) the new location of the article at which this has been harmlessly pointing for 10 years. Google hits show that it is the clear primary topic for this acronym and so anyone using it is most likely searching for that article and wont be at all surprised to land there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, or else keep as is. The acronym isn't mentioned in the dab or the article, but that's only a problem if there's the potential for confusion or WP:ASTONISHment, which (unless there's another article that could be a plausible target) isn't the case here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at dab. This might be a bit WP:RECENTISM, but I'm seeing a tweet today by Island Records that uses the acronym as a hashtag for Demi Lovato's album: [51] But the TV series still uses it, per this Vulture article. [52] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep no harm to direct this to the disambiguation page. feminist 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: Of the alternative options presented so far, "Keep" seems more helpful per those who commented "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

List of ancient doctors[edit]

The target pages does not encompass all "ancient" medics/doctors. Steel1943 (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Category:Ancient physicians. We don't have a list of all ancient doctors but we do have this category, which includes the present target, which is better than deletion imo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete since there is not a list of this type. Note that doctor and physician aren't synonymous. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as closest topic match. Deryck C. 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lists of ancient doctors[edit]

The target page contains only one somewhat WP:PRECISE list. (Note: This redirect is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Suggesting that Wikipedia has multiple lists of this nature is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf as closest topic match. Deryck C. 15:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Laura Clery[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. As much as I am not a fan of the subject of this redirect's humor, she is now the star of her own show on Comedy Central, and thus has most likely established notability independent of this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Will The Laura Clery Project be created? [53]. That's one towards WP:ENT but if that's about it for her career, then her redirect might end up going there? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    @AngusWOOF: I was not aware of WP:ENT until now. In effect, if you see no problem with the current situation, I would like to withdraw this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't withdraw it yet. She needs another notable show with a notable role. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Chipmunks[edit]

Non-notable song, not mentioned at target. feminist 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable band Lutheran Satire. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[edit]

A blog most likely not affiliated with the church. feminist 16:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Parked domain. Unlikely search term. feminist 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Not sure why anyone would type this in feminist 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as typo in linking. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete we always delete these. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


? feminist 16:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete cause what is that? Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as not used in any notable news articles. It's used vaguely to refer to Lesbian according to some online dictionaries, but its usage isn't Wikipedia-notable past a neologism on some random blogs AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Dept. of Justice[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Coconut Man[edit]

Retarget to Price Tag. Mentioned there. feminist 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Kesha True Colors Tour[edit]

Kesha and the Creepies: Fuck the World Tour may be a possible target, but otherwise I can't see how this would be useful. feminist 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Army Gals[edit]

Non-WP:N game that just happens to be sold on Steam. Readers would find no useful information about the game at the target article. feminist 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable game. Yes, it's on Steam but so what? There are thousands of games. No article for the developer Dharkar Studio either. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Iggy Pop Biography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Iggy Pop Biography

Three Day Weekend (song)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. feminist 15:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Middle Man (song)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. feminist 15:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the dab to include a bunch of songs titled "Middle Man". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget/delete as per AngusWOOF. If there is no mention of the redirect at the target what purpose does the redirect serve, save as a confusion? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Radiohead: An Illustrated Biography[edit]

I guess this is technically mentioned at the target, but I would have expected an article about a book at this title. feminist 15:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment it's listed at Further reading. I suppose it could be redirected to that section? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we have an article that contains substantial information about the book. While the target is an illustrated biography of Radiohead, it is the specific book that searchers will almost certainly be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Spooks (song)[edit]

Retarget to Inherent Vice (film), more specific. feminist 15:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Radiohead Messageboard[edit]

Not mentioned at target. feminist 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 11#Compagnie. feminist 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your company[edit]

This began as a redirect to a project page. I can't see why anyone would search for this. feminist 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per my original comment on it's talk page "It should be easy to find the wiki policy about editing your own companies page. I haven't found it yet, this vanity page article Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines was the best I could find." Mathiastck (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Your company already exists for that. I don't know how useful it would be to cross this over to the "Wikipedia:" domain. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nortel FAST Stacking[edit]

