Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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

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

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
Further information: Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion § Redirects

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 also apply.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects 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 the 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]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • 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]

March 18[edit]

Haligonian[edit]

I don't know where these should point to, but they should share the same target. feminist (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Singh[edit]

inappropriate probably coi redirect for child of performer DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

On a related note should the kids names even be mentioned on the article?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If the article is deleted it should really be considered for salting, article has been repeatedly created and deleted. Greyjoy talk 05:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not "requests for deletion" (see WP:XfD). This is "redirects for discussion", where we discuss about redirects that may point to a wrong article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd want more useful information in the target article than an unsourced mention that he is a member of WP:NN band to justify a Keep !vote. Probably too soon to consider WP:SALTing (redirects can be salted, either to prevent recreation or to prevent retargetting) - the battle has only been running since 16 March. Narky Blert (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

History of Khanpur[edit]

The section this redirect points to used to exist, but has since been deleted in Special:Diff/793764554 in 2017. Hence, the redirect no longer makes sense, and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom unless the history part is added back. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The Center School (Manhattan)[edit]

No information on this middle school in the target article, and likely out of the scope of the target article. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shrek: The Series[edit]

These redirects created back in 2010 seem to imply that there was a TV series based on the Shrek movies, but there's no mention of that in the article or that on the first movie, or on iMDB ("Shrek: The Series" seems to refer to the film series itself). I'm thinking we should delete these unless a better target can be found, or someone can find a reliable source confirming the existence of this supposed TV series. Regards, SONIC678 21:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Redirects are made up. Makes me wish that A11 was a general thing because then these could be speedily deleted on the fly. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLACKFRIDAY[edit]

Can't redirect to specific diffs without the page being classified as a soft redirect. With that being said, I cannot see how this unlinked shortcut needs to redirect where it does since it was a phrase mentioned by one editor that didn't seem to catch on. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The spot of the article that mentions the redirect is at the way bottom of a long page and the redirect is only mentioned hypothetically there. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not really working, not really used, not really appropriate. If SchroCat would like to keep/use it, I'm fine with moving to User:SchroCat/BLACKFRIDAY. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can see the idea behind why this exists, but I can see no real rationale for why it should exist. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists of ecoregions in the United States (disambiguation)[edit]

The target is not a disambiguation page, it is a list of lists, which does not disambiguate the term "Lists of ecoregions in the United States". Speedy declined by User:Hut 8.5. This case is similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#List of ambassadors of India (disambiguation) (closed as delete). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that arguing that the target is not a disambiguation page is splitting hairs, it's a disambiguation page in all but name and if moved to "List of ecoregions in the United States" (with no change in content) then it would definitely be a disambiguation page. WP:CSD#G14, which this was tagged for, excludes "pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)". Hut 8.5 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only purpose of a page with a (disambiguation) qualifier is to tell User:DPL bot that it's a valid link to a DAB page and not a WP:INTDAB error. (Not that that stops some editors from reacting to a DPL bot nastygram by linking to a DAB page through that qualifier rather than to a more useful target.) Whatever WP:G14 might say, this sort of redirect is purposeless useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Notable French[edit]

Ambiguous phrase, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

OcelotCreeper - With redirects, it's a lot less complex most of the time just to create the desired one, instead of moving the existing one. Hog Farm (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok then Delete. Also, do you think List of French people should be named List of notable French people? Without the word notable, it sounds like it is a list of every single person that is or was a French citizen. It also technically does not go against the naming conventions for lists because it says to avoid using words like notable or famous, not that you cannot use them. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – Plausible redirect. This is a list of notable French people. Redirects like this are cheap n harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vague and meaningless. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable French what? People? books? towns? Dawn French? Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Noitaton hsilop[edit]

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

Na‑Dene languages[edit]

How is a non-breaking hyphen (U+2011) helpful in a redirect title? The difference between this and a standard hyphen is hardly visible, and it seems very highly implausible that one would use it or type it. I recommend deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I created the redirect, since the redirected page exists as a link at Dené–Yeniseian languages, specifically in the classification tree. At the time, I was curious how a language family was still a red link; a non-breaking hyphen makes more sense, but still someone at some point managed to use it. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm...that's strange, and it would seem like an error. Even stranger is that it won't seemingly let me correct it with a normal hyphen; I'm not sure what the root of that is. Maybe someone familiar with at template can take a look? ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is the difference between the two? OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
A non-breaking hyphen (U+2011) is a distinct character from the standard hyphen (U+002D), in that it prevents line-breaks such as when words are hyphenated across two lines. ComplexRational (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cassiopeia Du Couteau[edit]

Another batch of LoL characters without mention at the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Philippine independence[edit]

Redirect to Treaty of Manila (1946). That was the origincal redirect. The Treaty of Manila is the treaty that gave the Philippines its internationally recognized independence in 1946. Independence Day (Philippines) refers to June 12, 1898, when Philippine Revolutionaries declared the Philippines independent. They failed. The Philippines was ruled by the U.S. for nearly 50 years. In common parlance and in international law the Philippines gained its Independence in 1946. This redirect says "Philippine independence" and should point to when the country actually became independent, when it gained its sovereignty, when it fully ruled itself. The redirect originally pointed to the Treaty of Manila article but was changed several years ago, over objections, several months after the concluded discussion on the Talk page ruled generally against the change (keeping Treaty of Manila). I and other editors didn't notice. Rather than change it back and risk (another) WP:EDITWAR, I bring it here, as suggested years ago on Talk:Philippine independence.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Camera360[edit]

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

Ghost of You (Outline of Color song)[edit]

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

Ghost of You[edit]

Redirect to Outline in Color, because this is the only band that has an article for this exact song title. Jax 0677 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retain target. Outline in Color is hardly notable as it stands, and the My Chemical Romance from 15 years ago is still far more notable than this one song by this band has been or ever will be. The My Chemical Romance song is still referred to as "Ghost of You" without the leading definite article. Titles without definite articles are frequently redirected to existing titles with definite articles; this user's nomination for a retarget seems oblivious to this practice. Ss112 06:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) over redirect to fix the edit history. -- Tavix (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tavix: Are you saying Ghost of You should not remain a redirect to The Ghost of You? Like the absence of a definite article is not a valid redirect to a title with "the" present? Ss112 09:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying that the history for Ghost of You is now incorrectly at Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) so Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) should be moved back to Ghost of You to fix this. -- Tavix (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tavix: Are you saying you don't think the definite article-less Ghost of You should point to The Ghost of You as a valid alternative name? Ss112 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I have not said that, one way or the other. At this time, I am only concerned about getting the history fixed. -- Tavix (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tavix: Well, if you have no objections, and if Ghost of You (Outline in Color song) is deleted to move it back to Ghost of You, then I'll repoint Ghost of You to The Ghost of You. If Jax 0677 wants, he can recreate "Ghost of You (Outline in Color song)" to repoint to Outline in Color. Problem fixed...hopefully. Ss112 10:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definite or indefinite articles hardly ever distinguish between names of bands, albums, songs, films, TV series, and so on. They often get added or dropped in everyday speech. See e.g. The Buzzcocks, whose name is written wrongly more often than not. About the only examples I can think of where a definite article is a distinctive qualifier are The The and The Who.
Hatnote The Ghost of You with {{redirect|Ghost of You|the song by Outline in Color|Ghost of You (Outline in Color song)}}. Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Of You[edit]

Redirect to Outline in Color, because this is the only band that has an article for this exact song title. Jax 0677 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retain target. Outline in Color is hardly notable as it stands, and the My Chemical Romance from 15 years ago is still far more notable than this one song by this band has been or ever will be. The My Chemical Romance song is still referred to as "Ghost of You" without the leading definite article. Titles without definite articles are frequently redirected to existing titles with definite articles; this user's nomination for a retarget seems oblivious to this practice. Ss112 06:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move Ghost Of You (Outline in Color song) over redirect to fix the edit history. -- Tavix (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename. Wikipedia article titles normally do not capitalize the O of of. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per my argument in #Ghost of You, above. Tag as {{R from other capitalisation}} (a category with 404,746 entries, so the argument that "Wikipedia article titles normally do not capitalize the O of of" is a non-starter – this debate is not about MOS:TITLE, but about redirects). Narky Blert (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

He Hymn of Death[edit]

Implausible typo. Not recently created. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shnoogums[edit]

Not used in target article, not sure why we need this example as a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per G1. According to this [[1]], Shnoogums does not mean nickname. It is an insult. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is what is intended by patent nonsense, so I don't think G1 applies. Hog Farm (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Delete. According to this [[2]], Shnoogums does not mean nickname. It is an insult. Also, in the past 3.5 years, this redirect only got 32 pageviews. That is around 9 pageviews per year. Also the article does not mention the redirect in any way whatsoever. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing about "Shnoogums" at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ganadalf[edit]

Addition of the extra vowel makes than an unlikely typo/misspelling, as substantiated by 23 pageviews last year. [3] Hog Farm (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, it's hard to see that this is really needed, and one could have fun making up variant spellings ... no, won't go there. Actually 23 happy visitors might well mean this cheap redirect is worth keeping? I'd be happy to go along with consensus either way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, does appear to be useful occasionally. Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is a character named Ganadalf in World of Warcraft. If that character somehow becomes popular, then we should encourage people to create an article about that character. Also Gandalf is already in the top of the search box by the time one would place the n. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, it's a weird misspelling but not implausible readers might make it. SnowFire (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete page creator here. I have zero recollection of creating this and have no idea what I was trying to achieve in doing so; I couldn't even justify this right now if you asked me to. -FASTILY 22:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

John Brown's Tractor[edit]

A Google search verifies this song exists, but it is not mentioned at the target article and probably shouldn't - There are many parodies of this song (which shares a tune with the Battle Hymn of the Republic). Hog Farm (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. There must be dozens of parodies not worth mentioning in the article, and this looks like one of them. Narky Blert (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Brent Kavanaugh[edit]

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

Brown vs.[edit]

Could refer to any number of cases in which the plaintiff is named Brown. Ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Incomplete, and hopelessly ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to say that any lawyer who sees "Brown vs." would jump up and yell "Board!" as if answering a Jeopardy! question, but the search box already answers the question this way when you start typing this, so, delete. BD2412 T 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Only in USA. The 14th Amendment is an irrelevant legal curiosity in all other countries. Narky Blert (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per R3. Like what BD2412 said, the search box already would have the real article listed, making this an implausible typo. Also ambiguous. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, R3 only applies to recently created redirects and this one has been around since 2006‎. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Monday II[edit]

Delete, clear neologism with no sources referencing this name for the incident. Only historical content was copied from the existing redirect target. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Article refers to it as Black Monday, and the Black Monday disambiguation page already lists it. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote Red.svg Delete. There have been many Black Mondays as Black Monday has listed on that page. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Black Monday. I would have said as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}; except that Black Monday is a badly misguided WP:SIA, which lists several (but by no means all of the) things which share the characteristics "black" and "Monday" in their names. Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As I suspected, and as is typical for SIAs: Black Monday has something like 80 links-in, most of which are plain wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Typical link, in Brown v. Board of Education: 'Many Southern white Americans viewed Brown v. Board of Education as "a day of catastrophe—a Black Monday—a day something like Pearl Harbor."' The top entry in Black Monday is a 1209 massacre in Dublin by the Irish of 500 English settlers, and the second is a day of bad weather in 1360 which killed men and horses. The parallels are not exact. Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Storm of Ram Ranch[edit]