Not mentioned at target. feminist 14:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Peace Catholic School[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target article, and potentially ambiguous (eg with Prince of Peace Preparatory). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Peace (film)[edit]

Delete. This film was shelved according to this edit by User:tronvillain which removed the film from the target article. Delete because otherwise might cause confusion with The Lawton Story, another film, aka The Prince of Peace. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete. A completely reasonable suggestion - I was just restoring the consensus redirect from 2012, but deletion is probably the best option. --tronvillain (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to The Lawton Story which is the 1949 film that was known as The Prince of Peace and has had many reviews under that title. [57] [58] [59] Primary topic and article, even if it's an alternate title. Add hatnote to dab if you think there are other notable films. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
An even better option. -tronvillain (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary War[edit]

Revolutionary War is a generic title which could refer to other types of conflicts that can be called "Revolutionary War" including:

There's already Independence War, Revolutionary Wars, Liberation War, National War, Civil War, National Liberation War, Peasants' War and probably plenty more already disambiguated, but this one seems to survive due to U.S. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. There's no good reason not to correct it to link either to American Revolutionary War or to one of the many others. Forcing disambiguation of this ambiguous title would accomplish that.

And before someone came up with a incoming links argument, let me say that (until now) it redirects to the ARW, so I suppose it's pretty obvious that people could only use it in this context and not to anything else, reinforcing the stablished bias. Appah Rao (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that the primary topic has changed since 2015? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Replace - strongly prefer turning this into a disambig page. Why no one has done this already seems alarming. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, as previous discussions have found.with I had to clean up the disambiguation page, since it looked like it was naming "Revolutionary Wars" not described as such at their target articles, obscuring the fact that we have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT/WP:COMMONNAME situation here. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The situation of available pages has changed since the last RfDs. We have a DAB page now at this title. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem relevant to me. Even during the first discussion there was a small disambiguation page. It was moved to its present title during the second discussion. None of that really speaks to whether or not there's a primary topic. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This certainly isn't a example of WP:COMMONNAME cause if it were ARW would have to be moved to RW and no-one is saying that. Appah Rao (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a common name, but on an international encyclopedia. If this were USPedia, that proposition would be quite reasonable, but article titles are supposed to be WP:PRECISE as well. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep "Revolutionary war" is a generic title which could refer to many other conflicts, but "Revolutionary War" is a proper noun that seems to only refer to the American Revolutionary War (based on 0 Gbooks hits indicating otherwise). If it's systemic bias, it's systemic bias in the entirety of published works in the English language. menaechmi (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure? Appah Rao (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That search is specifying "French Revolutionary War", because when discussing anything other than the primary topic authors need the disambiguation. Authors don't need the disambiguation for American, as every result for revolutionary war and the revolutionary war (excluding the word "American") still pulls up books relating to the ARW, with few exceptions. menaechmi (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't grasp your point. Of course a book about the ARW wouldn't have to adjective it all the time all over again, that's just common sense for a subject that the meaning is already stablished. The same way a book about the French revolution can, and does, just write "revolution" and the meaning is implied. How that can be a argument over redirecting revolution to French revolution? That a book about, let's say, pretty any other topic in existence, doesn't write RW and imply that is the ARW beforehand and need to disambig what it's talking about in the first place (that's the reason for the need for adjectives after all). That should be already a strong indicator that ARW is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of RW, that some users must "feel" that is is just WP:Americentricity. Appah Rao (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
To be blunt: Books that talk about the French Revolutionary specify that it is about the French Revolutionary War(s). Books that are about "the Revolutionary War" are almost always about the American Revolutionary War. There are exactly 0 results in English where "the Revolution War" means the French, Cuban, or any other, despite my extensive searching. If you can prove otherwise, please do, because I would love for this not to be the case. menaechmi (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Menaechmi Are you searching from a location in North America? I found several with hardly any bother. These two refer to 'Revolutionary War' in general terms [[60]] [[61]]. These three are about a 'Revolutionary War' in France [[62]] [[63]] [[64]]. The 'Revolutionary War' here occurred in Cuba [[65]] and this one in the Congo[[66]]. This one happened in Russia [[67]] and this one in Korea [[68]]. Apparently it also refers to a war in Ireland [[69]] and San Salvador [[70]].--Ykraps (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To me, that makes it all the more telling that a search for "Revolutionary War" is so dense with results on the American war (in the first five pages, I found one result that was not about it). Google's algorithm is clearly considering them more "relevant", though we could debate why that is. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia, an article very similar to your search term is actually French Revolutionary Wars, which is a plural form. It differentiates from the American Revolutionary War, which is a singular form, and most of the titles that have "Revolutionary War" in them are redirects. Moreover, "Revolutionary war" (lowercase w in war) and "Revolutionary Wars" (plural) redirect to Revolutionary War (disambiguation). --2601:646:9280:BA70:EC62:B745:175:2A21 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Appah Rao, you missed Peasants' Revolt. Also National Revolution. The Anarchy surely isn't the only anarchy in history. The Hunger War isn't the only war where destructive scorched earth tactics caused a famine. War of succession is a type of war but there was never a war named War of Succession – that's a red link, not a redirect to the generic term. And what's up with all the pollution of Revolutionary War (disambiguation)? Special:Search/intitle:Revolutionary War shows precisely one other war with this Proper Name: French Revolutionary War – and even that is more commonly referred to in the plural form. This disambiguation should be kept as clean and tidy as Social War and Gothic War. The objective of the disambiguation page is to help readers quickly find the topic they are interested in, not to comprehensively list all wars that could be characterized as revolutionary wars. List of revolutions and rebellions and List of wars of independence serve that purpose. We want to avoid talk pages discussions like this that need to be fixed by edits like this edit. People searching for the Civil War shouldn't have to waste time scanning through a list of hundreds of wars to find American Civil War or English Civil War. What the heck is the American Revolutionary War doing in the list of civil wars anyway? That's quite a stretch. Nobody has yet documented a single erroneous link to [[Revolutionary War]] that was intended to link to something other than the American war. My comments from the previous discussion are still valid. "It sounds to me like your saying we shouldn't right the wrong because you can't be bothered to fix the links. Is that it in a nutshell?"--Ykraps ... I'll be more blunt this time, in my response to editors like you and Ykraps. I'm not saying that I can't be bothered to fix the links, I'm saying that you can't be bothered. The only things you can be bothered with are submitting requests like this, changing redirects, moving pages and mucking up disambiguation pages. that's the easy stuff. You want to bother me to clean up all the links. I've done a few; this is a case where bypassing redirects to the more specific title is not controversial. See diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, and diff. That's just a dozen out of hundreds that need to be done; your turn to do the rest. Let me know about any you find that need to be fixed to link to a different war. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That's a bit harsh. I've just checked user contributions and out of the three of us, it appears that you are the one who spends most of his time changing redirects, moving pages and mucking up disambiguation pages.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Replace - Turn this into a disambiguation page. Nowhere outside of North America does Revolutionary War automatically mean American Revolutionary War.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but that should be everywhere outside the US. In Canada we learned about the American Revolution in school. The War of 1812 was an effort to extend the 1776 rebellion by seizing Canada. Canadians were not impressed and burned down the White House. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the evidence above and in previous discussions that the American conflict is the primary topic for the capitalised proper noun phrase "Revolutionary War". Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Replace - Turn this into a disambiguation page. Per WP:SURPRISE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert into a disambig page, i.e.: replace as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Replace into a disambiguation page, but I'd support putting American Revolutionary War at the very top of that page as the most common search target. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • merge with Revolutionary War (disambiguation). It seems pretty clear that the American rebellion is the primary "revolutionary war" in English language sources, but it is also obvious that someone might type it in intending to find the French "revolutionary wars", the Russian revolutionary wars, etc. Furius (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Strollers Organization[edit]