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

March 16[edit]

Changèd[edit]

Just the example used in the article, otherwise arbitrary. WP:PANDORA. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep due to it being used at the article. I have no clue how the existence of this redirect would encourage the creation of plenty more just like it, nor why that would be a bad thing if so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: there's no particular association between the word and the target article, it just happens to be one of the examples given there (and any number of words could have been used in its stead). – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ĉeĥoslovakio[edit]

Another Esperanto redirect by Soumya-8974. WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Polujo[edit]

Esperanto?! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Википедию[edit]

Unlikely misspelling of the nominative; it is the dative form but I don't think declined foreign language forms are accepted as redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ikipediaway[edit]

Arbitrary word in Pig Latin. WP:PANDORA. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep due to it being used at the article. I have no clue how the existence of this redirect would encourage the creation of plenty more just like it, nor why that would be a bad thing if so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a random word that's used to illustrate a point, no connection between the redirect and the target's topic. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no reason to keep this as an arbitrary example of Pig Latin – no evidence of significant or meaningful usage. Additionally, if we call Pig Latin a "language" (though strictly speaking it is not a real language), we could arguably invoke WP:FORRED as well. ComplexRational (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Potentially confusing, a reader searching for this term might also be looking for Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although Pig Latin is not a true language, the same principles as set out in WP:Redirects in languages other than English apply here. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsensical. Cabayi (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Alle Rechte vorbehalten[edit]

WP:RLOE: What does the topic have to do with German? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a fixed legal phrase and the exact equivalent of the target article's title "All rights reserved" in another language (German). The exact wording is relevant, and may not necessarily be achieved by machine translation. The redirect exists to help readers running into this phrase in publications, usage licenses, or printed on products of German origin so they will be directed to the relevant information in English. While this is the English Wikipedia, we implement such foreign language redirects either if there is a direct connection of the target with the language, or occasionally when it could be particularly important for users to bridge language barriers without hassle, f.e. in the case of the names of illnesses and emergency conditions, some institutions, some legal terms, some phone numbers, some food, some very important works etc. Also, when an article is about a particular idiomatic phrase in English, it is often interesting for readers to learn about the equivalent phrases in other languages. Such redirects should be tagged with {{R from foreign language}} like this one.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No !vote from me yet, but I'm skeptical that "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" is used for any legal effect. It's more likely simply a German translation of "All rights reserved." Bear in mind that the reservation-of-rights legend comes from the 1910 Pan-American Copyright Convention (Buenos Aires Convention), a multilateral treaty among nations of North and South America, none of which are German-speaking countries. In fact, the only languages spoken among the signatories are English (US), Portuguese (Brazil) and Spanish (all other countries). The suggestion that "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" is a fixed legal phrase is pretty dubious. TJRC (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You are right that the phrase was derived from the English phrase and can be tracked down to the 1910 Buenos Aires Convention. By fixed legal phrase I didn't mean to imply that it is legally binding (it isn't anymore), but this doesn't change the fact that this particular phrasing was used for decades (and is still often seen today).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I think you've missed my point. The phrase "all rights reserved" was never operative apart from by parties to the Buenos Aires Convention. It is not that the phrase is "can be tracked down to" the convention. It is that that was the treaty that made it operative at all. And no German-speaking country was ever party to that convention. There is no evidence at all that the German phrase has been used to preserve rights under the Convention, and the use of the phase to preserve rights under the Convention is the subject of the article.
Even if it is shown that some publications use the German phrase for some other purpose, that is unrelated to the subject of the article. More specifically, it looks like your assertions that "this is a fixed legal phrase" and "the exact wording is relevant" are not correct. Based on this, now taking the position Delete, below. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTGOOGLETRANSLATE aka WP:RFFL. This is one of those common words of phrases, and as TJRC pointed out, has no historical connection with the creation of the phrase. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I discuss above, the arguements put forward by the redirect's creator for its creation and retention are not valid; the wording has no significance justifying redirect to the article in question, and this falls squarely within Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English: "redirects in languages other than English that point to topics that are not especially associated with that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be kept." TJRC (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Arithmetique[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN, nothing particularly French (even misspelled) about arithmetic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep. I think this is just plausible enough a misspelling by analogy with "technical" / "technique"', "critic" / "critique" etc. Deryck C. 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Neo Patwa[edit]

A recently created redirect to a list without mention. The list can't be expanded with relevant content as its inclusion criteria rule out entries without wikipedia articles. – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at either page as of this writing. I would think it would make sense to include in the list before it's added to the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dave Brown (rugby league winger)[edit]

It doesn't look like the subject of the redirect's target ever played the winger position, and it doesn't look like any other subjects listed at Dave Brown the disambiguator "rugby league winger" could apply to. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Dave Brown (rugby league, born 1940). The history of this redirect is very tangled, but ultimately, this is the only rugby league player named Dave Brown we describe who was a winger. It's easy to miss since he seems to have been a centre more often, but he won a major championship playing wing, so that's good enough for me. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

TORCH (search)[edit]

This REDIRECT links to an article that doesn't contain any information on the lemma of the REDIRECT anymore since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tor_onion_services&diff=next&oldid=811076001 - the edit summary was "removing items that do not have a corresponding page. WP:WTAF" (I tried to do everything right by filling in the template of the previous entry here ...) Maybe the aforementioned edit "orphaned" more REDIRECTs in this fashion. -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

St Fort[edit]

No mention of "St Fort" or for that matter even just "fort" at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

There's also Saint-Fort, France; but writing that as St Fort would be doubly wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The redirect was created because of the red link for St Fort at Newburgh railway station and the area's mention at Nisbet Balfour. St Fort Hill is noted on the OS Pathfinder map, rising immediately to the south of Newport, with the St Fort home farm at the foot of its southern slopes. Sandford House (St Fort is indeed a late form of Sandforde etc.) is around 1.5 km further south near the junction of the B946 and the A92. The Pathfinder map can be accessed via Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain. Details of the area are given in Glasgow University's Fife Place-name Data site at St Fort and Ploughlands Of St Fort. St Fort railway station no longer functions but is situated where the railway line passes close to the hotel.[1] The name has no connection with a fort or fortifications and Newport is in Fife so the "St Fort, Newport" and "St Fort, Fifeshire" found in your search @Narky Blert: are one and the same. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • So Keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    Mutt Lunker, seems reasonable enough to me. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Forgan (Fife) or St Fort railway station Street Map only shows "St Fort Home Farm" today but indeed St Fort railway station has an article. It (at least the station) seems to be/have been in Forgan parish according to Vision of Britain, older maps (select 19th century) show "St Fort House" but no place called "St Fort". Its usual to redirect a name to the broadest meaning but we don't seem to have much evidence of just "St Fort" other than the placename cites (Google Maps does show it though but what names they show appears to not be incredibly reliable) above so maybe a redirect to the station might make more sense. The census locality that I based Category:Newport-on-Tay on (now called "Newport-on-Tay (/ Wormit)") doesn't include St Fort which appears to roughly correspond to the former burgh but its clear that St Fort isn't part of the town or census locality so shouldn't redirect there. There is List of listed buildings in Newport-On-Tay, Fife so its possible now Newport-on-Tay is a separate parish but none of those coordinates show anything at St Fort so if it is its unlikely to be in Newport-on-Tay parish anyway. Scottish CPs do appear to have limited recognition today but the CP does seem like the best target barring the station its self. If ambiguity is a problem perhaps this could be moved to St Fort, Fife and a DAB page created at the base name but I don't think XY applies since this appears to be due to unrelated subjects sharing this name. @Mutt Lunker: do you think it might make sense to add content to Forgan (Fife) with the placename sources you have listed? I know someone who knows Fife well so I could also ask them if they know much about this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion to retarget to Forgan. Newport is also in Forgan[2] but St Fort is an adjacent rural area rather than truly being a constituent of the former. The link at Nisbet Balfour should continue to land here; Newburgh railway station is best changed to land at the railway station's article. Yes, it had occurred to me that there might be almost enough St Fort material to repurpose this as a stub but a paragraph or so at the Forgan article is probably a better solution. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Mutt Lunker: apparently "St Fort" is just a farm according to that person. I'd also note that railway stations appear to actually be named without "railway station" (the OS names them without the suffix) but since most require disambiguation and its likely common usage we always add it to the article titles. So if we don't target Forgan then the station makes sense but definitely not delete @Rosguill: (though I understand you appear OK with keeping it per you're previous comment), see also this for example. Perhaps if this is closed as target station it could also note that it can target the parish if info is later added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Per my posts above and the references therein, that person's information is thus incomplete. It is an area, divided historically between a varying number of tenures, which includes, per the Pathfinder map, a named hill, the home farm and, under the older spelling of Sandford, a former hotel in the Arts and Crafts style, now apparently converted in hoilday lets, as well as the former station and railway junctions. There was also a large country house of the name, to the east of the home farm, demolished in the 1950s.[3] Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. No point in redirecting to Forgan - that article is a mere stub, and present-day Forgan is no more significant a settlement than St Fort. The postal address is St Fort, Newport-on-Tay, which is probably why the redirect goes there. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Royal mail postcode finder would confirm that the farm, hotel and station house's addresses are all given as St Fort, Newport-on-Tay. For what it's worth, Forgan is the parish, rather than a settlement per se. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Being part of the address isn't the same thing as being in somewhere, see DD postcode area#Coverage. Post towns can include many smaller settlements and even other towns, for example Hadleigh's post town is Ipswich despite being 9.5 miles from it! Since we can redirect to an entity (the parish) that St Fort is in, it doesn't really make sense to redirect it to something its merely near (the town). Also if information was added about St Fort its likely we could say that its (or at least things named St Fort X) are in the parish but at most we could probably only mention St Fort being near Newport even if we did include content on St Fort which would be awkward anyway. I still maintain that the town is not the appropriate target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    It is no more correct to say St Fort is in Forgan than it is to say it is in Newport. Forgan is a distinct and separate settlement. The fact that the parish of Forgan once covered the whole area is irrelevant, since parishes are no longer in use in Scotland, except for a few statistical purposes. This is not the place to discuss the article on Forgan, but really it would benefit from being rewritten to focus primarily on the current settlement and not the historical parish. And in any case, shouldn't it be called Forgan, Fife, rather than Forgan (Fife), to be consistent with other similar articles? Of course the real solution to the St Fort issue, rather than discussing where it should redirect, would be for someone to create a stub about the place itself, so that no redirect is needed. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    How so? Although parishes largely no longer function in Scotland they don't appear to not at all so it is somewhat correct to say St Fort is in Forgan while its not at all correct to say St Fort is in Newport. I have questioned redirecting things to Scottish parishes before due to their limited existence but its still better than redirecting to something that its not in at all. And yes per WP:UKPLACE the parish should be comma disambiguated. If we do create an article for St Fort indeed this would be moot but its not clear if its notable enough for one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Per above, there is no settlement of Forgan, current or otherwise. It is a parish only. Why do you think otherwise? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Because I know the area well. Here's a picture of the village hall. There's also a petrol station (possibly now closed), a stove shop, chapel and cemetery, golf resort and new housing estate, as well as a scattering of older houses. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A cursory look at the links you give shows that you clearly do not. They all even include maps showing their locations, pretty widely spaced apart in a broad rural location in the parish and none of them in some supposed focused settlement of Forgan. The latter link for Drumoig is, unsurprisingly for locations at Drumoig. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    It is a scattered rural settlement, not a focussed village, but that's not unusual in this area. Compare for example Dunino, for which the article covers the settlement as well as the parish. I think most readers looking at an article on Forgan would expect to see information on the place as it is today, where people live and work, rather than some obscure and obsolete ecclesiastical entity. But let's not argue about that, we're supposed to be discussing St Fort here. --86.128.200.49 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) (previously 86.173.33.228)