The word "stroller" or variant is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a student organization at University of South Dakota but too local and not Wikipedia notable for its own redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hickory lLeafstem borer moth[edit]

Please delete. This is not a plausible typo.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - does not appear to be a feasible typo. Onel5969 TT me 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in the Falkland Islands[edit]

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

Template:Philately article banner[edit]

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


Unused. Does not follow any of the standard convetions for WikiProjects. Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as unused. It was the title of the template for two months back in 2009, but that's probably too long ago to make it pertinent to worry about breaking external links. – Uanfala 21:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep since Template:Non-tropical (the redirect's parent page) targets Template:WikiProject Non-tropical storms (the target page's parent page). Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Old and unsed. Magioladitis (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Documentation needed update. I just did. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. {{R from move}} in the "Template:" namespace. The old name has the potential to direct readers/editors to the proper template. Clarity of a redirect's name is not a definitive requirement for redirects in the "Template:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Foghorn Leghorn and The Barnyard Dawg[edit]

WP:XY. Could refer to Foghorn Leghorn or Barnyard Dawg. Steel1943 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep this appears to be an {{R from merge}}. Given that both characters starred in the same cartoons I don't think it unreasonable for people to search for them together, and there is more information about the rivalry between them in the target article than in the Barnyard Dawg article so this is the most helpful target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, the word "merge" is in an edit summary in the redirect's history, but the redirect contains no edit history, making it a {{R from move}} and not a {{R from merge}} per our current definition of a {{R from merge}}. In fact, here is the edit summary of the first of now 4 edits on the nominated redirect:

      22:57, 7 October 2008‎ Prolog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (moved Foghorn Leghorn and The Barnyard Dawg to Foghorn Leghorn: per requested move, also merging page histories)

      ...If anything happened here, it was an edit history merge, not a content merge (which is what {{R from merge}} is used for.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Classic WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reconsider if this were the name of the collection of shorts, but I don't see that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Pluto filmography[edit]

Given that Pluto is the article about the current/former planet, this redirect could be considered incorrect or ambiguous. Also, Pluto (Marvel Comics) has also appeared in visual media. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate if there are multiple Plutos with a filmography, keep if there aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the current target is by far the most likely intended target; I find it quite hard to imagine somebody searching for this hoping for a list of films starring the dwarf planet. The Marvel character is more of a possibility, but is much less high-profile than the Disney character, so I think this is best resolved by adding a hatnote ({{redirect}}) for Pluto (Marvel Comics) to Pluto (Disney)#Appearances. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Eager Young Space Cadet[edit]

Thought Porky Pig is the fiction character who portrays "Eager Young Space Cadet", the character is exclusive to Duck Dodgers, so it would probably be more helpful to retarget the redirect there. In addition, no currently-existing pages that start with "Duck Dodgers" redirect towards Daffy Duck (Duck Dodgers being Daffy Duck's alter ego in the Duck Dodgers series), so retargeting the nominated redirect to Duck Dodgers seems like a more helpful and consistent option. Steel1943 (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep there is very slightly more information about Eager Young Space Cadet in the Duck Dodgers article it is easier to find in the Porky Pig article and the Duck Dodgers article is more prominently linked from the information in the Porky Pig article than vice versa. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century (the original film) as that's where the character was first attributed. Alternatively List of Duck Dodgers characters#Cadet is a good candidate for the TV series, but that depends on how notable the cartoon is compared to the short. If it redirects to the TV series character list, then a line should be added pointing to the original short. Similarly if it redirects to Porky Pig, then the paragraph with Duck Dodgers in it should be expanded for the original film and its follow-ups prior to the cartoon. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Not sure about this one. The redirect is a foreign-language redirect, and currently targets the section where it is mentioned. However, the redirect is essentially a partial title match for the foreign language name "Paolino Paperino". For this reason, this redirect could possibly be misleading for someone attempting to find a different subject named "Paperino". Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment FWIW the the it.wp article about Daffy Duck is at it:Paperino so it seems like this is the primary topic for the word in Italian. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because Paperino is also the name of a comic book mentioned in the target section, and because the Italian Donald Duck is different enough from the American version that it is plausible that the Italian name should be used in English to refer to his Italian incarnation, this should be kept. It is not really a partial title match, because the character is generally known mononymously. Gorobay (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