References

  1. ^ Contributors, Ewan Crawford. "St Fort - RAILSCOT". www.railscot.co.uk.
  2. ^ "Fife Place-name Data :: Newport-on-tay". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  3. ^ "St Fort". Canmore. Retrieved 2020-03-13.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How about this, to start a stub and break the impasse:

"St Fort (/sənˈfoʊrt/, /seɪntfoʊrt/, /ˈsɑːnfərd/ or /ˈsɑːnfər/) is a rural area, largely in Forgan parish, Fife. The current form of the name is late eighteenth century, the origin being a sandy ford on the Motray Water.[1][2][3]

St Fort Hill lies immediately to the south of Newport-on-Tay and William Burn’s St Fort House, a large baronial mansion, demolished in 1953, lay on its southern slopes. The Home Farm, to its west, survives.[4]

Further south, the area was formerly served by St Fort railway station, on the Edinburgh–Aberdeen line.[5] The triangular St Fort junctions, connecting the now-defunct Newburgh and North Fife Railway, lay to the station’s south-east.

Baillie Scott’s Arts and Crafts style Sandford House Hotel, taking the earlier form of the area's name, lies immediately to the station's west, just into Kilmany parish.[6][1][2] Its restoration as a residence and holiday cottages was documented in the BBC television series Restoration Home.[7][8][9]"

References

  1. ^ a b "Fife Place-name Data :: St Fort". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  2. ^ a b "Fife Place-name Data :: Ploughlands Of St Fort". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  3. ^ "Fife Place-name Data :: Naughton". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  4. ^ "St Fort | Canmore". canmore.org.uk.
  5. ^ Contributors, Ewan Crawford. "St Fort - RAILSCOT". www.railscot.co.uk.
  6. ^ "Sandford House near Newport on Tay, from hotel to haven". www.scotsman.com.
  7. ^ "History". Sandford Country Cottages.
  8. ^ "BBC Two - Restoration Home, Series 2, Sandford House". BBC.
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VhidDfAPkQ
Yes Mutt Lunker good suggestion, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. Thanks for starting this. --86.128.200.49 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) (previously 86.173.33.228)
I've created the stub. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all and glad we've resolved this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Generation Beta[edit]

"Beta" is not mentioned in the target article. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Generation Beta". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

8-5[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. In my experience, "N–5" for values of n other than 9 are not implicitly about working hours, but this was hard to confirm via internet search because that also includes results for other punctuation mark, making most of the results about 8.5% (which is neither here nor there). Other possible meanings of "8-5" could be August 5th or May 8th, which are disambiguated at 8/5. I'm not sure whether redirecting to there or deleting is a better solution. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: I hear people talk about 8 to 5 all the time. It's not normally 9 to 5 because there are 8 hours of work and 1/2-1 hour for lunch. I don't know of many full times nowadays that are only 8 to 5.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

https://medium.com/the-ascent/its-time-to-kill-the-eight-to-five-job-8ca18db66951
https://apideltech.com/recruitment-is-no-longer-an-8-5-job-heres-why/

Half-island[edit]

I can't find any sources supporting this {{R from synonym}} – namely that "half-island" is a synonym of peninsula. It is not mentioned at the target and also inconsistent with Wiktionary (wikt:half-island). Unless sources or a suitable alternative target is found, I suggest deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - we have {{Wiktionary redirect}} just for this. Wiktionary handles the etymology from "half-island" or "almost-island" to peninsula, but our article does not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - come to think of it, I have never heard anyone use it naturally to mean a peninsula. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 23:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment I did not initially consider a simple redirect to Wiktionary; that seems reasonable to me. ComplexRational (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Half-island looks like a translation of German wikt:Halbinsel. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Morrell Park Elementary/Middle School[edit]

It is mentioned at the target, but the school does not appear notable in itself and there is no substantial or sourced content there. It thus seems of low utility to readers. ComplexRational (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Redirects don't need to be notable (like articles), they need to be useful. Apparently, someone found it useful enough to create the redirect (which is a valid reason to keep it per WP:R#KEEP unless on of the reasons to WP:R#DELETE would apply). If this is the correct spelling and it is not in conflict with a name needed for another article, this is exactly the type of redirect we want to see, reliably redirecting a reader to what bits of info we have about it. Also, if there would be links to this redirect in the future, the existance of redirects like this aids reverse lookup of (other) information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lakarian City[edit]

Fictional city only mentioned in two episodes. One was in reference to a amusement center located there, the other was in reference to its destruction by Dominion forces. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was also in some novels, but I still don't think that's enough to justify a redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it is actually mentioned in these episodes (I don't know), is the correct spelling, and is not in conflict with a term needed for another article, this is exactly the type of redirect we want to see, reliably redirecting a reader, who runs into this somewhere, to the relevant bit of info. Also, if, over time, there are links to this term, the existance of such redirects aids reverse lookup of (other) information. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects created by PrinceStingySpoilero[edit]

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

Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi[edit]

The creator made a bunch of redirects of this sort which are all fine, but this one has a redundant clause and minor grammatical issues which suggest it was created in error. I think it's a bit too old for WP:R3 but should be deleted, as there are a number of these and there has been talk of creating sub-articles at some of these titles. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Mercury[edit]

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

Pokemon day[edit]

The day that is Pokemon Day is not discussed on the target page. There are references to such day throughout Wikipedia, but I'm not sure any of such pages are good targets for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of silliness[edit]

I can't find Uncyclopedia to be mentioned under this phrase. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia of silliness. It is mentioned on the WP:BJAODN. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - A Google search brings up this redirect and a copy of the BJAODN page on a WP mirror. Seems like this is an obscure or novel synonym for the target (RFD Delete #8). Hog Farm (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – This appears to be a WP:INVOLVED relist without explanation. I don't see clear consensus yet, but another editor should look over this. ComplexRational (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What's unclear about the consensus? WP:RGUIDE says If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete. If there is discussion consisting only of comments and supporting votes, then obviously the consensus is delete. See also WP:SILENT. Paradoctor (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EISP[edit]

Ambiguous redirect, as pointed out on the Miscellaneous Village Pump. (I'm a new user - am I doing this right?) Catgirllover4ever (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate
Paradoctor (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • KeepDisambiguate as per Paradoctor (see below) Perhaps I can add a bit of clarity here. EISP is an ambiguous term needing a redirect to the schools which use those initials. The term 'Exercise-induced sexual pleasure' got attention from scholars and the media around the first half of the 2010s as you can see here by referring to what was in popular parlance a 'coregasm'. The wiki-article on Coregasm which I wrote got merged into the wiki-article on Orgasm, but the section got whittled down; evidently many of the contributors to the Orgasm article did not think that it was a valid term, that it was pop culture nonsense; nevertheless there is still discussion in the Orgasm article (hard to find because the Table of Contents is set to only the top levels). Bottom line: the term should point to this section of the Orgasm article Orgasm#Females#Exercise-induced here which is under the second section Females, subsection Achieving Orgasm, subsection entitled 'Exercise-induced'. So I hope that fellow Wikipedians find this exercise of possibly redirecting the redirect to be thoroughly stimulating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
a) The section does not mention / define the term, so redirecting there is pointless.
b) Even if it did mention the term, it is not clear that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. See Pageviews.
Paradoctor (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I added the full term Exercise-induced sexual pleasure to the Exercise-induced section of the Orgasm article. While I agree it's not the most common usage, it does crop up in academic research such as here, which is better than if there was a redirect for WISP (Wikipedia-induced...)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Good. Got anything countering b) the pageviews data? Paradoctor (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No. Frankly I am not that committed to either inclusion or deletion of the redirect -- in the broader scheme of things, we're in deckchairs territory, shuffling them about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Umm, you realize these are not the only options? Cf. my vote. Paradoctor (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Update changing to Disambiguate as per Paradoctor (I favor keeping link from Exercise-induced sexual pleasure to the appropriate section of the Orgasm page but frankly I have no strong opinion either way on this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you asking whether this is possible, or do you want someone to do it? If the latter: I'm just waiting for this discussion to be closed. Paradoctor (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding a ping to Soumyabrata, who may be unaware of the Paradoctor's question above. --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate I was going to retarget it myself, but the Paradoctor's proposal is much better, so I support it now. --CiaPan (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Intelligent Technology and Electronics[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, I don't see any indication that this is actually an alternative name for Intel. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - this story says it's "Integrated Electronics". That, along with Xpert Engine On, makes two bogus-sounding Intel-related redirects from the same account; is somebody trolling? Guy Harris (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I would be inclined to think that this one could be an honest mistake, but Xpert Engine On seems like a bit of a stretch. signed, Rosguill talk 02:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Гольдфарб, Вениамин Иосифович[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn (WP:WITHDRAW) and speedy retarget

Enkyklopaideia[edit]

Nothing particularly Greek in an encyclopedia as an entity (etymological relations are irrelevant). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep – this is a romanization of the Greek word whence the word "encyclopedia". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Chances are low that someone knows the etymology of "encyclopedia", but not its spelling. –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Espanolo[edit]

Pseudo-Esperanto for Spanish. No relation with the portmanteau Spanglish. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cabayi: the "A" prefix only applies to articles, so it cannot apply to any redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Tavix, that'll teach me not to be economical with the typing... It's a neologism which means nothing to anybody but its creator. A web search returns this discussion as the only matching result. Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Stabbery (Shrek)[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything on this alleged Stabbery character on Bing except results on this page and blank page on Shrekopedia. Could this possibly be someone's assumption about the name of a minor character? Regards, SONIC678 03:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I got two Shrek wikis on Google. Literally nothing to indicate that the name Stabbery has been assigned in the minds of more than one person. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Portugese india[edit]