List of billionaires by nationality[edit]

The target page does not group billionaires specifically by nationality, not does it guide readers to pages where individual nationality lists can be found. Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

September 11[edit]


It is unclear why the redirect targets only one subject that could be referred to as "tracked" versus all of the options on the disambiguation page Track. I was about to WP:BOLDly retarget the redirect there, but afterwards, I discovered the existence of another related disambiguation page Tracking. With that being said, this title may be the most useful when searched if this redirect was deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree that it's best to let users use the search function to find articles associated with this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

National Indie Excellence Awards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 18#National Indie Excellence Awards


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

Hannett, Cornwall[edit]

I can find no evidence that any place of this name has ever existed. I believe the page creator got it from here and it's a misprint for the small hamlet Hennett, which doesn't seem to be notable either. Blythwood (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Shortly after this nomination was made User:D A R C 12345 (who created this as an article, then as the current redirect) added a mention of Hannett to the article, claiming it was mentioned in the Domesday Book, sourced to this page, which doesn't mention Hannett (or Hennett). Open Domesday doesn't have a Hannett, but does have Hennett. So this is sort of complicated and could benefit from some clarification (and I would welcome D A R C 12345, who seems knowledgeable on the subject to offer that clarification), but it does seem likely that "Hannett" is the result of a typo somewhere along the line. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Explosive intensification[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

September 10[edit]

Peirce Middle School[edit]

There is more than once pierce middle school (with probably none of them being particularly notable), so having this redirect to one school district doesn't make much sense. menaechmi (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep unless the other school has an article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Tavix's comment is enough for me to withdraw mine. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll start by noting that the redirect is "Peirce", not "Pierce". The middle school in South Redford School District is "Pierce", so this would have to be a typo redirect to the current target. That being said, Peirce is a real surname, and it's common enough that there are some middle schools named after a "Peirce". For example, there is a Peirce Middle School in Nantucket Public Schools and West Chester Area School District. -- Tavix (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This one was apparently originally an article on the one in West Chester, but was redirected to John D. Pierce Middle School (Michigan) in November [71], and then John D was redirected to the school district and a bot fixed the double redirect. menaechmi (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Would it retarget Pierce Middle School then? That would be fine. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism in Åland[edit]

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

Hinduism in Abkhazia[edit]

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

Hinduism in Christmas Island[edit]

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


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

The Other Wiki[edit]

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

The Wolf (TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 20#The Wolf (TV series)

BJ(Broadcasting Jockey)[edit]

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


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

Mon Not Roy Astron Soc (MNRAS).[edit]

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 20#Torrential

Second Child of Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland[edit]

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

Second Child of Princess Madeleine, The Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, and Mr. Christopher O'neill[edit]

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

Second Child of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia[edit]

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


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


The definition for this emoji is "person tipping hand". "Help desk" and "Person tipping hand" are not the same. Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per my longstanding opposition to emoji redirects. We are not "emoji-pedia." If we continue down the path of creating redirects for emojis, then it is only a matter of time before readers will be able to use reverse image searches to find articles that correspond to the image. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete useless and misleading. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I've always seen it used to mean "I'm being sassy". This goes to my point about the unicode definitions being useless. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to Emojipedia, the Unicode name is "Information Desk Person". Information desk redirects to help desk, so this one is fine. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Per my comment above, no one knows what it means even if it has an official definition. The question should be whether it is visually unambiguous, which it isn't. Also, on a personal note, I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks it means someone is being sassy according to Emojipedia TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: Seems different sites have different definitions. The emoji list at defines this emoji as "person tipping hand". Is either source more "official" than the other? IMO, I do not think so, especially considering that and are both ".org"s. Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I was wondering about that, because Emojipedia does list both. My assumption is that "information desk person" was the original definition, and it was changed to "person tipping hand" some time later (probably when they gendered it). Since "person tipping hand" has no logical target on Wikipedia, I think the "information desk person" definition would be the only one we can provide a target for. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment is there some way to limit Wikipedia from being Emojipedia, perhaps by notability in reliable sources? Are we obligated to provide a search result for every new emoji created? Is someone really linking these to news articles as central importance? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No amount of redirects can ever make Wikipedia into Emojipedia. There is no danger. Gorobay (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We are not obliged to have anything, but if we want to be most helpful to our readers we should have a blue link for every plausible search term for which a suitable target exists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per TAVIX. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It should become a page explaining the history and meaning of the character just as we do for other characters such as , and =. It's not difficult to find sources which demonstrate its notability, e.g. There’s a hidden meaning behind the sassy woman in pink emoji, The Internet Isn't Happy About The Makeover The Sassy Girl Emoji Just Got, Emoji: Sassy Girl, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. There's some precedent for Emoji articles, such as Face with Tears of Joy emoji and Pile of Poo emoji. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the ambiguity, unless an actual article is created as suggested by Andrew D. – Uanfala 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Home stereo system[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hinduism in the British Indian Ocean Territory[edit]

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

September 9[edit]

Ukrainian model[edit]

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 18#Fideo

Dave Oren Ward[edit]