Two misspellings. Maybe recreate with correct capitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. One misspelling, one wrong capitalisation. Portuguese India is a good title, and the only one needed. It crops up in the searchbox without contortions. Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Narky Blert. Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - page views suggest it's a plausible error. Portuguese is an odd word to spell for non-native writers, and miscapitalizations are generally always plausible errors (many people don't put capitals in their search keywords). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Therefore I suggested to recreate it with the correct capitalisation, as the search box automatically chooses a capitalised variant if the one with no capitalisation doesn't exist (in this case, too, the lack of the page Portugese India is probably the reason for the high pageviews count – the capitalised version gets normalised). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
      • That's just busywork, though. The search box also chooses a non-capitalized variant if the capitalized title does not exist. If you search on "Portugese India" in the current state, you get to Portuguese India. Or you would if the RfD banner wasn't on the redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've seen Portugese as a misspelling frequently, and not all users search with the shift key - a learned habit, since most web browsers don't distinguish between case in searches. Hog Farm (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Shak-spere[edit]

No reason for a hyphen here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • The spelling of Shakespeare's name varied widely during his life and beyond. The man himself signed it as Shakspere on at least one occasion, and his name has been hyphenated in various forms. Most results I'm seeing on the web seem to be from books where the name is just broken over two lines of text, though. I don't feel strongly enough to say keep or delete; just wanted to share this info. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although Shakespeare signed his name in many different ways (you may be able to guess the spelling he didn't ever use), this looks like a misunderstood hyphenated line break. Narky Blert (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. I encourage people to create as many spellings of Shakespeare as possible. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. English surnames weren't generally standardized until the 19th century, that's why the soundex system exists. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. BDD and Ivanvector said it all already. At most it could be tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, but according to BDD this spelling variant even was actually used. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How to pronounce English[edit]

Unreasonable search term. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that link is about English spelling, not English phonology –Austronesier (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - if a reader wants information on "how to pronounce English" they will find it at the target article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector and since WP:PANDORA has been invoked. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of X[edit]

Oddly specific search term. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - if a reader wants to find information on the pronunciation of X, they'll find it at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Valid redirect name, can help reverse lookup. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hiromi Fujii[edit]

Per WP:XY. There is a notable athlete of that name, see incoming links. There is also a very likely notable architect[5][6], and an apparently non-notable baseball player. Not the same as the target, see Talk:Hiromu Fujii#Fixing this page. Paradoctor (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Vanity project[edit]

The term "vanity project" can be applied to many different things beyond "star vehicle". Utopes (talk / cont) 22:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous. The Garden Bridge has been described as a vanity project (see Garden Bridge#Hodge report), and so has the band Threatin. See also The Vanity Project, an album. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would disambiguation be an alternative? I know that many things are described as "vanity projects" offhandedly, but maybe there are enough potential entries on a disambiguation? I'm not 100% sure what constitutes as an "official" vanity project compared to a "described" vanity project, but maybe that will become evident through discussion. The Vanity Project would be one entry, but what else? Utopes (talk / cont) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless I’m mistaken a dab page titled Vanity project would need to link to articles actually called vanity project not a list of tings that could described as one. So I think that’s out.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Provab Technosoft[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: the discussion is broken. Nominator, please retry the nomination. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Shobet[edit]

"Shobet" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, besides as a district in South Sudan, in which it would serve better as a redlink than a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Noo Yawk English[edit]

With this particular spelling, this is an unlikely search term. I suggest deletion Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Эсперанто[edit]

WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is neither Esperanto nor English — both use versions of the Roman alphabet rather the Cyrillic alphabet. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
According to Esperanto orthography, Esperanto can be written on Cyrillic script. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A claim which is unsourced. I suppose any language (including English) can be written in Cyrillic script in theory. I've never seen Esperanto written in Cyrillic script. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The only obligatory authority over Esperanto is its creator's Fundamento de Esperanto which introduces the Esperanto alphabet on p. 1. It was wirtten in six languages. Please read the original English version, and note that even the original Russian version authoritatively stipulates that Roman letters be used, though the Russian is naturally written in Cyrillic letters. — Of course it is true that English, Esperanto, and any other language can be written using any of the world's writing systems. See here for an example by John DeFrancis of English written in eleven common scripts, including Chinese characters, though not in Deseret and Shavian which were both designed (and publicly used) for writing English. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ænglish[edit]

Would probably rather refer to Old English (Ænglisc), although I don't think this is very useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

YoȜ[edit]

I would not nominate Yoȝ, but the same name with a capital letter at the end is not something a reader is likely to give in or copy from somewhere else. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

30 "Hg[edit]

Why exactly this number? Too random to be used. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to atmosphere (unit). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget all per Soumya-8974; they're all roughly 1 atm pressure measured using a mercury barometer. (30 "Hg looks ugly, but is plausible and might even be used.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Slyvia (Wander Over Yonder)[edit]

Delete as implausible misspelling. -Regards, SONIC678 20:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

D70F01.EXE[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. I can't even find anything on it on the Internet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete the lot Good grief, what next? Listing all WinNT .dlls? At least those turn up on the net somewhere... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this lot were in the article, it would be WP:TMI. Honestly - who is going to search in WP for any of these?
I suppose there's mild historical interest in the fact they hadn't discovered hexadecimal for file names, but so? Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question: If I would not already know what they are, people like me with an interest in the history of computing would search for them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are the filenames of the official distribution archives of Novell DOS 7 updates, as issued by Novell for free distribution. They were once available on many FTP servers worldwide (and still can occasionally be found today at some sites). While the individual filenames are not mentioned in the target article for brevity, the updates are discussed in the article, and they are also discussed in some of the references. The purpose of these redirects is that people who run into these files somewhere in the net or on old storage media, or find them mentioned in older first- or third-party documentation (including books) and then use our search box to possibly find out more about them get redirected to the related information within Wikipedia. I do consider search box behaviour to be very important, even if these particular terms won't be entered very often (even better, if it still reliably pin-points to the relevant info). Besides people who may still actually use this operating system, this aids historical research (and also might help people to distinguish these files from malware). Obviously, these redirects are not essential, but they can be useful and they do not (and won't ever in the future) interfere with any other article/redirect names, therefore there is no reason to delete them: None of the valid reasons for deletion of redirects per WP:R#DELETE applies. So, per the catalog of reasons to keep redirects at WP:R#KEEP, they should not be deleted per #3 ("They aid searches") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful"). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Matthiaspaul's argument makes perfect sense for the internet at large but not for Wikipedia specifically. Not every single imaginable search term in the world needs this kind of linkage which, truth be told, doesn't tell them a damn thing about the .exe file anyway. In other words, it's not just that the thing isn't mentioned in the article, it's that there is nothing useful at all. There is no "related information". And if D70F06.EXE has no search results on the internet whatsoever, then what is it doing here in the first place? Drmies (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
While in a quick Google search I did not find the D70F06.EXE file in particular, I can easily find various of the other files mentioned, f.e. try D70G15.EXE/ZIP - it's still available in many places and can be easily found with Google, which, as we all know, only shows a small fraction of what's actually out there.
Also, I wonder why you guys keep on repeating there would be no useful information on the updates at all in the article (apparently just because the OP erroneously stated so above) - this is not true. As I wrote above, the updates are discussed in the article, the only thing missing is that the filenames are not explicitly mentioned (but they are comprehensively and explicitly covered and mentioned with their full names in the references, including scripting examples and all such). It would be easy to incorporate a short parenthetical note after the word "update" like " (D70xyy.EXE" with x=language, yy=number)" into the text without causing any bloat or undue weight, if there would be a condition that the filenames had to be mentioned explicitly (although per our guideline WP:REDIR there is no such requirement for redirects, and the given rcats {{R to related topic}} and {{R from filename}} are accurately describing the relation).
These are excerpts from the article discussing these files: "Novell DOS 7 and Personal NetWare required several bug-fix releases (Novell DOS 7 and Personal NetWare required several bug-fix releases (D70xyy with x=language, yy=number) [...] Novell wound down further development on Novell DOS 7 in September 1994 and stopped maintenance in January 1996 after more than 15 updates. [...] Caldera UK officially released Caldera OpenDOS 7.01 on 3 February 1997, but this version was just Novell DOS 7 update 10 (as of December 1994) compiled only with the necessary adaptations to incorporate the new name in display messages as well as in environment variable and file names. It was missing a year's worth of patches which had been developed for the Novell DOS updates 11 (January 1995) to 15.2 (January 1996). This was due to parts of the Novell DOS sources having been lost at Novell meanwhile. Consequently, this version still reported an internal BDOS version of 7.2, identical to Novell DOS 7. The new suite also lacked the SETFIFO command, which had been added with one of the Novell DOS updates [...] Version 7.02 (now reporting itself as BDOS 7.3) incorporated improved BIOS and BDOS issues [...] adding many new boot and configuration options, integrating many compatibility enhancements, bug-fixes and optimizations for size and speed, and re-implementing all fixes of the missing Novell DOS updates. [...] The sources of the Novell patches for the external tools and drivers had meanwhile been found in Germany and could thus be retro-fitted into the system as well, so that DR-DOS 7.02 finally not only caught up with Novell DOS 7, but was a true step forward."
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have meanwhile added that phrase to the article (and the text excerpt above), so the file names are now actually mentioned in the article in a way which does not cause bloat or undue weight. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. A quick scan revealed some WP:RS discussing these files in some way:
  • Klemens Mai, Dirk Larisch, H. Tronsdorf, M. Tronsdorf (1994): "Das große Buch zu Novell DOS 7". Data Becker, ISBN 3-8158-1030-2.
  • Kai Hamann, Michael Kolberg (1994): "Novell DOS 7 - Das Kompendium". Markt & Technik, ISBN 3-87791-556-6.
  • Michael Gerding, Björn Kibbel (1994): "Novell DOS 7 und Personal NetWare". Addison Wesley, ISBN 3-89319-758-3.
  • Frank Grieser, Andreas Winterer (1994): "Novell DOS 7 - Networking, Multitasking, Systemoptimierung". Addison Wesley, ISBN 3-89319-676-5.
  • Bert Ungerer: "DOS novellieren? - Novell DOS 7 fordert PC- und MS-DOS heraus". c't 03/1994.
  • Arne Schäpers: "Licht und Schatten - Ein kritischer Blick auf Novell DOS 7". c't 08/1994.
  • "Nachtrag zu Misch-DOS". c't 10/1995.
It's quite obvious that there are more sources, including English ones. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I understand Matthiaspaul's argument, however, I disagree that it is applicable to redirects. Given the state of the content on Wikipedia right now, there is no reason to have these - the content isn't there. It's hard to argue usefulness for redirects when the content the redirect is suppose to point to doesn't exist, and I can't see these being a search term. A registry of file shortcuts for DOS just isn't particularly helpful content. It's like having these in the index of a book, and then the page reference not mentioning the subject - the reader learns nothing about what the shortcut is whatsoever. And frankly, I believe that mentioning these shortcuts in the article would be WP:UNDUE. Hog Farm (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
If you read the above, I pointed out and even cited excerpts from the article actually discussing these updates, so your statement that the contents doesn't exist, is not true.
I would agree with your index example in general - but in the way you put it, it doesn't apply. In many cases an index is not only an index of fixed words (as in a dictionary), but of themes. A useful (non-dictionary type) book index often contains multiple entries for some contents, if it is known under multiple names. Not all these terms need to be mentioned at the target location. Sometimes you will just find related contents at the target page and the keywords listed in the index are not explicitly mentioned there at all. Some books distinguish between theses types of indexed information or even have multiple indexes. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, this latter types of index is what we want to establish here.
Redirects are among the vehicles for this. They are used to establish various kinds of relations from a redirect's title to the target. Such relations can be of linguistical nature, but more often are of some semantical nature (ideally indicated by corresponding rcats).
Your argument that other articles don't have this kind of detailed "index" is not an argument to not have it in this article - I just happened to know these keywords so I could add them to this article, while for other articles I don't know them and they would have to be added by other contributors. Wikipedia is being worked on at multiple fronts depending on the availability and time of knowledgeable contributors. This leaves articles in vastly different states (unfortunately) and it would hardly be in the interest of the project to nuke all of the better articles and areas of infrastructure down to the level of the weaker spots just to have them all at a similar level.
Either way, I have meanwhile added a phrase to the article explicitly mentioning the file names. Fortunately, it could be done in a way which did not cause bloat or undue weight, thereby addressing your argument.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Parentboard[edit]