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


Delete as ambiguous. This emoji is used, according to the Unicode names list, for sorrow, pleading, praying, bowing, or thanking. Appropriate targets include Namaste, Gadaw, Thai greeting, Prayer, Gratitude, and High five. There is no article or disambiguation page that corresponds to the generic concept of two hands with their palms together, so the redirect should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have added all of the 5 additional coloration variations to this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Too ambiguous a meaning. The emoji couldn't be made into a disambiguation page because it would need to pick one of the skin colors to use, so best to get rid of it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zxcvbnm: In the world of emoji, the emoji 🙏 would be considered the best title for a possible disambiguation page since the emoji is the "base title" for the rest. 🙏 consists of technically one character, while the rest consist of two (🙏 and a character representing the emoji's color.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Steel1943: Okay, in light of that, I'm not opposed to the idea if more people also believe it's the right course of action.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Convert 🙏 to a disambiguation page per the ambiguity stated above, and the lack of any current options for refining the emoji to one specific target. Also, redirect the rest to 🙏 per my comment above; the rest of the emojis are the equivalent of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of gestures, where the varied uses are listed. (I originally thought List of gestures#Two handed would be better, but high five is listed under List of gestures#one handed.) -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: I was about to debate this point by claiming that all emoji with two hands can be assumed to belong to the same person ... but then, I found 🤝 ... which has to be hands from two different people. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • ...But, then again, 🤝 does not have color variations, whereas 🙏 does. Color variation options hints that the hands belong to the same person, whereas lack of color variations hints that the hands do not belong to the same person. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of gestures or create Folded hands, as per the Emojipedia. [72] At least List of gestures has a description but the images can be added to the Folded hands page and it can also be connected to Praying Hands. You can then add stuff like high five or those other targets. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and if thats not the outcome, at all costs don't create a disambiguation page. I typically prefer deletion of ambiguous emoji redirects, which in my opinion virtually every emoji is regardless of the official definition. I wouldn't oppose retargeting if other people can agree on one, but for goodness sake let's not throw out the credibility Wikipedia has worked hard to build by starting to disambiguate emojis. Yes, this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote in terms of the disambiguation page, but I think it is a fair point here because at some point you have to take into account commonsense, even if it isn't written in policy. If you want a policy, call it a natural extension of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is effectively what a dab page would be in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: To your point: Lately, I've been pondering the need for a guideline for emoji to be created that is more detailed than WP:EMOJI ... since that is all we seem to have, and it is not even a guideline but rather a redirect to a section of an essay about common RfD outcomes. I know we are not Emojipedia, but users of all languages are beginning to use emoji regularly; many will want to figure out what these emojis are supposed to mean. (Now that I'm thinking of it, I wonder if this is more of a Wiktionary concern, but if the emoji represents a phrase that is more than one word, and since the whole world does not speak English ... yeah, I'm a bit confused on where or who should handle this.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the ping. I don't like emoji redirects in general, but I begrudgingly accept they are a thing (and I rarely participate in RfD so my voice rarely matters anyway). If there were an RfC or draft policy my argument would be something along the lines of this: unless it is unambiguous what the visual meaning of an emoji is, we should not have a redirect or page for it. The official unicode definition is useless because so few people actually know that those exist. I think your point about it being a Wiktionary concern also might have some merit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous. Oppose a disambiguation page per WP:EMOJI, which advocates only keeping (as redirects to a disambiguation pages) emojis with clear definitions. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per my longstanding opposition to emoji redirects. We are not "emoji-pedia." If we continue down the path of creating redirects for emojis, then it is only a matter of time before readers will be able to use reverse image searches to find articles that correspond to the image. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: Why is that a bad thing? Would it not be good that they would find the article corresponding to the image? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, I know that my perspective may be in the minority, but I think that allowing readers to search for content with emojis and images strays too far from the purpose of this encyclopedia, which is to provide factual information about a subject that can be described in the written form. I also think there is too much room for subjective interpretation with emojis and images, and it should not be our job to refine or resolve the inherent ambiguity in emojis and images. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The subjectivity is a good reason to delete, but in your original reason it just sounded like you didn't want articles to be easily found. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that there definitely ought to be a general article about the gesture (that would bring together the myriad of its uses in various cultures). Such an article would be an obvious target, but until one is created, it would really be odd to have a dedicated dab page, and retargeting to a list of gestures, albeit helpful, is likely to confuse readers. – Uanfala 19:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Genocide in Gujarat[edit]

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

VF-4 Lightning III[edit]

Also nominating:

For deletion as non-notable individual mecha models and implausible search targets. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: The first nominated redirect, VF-4 Lightning III, is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no apparent reason why its former content needs preservation, as it's entirely WP:FANCRUFT and is also on Wikia for all to see. The only thing different about the Wikia page is that it lacks sources, and nobody has bothered to migrate them in 4 years so I doubt it will happen. They're pretty much all just instruction booklets and artbooks. However, it would not be too large a task to migrate the sources too before deleting the redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Variable fighter was recently boldly redirected to Variable-sweep wing so the VF stuff no longer applies, and should redirect to VF-1 Valkyrie. The problem is that there aren't really any notable Variable fighters besides VF-1 Valkyrie, so apply WP:TNT and hope if someone wants to make a list of the other VF mecha and aircraft that they do so with reliable sources. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget VF-4 Lightning III to VF-1 Valkyrie where it's mentioned. This also has the benefit of preserving the history in case someone is interesting in migrating the sources to Wikia, for example. Delete the rest per the above. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix:I'd say it's pretty much impossible that someone will bother moving the sources if they don't do so prior to the redirect. So if no one wants to volunteer, I don't see a reason for keeping it. If someone does volunteer to do it in the future then it would be warranted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sacking and Sack Manufacture[edit]

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

Breakfast milk[edit]

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


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Horn light[edit]

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

Audio Evacuation System[edit]

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

The TACO - History and General Info[edit]

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

👨‍🏭 and 👩‍🏭[edit]

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

Rebirth (video game)[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete. There appears to be no definite target for it. Ruslik_Zero 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)