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

Marcus McClure[edit]

No indication that this is an alternative name for the subject. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Tempest[edit]

Not actually an alternative name for the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dittmar HD 153 Motor-Move[edit]

Deletion as it is an implausible typo Petebutt (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Rename to Dittmar HD 153 Motor-Mowe. I can see people having trouble with the accent on the O, but I do not see people mistaking the W as a V. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Apparently the name I suggested it should be changed to already exists so this redirect is pointless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed my vote now because you said that. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete (changing vote in the light of Tavix's comment); implausible typo. Narky Blert (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:49 (disambiguation)[edit]


Unnecessary redirect Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kasam (1998 film)[edit]

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

Easy (Frank Ocean song)[edit]

"Easy" is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. It was mentioned there at a point, but as it's not now, and hasn't been officially released, then sure, delete it. Ss112 11:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

R2-A6[edit]

This droid is not mentioned at the target article, and keeping this redirect would be misleading and unhelpful - redirects should point to answers, not puzzles. Hog Farm (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Astromech droid. That's actually a redirect already, so redirect to the same target. At least it tells users what this droid is. Searching for individual droid names is an expected thing from external search engines, give users something basic and let fandom cover the rest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it's not covered anywhere then it should not be a redirect. The brief mention at mimobot is not sufficient. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The droid is not even mentioned in the articles that were suggested to retarget it to. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Time elemental[edit]

Overly vague redirect. Could refer to any number of monsters in any number of games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Giant mantis[edit]

Overly vague redirect. Could refer to real life or a fictional monster. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

LetterATopics/Aaron[edit]

Not a helpful redirect, this isn't how we make redirects. Was a little blurb made back on 1-30-2001 LetterATopics/Aaron. This serves no purpose, but it's literally the oldest Wikipedia article I've run into, so maybe there's a rule against deleting it or something. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Wow, if we can go off of the date at the Wikipedia article, this was created days after Wikipedia started. Hog Farm (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Well, this is rather interesting, but then 'being rather interesting' doesn't make something necessarily worth keeping either, hah. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G8: Subpage of a deleted or non-existent page.Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as an interesting {{R with old history}}. It's absolutely fascinating in my view, and it has pageviews that make me expect there are links pointing here. Subpages are disabled in mainspace now, and anyhow K5 overrules G8 (This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia). If anyone's interested, its the 513th page ever made. Edit: Actually the 561st. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Harvest home action[edit]

Source is a vague term that could refer to anything, and an unfortunate easter egg since the target article refers to a Nazi massacre. buidhe 08:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned in article and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Redirect is ambiguous and the article never refers to OHF as Harvest home action. You need your redirect to be mentioned in the article, especially if the article is a Good Article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster[edit]

It should be greatly explained on the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster, as it is a derivative of the Space Shuttle SRB. Retarget to Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Space launch system[edit]

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

Longest Wikipedia Articles[edit]

Unused, recently-created CNRs. This is a case of WP:R#D6; cross-namespace redirects from the mainspace can be misleading. J947 (c), at 22:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all - Unused CNRs, and wouldn't likely be helpful anyway. Hog Farm (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the second – Useful redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the second. I can find that one being useful. The others should be deleted. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Queen's School of Computing[edit]

This department referred to the one at Queen's University at Kingston before it was redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's School of Computing. However, our article on the Canadian university does not currently mention a School of Computing. feminist (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Autopsy (2006 film)[edit]

No film is mentioned at the target article, and no film released in 2006 is mentioned at the dab page Autopsy (disambiguation). Delete unless suitable target can be found. Hog Farm (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. No such film in IMDb. The closest match I can find is Alien Autopsy (film) (2006), but its title doesn't seem to be shortened. Narky Blert (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about such a film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)*
  • Comment From the history, the article was moved to Autopsy (film) and then to Autopsy (2008 film), so the film this refers to probably was released 2 years later than planned. We could just retarget this one to Autopsy (2008 film) per WP:RCHEAP. Regards SoWhy 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to this or Delete. I suggest we retarget and then track the pageviews for the next 6 months to see if people are using this. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete no 2006 films titled autopsy and there is no evidence that Alien Autopsy (film) is known as simply as Autopsy so that isn’t a viable target.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 14[edit]

N plicatus[edit]

Useless lacking the dot after N. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. This redirect is plausible in cases like this. Deleting serves no benefit to anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hmm... N. plicatus doesn't exist, and I cannot figure out where it should point via third party search engines results if the redirect is created, and I'm obviously running across the same issue with the nominated redirect. Striking out my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect only got 35 pageviews in the last 4.5 years. That is 7-8 views per year. OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, but this doesn't necessarily prove that the redirect is misleading, which would be the only reason in this case why this redirect would need to be deleted. It is perfectly plausible for someone who wants to look up this term but doesn't know that the first abbreviation in the term is traditionally followed by a period (N. plicatus vs. N plicatus) to attempt to search this term without a period. Lack of page views does not prove anything regarding why this redirect should be deleted, especially considering that deleting this redirect creates problems for readers who do not know that the period needs to be used to look up the scientific name, this redirect is not ambiguous, and the lack of existence of this redirect goes against assuming readers do not have a clue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    Striking the above out per the comment regarding the change in my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat per [8], unless this scientific name can be shown to apply to other bats, in which case delete. Hog Farm (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

His Prophet[edit]

While a Scholar search for this term does return results about Muhammad, it also returns results about a whole bunch of other prophets. Redirecting to Prophet could make sense, but also is likely not helpful for anyone searching for this term, leaving me leaning toward deletion and letting search results take care of it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The phrase is apparently a snippet from the Shahada, but such a redirects doesn't really make sense outside of a conceivable Islamic version of Conservapedia.The temptation to redirect to Paul Dirac should definitely be resisted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per completely ambiguous as to what it is referring to. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, this term is also used to refer to several prophets in the Old Testament, so ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Prophet. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the point of redirect to prophet. buidhe 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Former Wei[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, I wasn't able to find any examples of Cao Wei (or really anything) being referred to as "former Wei" on Scholar or the internet at large. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

NCoV (SARS)[edit]

WP:XY. From what understood from Novel coronavirus, nCoV is used for strains and not species. In this case, the title could refer to SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep: Do articles exist for either one of the aforementioned subjects? If not, "keep" would be the default choice here. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an implausible search term, and not mentioned on the current target. And to answer Steel1943’s question, yes they do exist, as one caused SARS and the other is causing the current pandemic. --awkwafaba (📥) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • ...FWIW, that did not answer my question as no Wikipedia article was linked in your response. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target article prominently describes both strains, so WP:XY is satisfied. -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1.000[edit]

I'm not quite sure what is the intended context of 1'000, but it seems to be a possible string in Quote notation, where it doesn't represent the number one thousand. As for 1.000, it may represent 1000, but not in the English notation. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete 1.000 as misleading, and weak keep 1'000, I've seen it used that way in financial/accounting contexts before. Hog Farm (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Hog Farm's proposal. J947 (c), at 03:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the 1st; Weak keep the second per Hog Farm and J947. Doug Mehus T·C 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Either leave the redirects as they are right now, or, if this can't have a consensus, change them into disambiguation pages: 1.000 into a disambiguation page containing links to 1000 (number) and 1 (number), and 1'000 into a page containing 1000 (number) and Quote notation. Rationale: It might seem overkill at first and, obviously, we can't do this for all such numbers, but given that 1000 is a particularly important number in the context of decimal and thousand separators, I think it would be a disservice to our readers to not redirect them to some useful place (if a single such target can be established in this discussion) or educate them a little and point them to all possible meanings. While we are the English Wikipedia, we are only one entity in an international project, and many (if not most) of our readers come from an international context. The alternative would be to disambiguate incoming redirects through hatnotes on the target pages, but this might become impractical if there are more than one such incoming redirects. "." is used as a thousands separator (rather than decimal separator) in about half of the world, and "'" is used as a thousands separator as well in some countries (for example in Switzerland) and in contexts where using either "." or "," could cause confusion (although a half-space is meanwhile preferred). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both. There are many instances where a period is used as a delimiter for the thousands place, be it for English speaking countries or other from other countries with different dialects. In those cases, commas are used to denote decimal places, and use periods for indicating thousands, etc. People searching for information about the number 1 are not searching for "1.000", but are instead searching for "1". With that being said, using a period instead of a comma in the redirect, while it may not make much practical sense, means "a thousand" in other situations. Therefore, it would be an alternate name for the topic. Read more at Decimal separator#Digit grouping. Keep 1'000 for the same reason. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Nom comment. I'm persuaded by Utopes and Matthiaspaul and I think disambiguating for 1.000 might be slightly preferable to deletion. Keeping it targeted to 1000 (number) is not a good idea: outside of mathematics, 1.000 is a common way to indicate "1" known to a certain precision. If this is used as a search term at all, then this use is in my opinion at least as likely to be the one intended. Disambiguating 1'000 might be a good idea, but I'd want that to be done by someone confident in quote notation (I woudn't go by my own reading of that article to interpret the number). – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment 1.000 is used in Batting average (baseball) and is noted as "batting a thousand" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Utopes. signed, Rosguill talk 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the times that I have seen "1.000", the dot is a decimal point, and the number means "1", or "some value within the range 1±0.0005". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep exactly per Utopes. It's not typical for an American to see 1.000, but that's what a good redirect can help with. Less sure about 1'000 but it seems like a fine typo. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete 1.000. 1.000 is technically 1, not 1000. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the second – I have seen it used on some older calculator displays, and its meaning seems unambiguous. Neutral leaning disambiguate for the first – the above arguments mention several reasonable targets, and I'm not convinced that any one is a primary topic, but even those could be a stretch for a dab page, so keeping to the current target would be better than leaving uninformed readers with a redlink. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nick Bianco[edit]

This redirect was formerly a 2-entry disambiguation page but one entry was deleted and the page redirected. However, whilst the article Nicholas Bianco says that the subject was known as "Nicky", it doesn't say he was known as "Nick". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom The President Of Maldives 41 Years Ago[edit]

Seems like a useless redirect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, time-based redirects are not helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The first three words accurately point to the target; no more qualification is necessary. (FWIW, as of 2020 he was president 42, 41, 40, ... 14, 13, 12 years ago.) Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the 41 years ago part is removed. It has a decent number of pageviews. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

Elrond Hubbard[edit]

Delete: obscure and implausible -- BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:R3. I did not even find an article on Google that refers to him as Elrond. I was trying to see if it appeared in the urban dictionary or something. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, subject not known by this name. Elrond is an elf in The Lord of the Rings. R3 does not apply, as it only applies to recently created redirects and this one is from 2006. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Gray mare[edit]

Not mentioned in the article. The only relevant search result that I could find for "gray mare +spanking" is this Pinterest page, which suggests it was an instrument used to punish prisoners at a Colorado jail. I think that readers who search for this term are more likely to be looking for information about horses, or maybe the folk song The Old Gray Mare, than an obscure spanking implement, and would suggest deleting or retargeting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek: USS PAN[edit]

I don't understand this redirect. It doesn't seem to mean anything... TheAwesomeHwyh 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be a fan film, but I'm not sure. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not mention the redirect at all making the redirect pointless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reference to a planned film that was never made: [9]. There's no article, and rightly so; an article on this maybe-someday film would not pass WP:NFILM. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Khnum-Satet-Anuket[edit]

Slavery in the South and West[edit]

Old but problematic redirect. I get where this is coming from: slavery in the South and West contributed to the US Civil War. But the redirect says nothing about the US, and the target article doesn't address this topic directly. Perhaps Slavery in the United States is more suitable, but I'm leaning towards favoring deletion. BDD (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous. Even though Bristol and Glasgow were involved in the slave trade, there was little if any slavery in the South and West of England or in the South and West of Scotland. I don't think the South and West of Ireland were involved at all. Narky Blert (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • To paraphrase the Doctor, "Lots of countries have a South (and West)!" --BDD (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Stephen Potter's general-purpose interjection to deflate someone who knew what he was talking about – "But not in the South". Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as hopelessly ambiguous. The south and west of north Africa was at the centre of the European slave trade, and Europeans didn't introduce the concept of slavery to the region. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely ambiguous as to what it is referring to. Is it referring to the USA, Africa, Europe, the world in general, or something else? Also we should DAFT or BJAODN this, the ambiguity of this redirect always makes me chuckle when I think of it. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, the United States is not the only country where slavery occurred in the south and west. Hog Farm (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Chemdas Shlomo[edit]

Delete. This is redirecting to the wrong place. But the article for the correct person does not exist on English Wikipedia. See Talk:Chemdas Shlomo page for more information 205.156.136.229 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation / translation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep article was created! 165.225.39.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Close as moot, now that the redirect has been replaced by an article. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fast Track (company)[edit]

The target page does not mention the existence of the redirect target. It seems to have been acquired by it, but I don't think this is sufficient for a redirect. If we had a list of NLL acquisitions or such, it would be a different case, but since we don't... WP:ASTONISH and such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Great, your PROD got shot down and the article was redirected. And to make sure the article is properly destroyed, you now try to destroy the redirect. Another example of a WP:POINTy deletion nomination based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article. This was an improper redirection due to this company not being mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article. It had been around since 2008, and should go to WP:AFD for proper discussion, not WP:PROD/blank/RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Slavena (beer)[edit]

The topic (beer brand) is not mentioned in the target article at all. Presumably it is made by this brewery but is it sufficient to keep the redirect? I think it is enough to mention this fact at the Slavena disambig page, it is unlikely someone would enter this as a search term. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Send to AfD (this had been an article for 14 years until it got turned into a redirect just last month) or alternatively keep as a redirect but add a sourced mention to the target. – Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Add sourced mention in article or delete. Slavena was only mentioned in the categories so people using the redirect will get nothing. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Great, your PROD got shot down and the article was redirected. And to make sure the article is properly destroyed, you now try to destroy the redirect. Another example of a WP:POINTy deletion nomination based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article. This was an improper redirection due to this beer not being mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Restore article. Articles of doubtful notability which have been around since 2006 should go to WP:AFD, not go through a devious WP:PROD/blank/RFD sequence. Narky Blert (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Darmstädter Ferienkursen[edit]

A speedy nom I had to procedurally decline. I don't speak German, but User:Gerda Arendt does and I trust her, so when she calls it a wrong plural, I'm willing to take her at her word. —Cryptic 09:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. This redirect is grammatically not correct. The plural of "Kurs" is "Kurse", not "Kursen". By the time some reader would have typed the correct one he'd arrive at the (new) article Darmstädter Ferienkurse, to which if kept this should redirect. I thought getting rid of it was simpler ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC) · Adding that no article uses this redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per GA (Ich verstehe Deutsch). Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete (I'm German). Grimes2 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Among English speakers Kurse creates much confusion: I'm constantly fending off program-bio proofreaders who want to change it to either "Kursen" or more often "Kürse". Since I created the redirect the search box has gotten a lot smarter, as Gerda notes, but a query: is everybody using the same interface? Sparafucil (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    What's new is that there IS now an article with the correct plural. So before you would have a chance to enter the wrong last letter, my interface will have told me that there is an article. Someone unfamiliar with German Grammar will probably search in English, no? Let's make some more good English ones, such as Darmstadt Vacation Courses, Darmstadt Summer Courses, etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    We don't have redirects from the incorrect English plurals oxens and brethrens. I don't see why we need redirects from incorrect plurals in other languages. Errors in WP develop a life of their own and get perpetuated; as WP:BEFORE searches often show.
    I don't like unofficial translations of non-English titles, they're WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't mean any translation as article, only as redirects to help searching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    • This has averaged only a little over one hit a month for as long back as we have handy stats, so it doesn't look like your proofreaders have been looking for this here. —Cryptic 12:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Brown Americans[edit]

This redirect was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 11#Brown Americans. It was deleted per WP:G7, but then was recreated by the discussion nominator afterwards to point to its current target. I'm renominating because I don't think this redirect is helpful towards its new target and probably shouldn't exist at all. Steel1943 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep and add more information about use in the United States at the target. This Guardian piece (opinion, yes, but written by a professor of English) and this can both be used as sources.feminist (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, there is always something about the article that feels wierd. Probably the fact calling someone a Brown American in real life instead of an African American sounds more racist to me. Also, Brown (racial classification) does not just refer to African Americans, it refers to the racial term in general. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • It can certainly be used as a derogatory term by racists. However, some notable Americans self-describe themselves as brown Americans, and the target contains information about this usage. feminist (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, I don't see any reference to African Americans in this discussion or at the current target, and I would appreciate some elaboration on that point. Thanks, feminist (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

San jo[edit]

There are no examples of "San jo" at the target disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Could this be a plausible type for 'sanjo', especially given the language barrier? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. San Jo it short for San Jose according to the urban dictionary and this redirect has a decent number of pageviews. OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Urban Dictionary is the equivalent of original research. There needs to be a more specific reference than that. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Teachers (US TV series) episodes[edit]

The target does not disambiguate the redirect, though the redirect is ambiguous: List of Teachers (2006 TV series) episodes vs. List of Teachers (2016 TV series) episodes. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Techniques (Pokemon)[edit]

"Techniques" is not mentioned in the article, and I don't think (but I'm not sure) that "technique" hasd a special meaning in Pokemon that's different from the general use of the word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search term and according to this [[10]], this redirect only got 92 pageviews in the past 4 years.
Edit: If you change the dates to ever since July 19th 2016 like so [[11]], you will notice that this article only 46 pageviews in the last 3.5 years. That is roughly 13-14 views per year. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Tech2[edit]

There is no indication why this redirects here, and in real life the term is ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not sure if this term is that ambiguous. I'm seeing it mostly used in reference to electronic control systems in General Motors vehicles. I'm not sure what the proper target would be, though. There's an article at 'General Motors Local Area Network' that needs a lot of work that contains "Tech2" exactly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Tanner Fox[edit]

Non-notable child actor who only appeared in Charmed, but it does not meet WP:BIO. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability is irrelevant for redirects. That's why {{R from song}} and the like exist. However, in this case the information that an actor appeared in one episode of a series, and nothing more, is really too little to support a redirect.
Tanner Fox is a YouTuber with 9.68M subscribers, one of whose videos went viral with 57M views. Those numbers on their own don't make him notable, but they do make him a potential search target, and there is some detail in the one I propose. I very much doubt he is notable: I failed to find even one WP:RS source about him. The best of a bad lot is his IMDb entry. The child actor has this IMDb entry. Both entries mention stunt scooters, and I suspect that they're the same person. I've seen split filmographies on IMDb before; a practical illustration of why it's not RS. Narky Blert (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Narky's comments, but this is a case where a redirect inhibits Search, and the use of Search gives better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I dm'd the social media figure asking if he'd had a part in Charmed and he replied in the negative. Should I supply a picture of the exchange? - knoodelhed (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That would be horse's mouth evidence of the potential unreliability of IMDb; but I would not post it anywhere in WP without express permission. Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic tables[edit]

Delete per WP:R2. Sawol (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear if UnitedStatesian would vote differently now that it has been classified as a pandemic by WHO.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Now located at Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic templates. ComplexRational (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I recall that templates such as the target have similar cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace such as this one, and they have been kept at RFD on the past. Most such redirects target templates for railroad train maps. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Most inappropriate XNRs are to user, project, or draft space. The fact that it is located in template space is irrelevant if it helps readers (we also link categories directly in articles for this purpose). ComplexRational (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

Explicit sex[edit]

Not a synonym, and could even be misleading to readers. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I can get on board with pointing them at the same target, but would suggest Sexual content as a preferable target for both. Not all graphic sex is pornography. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Not a bad thought. That's not the greatest of articles though, so I'm going to think a bit more before supporting or opposing that. We'll need to add the sexually explicit redirect to this nomination if we want to change that target. I'll do that in the morning if nobody beats me to it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pornography per User:Thryduulf. If I am correct, there was at least one unsimulated scene at some point in the Twilight series. Do not know if that is true, but if it is, then that is a good example that unsimulated does not by default mean explicit. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am opposed pointing this at Pornography. Sexual education materials are an example of sexually explicit material that is not pornographic, as are many films (e.g. Blue Is the Warmest Colour or Antichrist (film) for extreme examples, although arguably any film rated R, 18+, NC-17 or an equivalent for sexual content has explicit sexual content that is not pornography) . signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok but Pornography is a better redirect than Unsimulated sex, that is what I am trying to say. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I came here for the "sexually explicit" redirect. Keep "sexually explicit" redirected to Pornography article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
'I came here for the "sexually explicit" redirect.' You may be on the wrong site for your *ahem* purposes? Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ribrianne[edit]

Not currently mentioned at the target, appears to have been remove in a March 3rd purge of the target article's less-notable entries. If it's not readded to the article, then this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. A Google search turned up nothing but this link and fansites. Simplify the Google search for the latter by deleting this unsourced NN mention. Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Elmhurst station (Amtrak)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, these are probably the names of stations that were planned along the route described at the target article. That having been said, without any mentions at the article, these redirects are of dubious utility and I would lean toward deleting them unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Gpedia[edit]

I'm a bit hesitant about approving a mainspace –> WP-space redirect that goes to a section that could easily be mistaken for the body of an actual article, and would thus lean toward deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Whiskey Hotel[edit]

Unsure about the validity of this redirect. Not mentioned in target article, and a Google search indicates this is the name of a level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 related to the White House, not mentioned at the COD Modern Warfare 2 page. It's a reference to the NATO phonetic alphabet, but the phrase could stand for anything abbreviated 'WH'. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete I can not think of a proper way to mention the Whiskey Hotel in the COD2 article so it can be retargeted. If someone does find a proper way, then retarget. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, per this, "whore" is an example of something abbreviated "WH" and euphemistically called a "whiskey hotel". There are also actual hotels - [12] and [13]. MB 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

2024 FIFA Futsal World Cup[edit]

The target contains zero information about both the 2024 and 2028 editions of the FIFA Futsal World Cup. Anybody using these redirects to find specific information on these events will not be left any wiser. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article does not mention 2024 or 2028 at all.

Edit: also WP:CRYSTAL. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Country- Poland[edit]

Delete due to the implausible formatting. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete implausible typo. People do not search up a country by starting with country.

Edit: According to this [[14]], ever since August 4th 2018, this redirect only got 56 pageviews. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Anyone this knows Poland is a country would just type Poland and if for some reason they didn’t they wouldnt have typed country in the first place.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This was created as an article about the country, which linked to the long existing Poland article, the first section was copied from this book about coins and the CIA World Factbook. I've deleted the non-redirect revisions as apparent copyright violations - while the World Factbook is public domain, the book on coins seems to be copyrighted. The redirect is not a likely search term, if someone wanted to make sure they got to the page about the country and not something else then Poland (country) would be the most plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hardball (formerly) with Chris Matthews[edit]

I guess I understand the thinking here, but it seems very unlikely that anyone would search for a title structured in this way. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete while I too can see the thinking here I simply can’t see people typing this trying to look up the show.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep According to this [[15]], this redirect gets at least 10 pageviews a day. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not the name of a TV show. The pageviews could easily be entirely from people like us browsing the article history rather than from casual browsers looking for information on the show. —Soap— 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just implausible. Who's going to start a search by typing "Hardball (formerly)"? Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wiki82esh/EREV[edit]

Implausible redirect left over from moving the page to standard article naming convention. — Searingjet (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as housekeeping, G6 candidate? Hog Farm (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Chile spiced mango[edit]

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

Kim Su-Ji (volleyball[edit]

Delete per implausible typos. Sawol (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. One would already have the real article be the top search result by the time you place the v. Also when I searched this redirect, I only got to it if I typed everything and I capitalized the j and even then, the redirect was not even a search result. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - we only need to account for likely user errors, not all possible errors. This one is not likely. Hog Farm (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Langflood[edit]

Alternate name for a Middle-earth river that doesn't have its own article. There is no edit history or attribution that needs to be preserved (it's always been a redirect), and this name is not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I too can find no other mention in WP. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rohan (Middle-earth)#Geography: it's the name used in Rohan for the great river Anduin. If there was one river that deserved an article, the Anduin would be it (maybe when I get a really quiet day) but for now the redirect will do fine. I've mentioned it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Super Bowl LIX[edit]

Why do we need a redirect for a planned event that won't occur until 2025? Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Hog Farm (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm seeing reliable-seeming news coverage, such as this article from CBS Sports, discussing the upcoming event in the context of changes in NFL expectations. I'm not sure if such material justifies having an article about something so far in the future, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. 2025 isn't too far into the future; the examples at WP:CRYSTAL talk about events occurring in the 2030s and 2040s. The Super Bowl is kind of a big deal in America, and a redirect is perfectly plausible, even if an article is not. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • If you read WP:CRYSTAL it says "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." We know nothing about this Super Bowl, and any speculation on a Super Bowl would be going to the one happening next year. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage an article to be created (like Super Bowl LVIII). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is only one passing mention of Super Bowl LIX in the target article, which is literally just a note that this is the earliest occasion the event could theoretically be held in a region that doesn't have (at the time) an NFL team. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate in 3 years. People are not likely to search up Super Bowl LIX yet because the only information that we have on it so far is that it is projected to happen in 2025. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is obviously going to be an article someday, unless the roof falls in. Encourage article creation, rather than present readers with a useless redirect with no useful information at the target. Narky Blert (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Parqet (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Leaderboard[edit]

Retarget to Leaderboard (disambiguation); I don't really think the golf video game is the primary topic at all here. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and swap per WP:MALPLACED. Narky Blert (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, good idea to swap. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget and swap the video game and dab per nom and Narky Blert. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    Leader Board is a good title for the video game per WP:DIFFCAPS; I see no reason to change that page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Not everybody will search up Leaderboard intending to search up Leader Board. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom, might be getting into WP:SNOW territory soon. Hog Farm (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

1995 NASCAR Nationwide Series[edit]

Series wasn't known as "Nationwide Series" until 2008; leaving this redirect merely causes confusion and anybody with knowledge of the subject would not link to the redirect. Also nominating 1995 NASCAR Nationwide Series. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Newer NASCAR fans will most likely search things up this way so I can imagine this being useful. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RHARMFUL and K5 (see here). There is extremely little benefit to be reaped from deleting this redirect. Keep in mind that wikilinks are almost certainly not the primary source of the redirect's viewage; the search bar exists. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have bundled two identical discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ocelot Creeper and J947. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects like this are for the benefit of readers who don't have knowledge of the subject. Narky Blert (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

March 11[edit]

Knightley filmography[edit]

Keira Knightley isn't known mononymously, so it is an awkward title that is not plausibly used to find her filmography. Additionally, it is ambiguous because Will Knightley is an actor. -- Tavix (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as not a mononym for the actress. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as the surname is ambiguous as to who Knightley is. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reino Unido[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Would Reino Unido be an appropriate redirect to United Kingdom? Per WP:RFOREIGN, it says that redirects should be kept if the name is the countries native name. This one is not. I don't see anywhere in this policy where this redirect is appropriate. Would this be a case for WP:IAR? Interstellarity (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. No affinity for the Spanish language. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. No affinity with the language. Hog Farm (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. We also have Regno Unito, Royaume Uni, Verenigd Koninkrijk, Vereinigtes Königreich, and possibly others. I think there may be sufficient connection with the name in major languages - European ones at least - to make an exception to WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Narky Blert: Is it possible we can nominate those if this closes as delete? Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Interstellarity: Certainly, and they should be bundled. The arguments will be identical. (My keep !vote is weakish.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Narky Blert: I have nominated them and put a link to this discussion in the rationale for all of them. Interstellarity (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
          • The bundling has been completed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have argued in the past that the United Kingdom has enough affinity with these languages to merit keeping, and will let that argument stand. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RLOTE and per @Hog Farm, SpicyMilkBoy, and Interstellarity:. In contrast to the Etats-Unis redirects below, we could literally be keeping foreign language redirects for every possible country (or former country) in the Eurozone. In reviewing the previous no consensus discussions, it's not clear why these redirects should be given special treatment. Doug Mehus T·C 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a good thing to have redirects from all official EU languages to the United Kingdom. I would argue that there has been (to use the correct tense now) affinity between those languages and the UK due to EU business taking place in all these languages. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I won't opine on the merits of this deletion proposal, but I find it amusing that a notice on the redirect page titled "Vereinigtes Königreich" says: "This is a redirect from a page name in German to a page name in an as yet undetermined language." Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm not too sure about this one. However, I find it rather compelling that the United Kingdom as a political entity has (up until Brexit became official) had extensive dealings with a wide variety of institutions using these languages. I also don't see any particular harm in retaining these redirects either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RLOTE. Wikipedia is not a place for non-english material unless it is very commonly used in english. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Chapter named after Mary[edit]

Unlikely and ambiguous search term, since it's both slightly ungrammatical and doesn't specify what book the chapter is in. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment While it's not technically a full chapter, the Magnificat would also be something that this could refer to. Hog Farm (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks to me like a plausible English-language search term for this surah. The book in question can only be the Koran. There is no chapter named after Mary in the New Testament; this is purely an Islamic concept. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there is the Gospel of Mary -- 70.51.46.77 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are a wide variety of individuals known as 'Mary' who have either written material, had material written about them, or have been involved with the writing of material in some other way. Multiple New Testament people named Mary exist in particular. Notability is a rather tricky question to say the least. I tend to think that deletion is the right call in these circumstances. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this is a particular title for a book or media, but this isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per ambiguous term. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868)[edit]

Procedural nomination: this was tagged for G6 CSD by Cards84664 with the justification because Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1869) already exists as a redirect with the correct years. Not to be confused with Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886). . Given that this redirect has a different target in addition to having different years listed, I thought it would be better to bring it to RfD rather than acting on the CSD. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep According to the article it links to, the CPA changed it's name in 1868, before becoming something different in 1869. Since it no longer bore the CPA name after the name change in 1868, it would be reasonable to give 1868 as the ending year. Hog Farm (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This redirect was created in 2009, long before the Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869) article was created in 2014. The CP&A (1848-1869) merged with the LS&MS Railway in 1869, not 1868. The LS&MS merged into the New York Central Railroad in 1914.
This is not to be confused with the Lake View and Collamer Railroad, which entered foreclosure in 1879 and changed its name to the Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886). There is a ten year gap between the operations of the (1848-1869) and the (1879-1886) railroads. the CP&A (1879-1886) merged into the Nickel Plate Road in 1886, which was owned by the LS&MS until 1914 and the NYC until 1916.
To summarize, Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1868) should be deleted, Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848-1869) should be kept as a redirect to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869), and Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1879-1886) should be kept as a redirect to Lake View and Collamer Railroad. Cards84664 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To respond to @Hog Farm:, 1869 is a gray area since the corporate structure of the CP&A was intact with their one year run as the Lake Shore Railway (1868–1869) (which to note, also redirects to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869)), before merging with Michigan Southern. Cards84664 20:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Note, if consensus is to keep, we could just change the redirect to Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula Railroad (1848–1869). Cards84664 20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GM Specialty Vehicles[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is now Fecotank (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonny David[edit]

These were all players for the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball program, but there really isn't a good place for a redirect. The current target either offers a bare mention or none at all. They all get better coverage in multiple season articles (eg: 2014–15 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 2015–16 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team, 2016–17 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team), so we should not be choosing one target over any of the others. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all These are basically just a bunch of non-notable players. Why have redirects at all? Rikster2 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Çakya-Mouni[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, virtually no pageview history. A Google scholar search suggests that this is a predominantly French spelling of Shakyamuni, which would mean that it qualifies for deletion per WP:RLOTE signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. The nom mentioned that it had the 3 of the most important things one should judge when nominating a redirect (pageviews, mentioning in target, and RLOTE). OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I will refrain from making this a !vote because I am not familiar with redirect policies and practices, but here's what I have to say. When I enter "cakya mouni" in the Wikipedia search box, it skips to the redirect without going through the search results page, I am guessing that means it would jump to the article if not for the RFD tag. So, at least the system doesn't care that this is French and not English. White people really had a problem with Nepali (South Asian?) names, so there are a zillion spellings for every word in books old and new. I see google books results for uses of the spelling "Cakya-Mouni". So, I think it does have merits. Should we delete this and create a purely English redirect just because the French couldn't write a "C" without having the ink droop ? I don't see the point. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no need for this to be mentioned explicitly in the target as it's a straightforward transliteration variant of Shakyamuni (IAST: śākyamuni). Ç has occasionally been used for Sanskrit ś even in English sources, but the use of ou for u makes it exclusively French. However, I don't see that as a reason for deletion, as the extensive scholarly literature on Buddhism in French provides ample affinity (in the sense of WP:RLOTE) between the language and the topic . – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Parahumans[edit]

While parahumans are a plot device in Worm, the term seems to be equally prominent in a handful of other articles, such as Transhuman Space, Marvelman, [[Law (comics) ]], Gary Tomlinson. In some cases "parahuman" appears to be a canonical name used in a fictional series, whereas in others it just seems to be used as a way to refer to not-quite-human individuals. Given that none of these articles have parahumans as a primary topic, I think that deletion and letting search results take care of it is probably the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Well, I do believe Parahumans is the title of the overall franchise as provided by its creator, including Worm and its follow-up Ward. Perhaps a new disambiguation page could be made instead linking to the pages named, with Parahumans (franchise) included as a redirect to Worm? MacCready (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess if it's actually the name of the series then it is primary and the redirect can stay? It's not clear from the article or that this is the case. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Rectified. MacCready (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the least-unlikely target for the redirect. There was previously an OR essay at this title. Worm is the one where "parahuman" is literally the term used - those others seem to be about the concept, not the specific word - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Egiptus[edit]

The name for Egypt in...Estonian? Delete per WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFFL, has no affiliation with Estonia. Hog Farm (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I think that covers the field. Narky Blert (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – This is coincidentally an Estonian word for Egypt. The author created this redirect as an alternative form of "Aegyptus", Latin word for Egypt. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Aegyptus as a plausible misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Growing a Greener World[edit]

The target article contains no information about the TV series Growing a Greener World. Suggest deleting redirect so that a separate article about the TV series can be requested for creation. 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprentice525 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Because the article mentions the show, either create a new article per nom, or create a new section on UNC-TV that gives a summary about the show itself. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep If there is enough notability to create a standalone article, it can be boldly done. Same with expanding the programming section at UNC-TV to a paragraph or list entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

God of Blood[edit]

Proposing that this be turned into a disambiguation page. Very strange that this currently targets Dwarf Fortress, which is only barely related to the subject. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Blood god redirects to Human sacrifice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tower cap[edit]

Random mushroom in a video game. Not a helpful redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Article does not even mention tower caps. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The only other thing I found was a WP:NN device for use in dispensing beer. Narky Blert (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The letters CAP never appear in that order unless the word is landscape (escapist and gamescape as well if you include the references). OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete but this could be repurposed to disambiguation to describe the roofs or "caps" of any kind of tower as with Tower mill / Windmill or Pfalzgrafenstein Castle. Searches for "tower capped" show wide usage. Also saw searches for the cap for a Beer tower. Wiktionary maybe? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, / The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, / The solemn temples, the great globe itself, / Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve / And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, / Leave not a rack behind. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Brown Americans[edit]

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

*Stupendous Man[edit]

Preceding asterisk is pointless. Also, possibly problematic because a leading asterisk is how the search bar brings up all mentions of a string. Appears to be a leftover from a page move in 2005. Hog Farm (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not part of the actual name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or remove the asterisk per nom.OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had apparently tried to fix this back in 2005 (I have no memory of that), but only created the redirect without the asterisk. I probably should have nominated this for deletion then, although I doubt I knew how to at the time. DavidConrad (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Land of Entrapment[edit]

The state's real nickname is "Land of Enchantment". While I can find usage of this term in places like Urban Dictionary, I can't find usage of this term in reliable sources. Delete. Hog Farm (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The article does not even mention entrapment in it. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as undiscussed neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a joke in poor taste. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entrapment is not mentioned at all like what the IP above said, but Land of Entrapment instead of Land of Enchantment makes this an obvious WP:RCOM. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Edit: If you look at the page history, the creator of the redirect used the words “colloquial humorous nickname“. I think that makes this redirect a G3.OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • No, G3 is only for bad faith creations. A widely used colloquial humours nickname would be a very useful redirect to have (and indeed we have them for many places, people and things), and the nominator has indicated that this is a nickname that is used for the target, so it is very likely that this redirect was created with the good faith aim of improving the encyclopaedia. I haven't looked yet to see whether it is or is not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I searched it up, the nickname exists. However it is not that well known yet so it feels like a neologism (not sure on this one) and the article does not mention the joke nickname at all, so it makes it sound like a joke redirect made up on the fly. OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
        • While it might sound like it, it obviously isn't. This is not an argument for keeping the redirect, it is simply an argument against speedy deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: this was NOT done in bad faith as I was aware of the nickname. IWI (chat) 07:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hugbunter[edit]

The user who created this article also created HugBunter which also redirects to the same article. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Edit: I changed this from HugBunter to Hugbunter because HugBunter is the actual username. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Hugbunter and leave HugBunter alone. Having 2 redirects where the only difference is that one letter is capitalized makes the other one useless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If HugBunter is kept, then Hugbunter should be kept as it helps capitalization AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added HugBunter to this nomination as either both should be kept or both should be deleted. I don't yet have an opinion which. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Catstodian[edit]

Catstodian is not even a real word. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, at least for now. Whatever you mean by "real word", whether something is or is not one is irrelevant - what matters is whether people use it to find the current target. It's not a word I'd come across before, but I'm seeing plenty of uses in two senses (a person who acts as a custodian of a cat, and a cat who acts as a custodian of a place or thing) so it's plausible enough. The redirect is too new to see if it's actually being used. It's not doing any harm existing, so we should leave it in place for a few months until we can get some evidence of utility or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know it is new, but the user who created this made other articles that were deleted because they were joke articles. With that, and a new redirect for a word that currently does not exist, I wanted to confirm this redirect was fine. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Who created a redirect is irrelevant, as is whether other redirects were kept or deleted. Also, the word does exist as demonstrated by the many uses of it I found in less than two minutes of looking. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a term that is not described at the target. Someone searching this to want to learn more about it will not be able to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism and not mentioned in news articles searches. Is it referring to any cat owner, a zookeeper of big cats, or a Cat behaviorist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Another option if mentioned could be Retarget to Cat lover culture which talks about cat puns such as purr-fect. https://parade.com/969366/parade/cat-puns/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If this will be retargeted to Cat lover culture, then that article should mention the word catstodian first. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article does not mention or describe the word. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Floof[edit]

There are a decent number of pageviews per day [[16]]. However, floof is not a real word (edit: argument I forgot to add listed below). 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that people so far are saying keep because of the number of pageviews. I do agree that the pageviews are good, but you should not just say the pageviews are good, therefore we should keep this (If this is always true, I could for example, make a new page called Black Poonther that redirects to Black Panther and then click on the redirect 2-5 times a day so that it seems like people are using it (If you can track the number of times a user goes onto a page they created please let me know on my talk page)). Since I made an additional argument, I would like for people to prove that they read that one as well when they say keep. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whether it is a "real word" (whatever that means, wikt:floof has citations going back to 2002 for this sense) is irrelevant. What matters is whether people are using this search term to find this target, and it's clear they are. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – no adequate reason is given for deletion. Decent amount of pageviews is a good sign to keep the redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok the 2 main reasons I nominated this were because it is not a real word (Good arguments against that so far) and the fact that the same user created redirects to Cheetah like Zoom floof, Speedy Danger Floof, Turbo floof, and Speedy floof that were deleted with the reason being that Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and for WP:NOTNEO. I wanted to make sure that this redirect is all right. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding the newly presented argument (other redirects were deleted) - please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each redirect is judged on its own merits, just because "Zoom floof" is not a plausible search term for "Cheetah" is irrelevant to whether "floof" should redirect to "fluff", regardless of who created it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Good argument with the WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do you think though that it could be deleted for WP:NOTNEO? 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • No, because (a) it's not a neologism (at least in the sense we mean it here), and (b) even if it was then the page views show that it is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep- The pageviews indicate that this is reasonable. Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of portmanteaus as listed there. It could potentially be a disambiguation given that some other articles use the term. On the portmanteaus list the terms either go to articles or wiktionary entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per AngusFLWOOF, but I can imagine many people accidentally typing this instead of "flood". 94.21.10.195 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

John. W. Brown[edit]

Implausible with the period after the first name, the extraneous period after the complete name makes this one pointless. Hog Farm (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, implausible misspelling which will help no-one. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm not too sure about this. Still, I can easily see somebody going '[First Name]. [Middle Initial]. [Surname]' when typing inattentively. It's not that implausible of a mistake. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. John Brown is more of a disambiguation page and it contains 5 people named John W. Brown and 2 ships named John W Brown. Makes it a useless redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the period after John. John W. Brown already exists as a redirect to the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:R from incorrect punctuation[edit]

Suggesting retarget to {{R from misspelling}} (as rejected by Paine Ellsworth). As we also have {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, a new Redirect categorisation template may alternatively be created. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep since this redirect, at the present time, has 108 transclusions. If that number becomes 0, consider me neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Since this template redirect has that many transclusions, actions with it would be harmful. Hog Farm (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support retargeting as creator. Although I'd say punctuation isn't always spelling, it looks like {{R from alternative spelling}} is also for alternative punctuation, so it's logical that {{R from misspelling}} should be for incorrect punctuation. M.Clay1 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to {{R from misspelling}}. Both are mistakes, whereas {{R from modification}} means a correct alternative version. Narky Blert (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. At some point, editors may want to turn this into an rcat if and when there are a significant number of incorrect punctuations. For now, these are unprintworthy error-type modifications of the targeted title. PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as is per Paine Ellesworth. These are not always spelling errors. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Magazine cover[edit]

It can mean either article (publishing) or a front cover of a magazine. It should be redirected to cover dabpage (or another target), converted to separate dabpage, or maybe remain as-is. However, the cover story dabpage also contains an entry that neither refers to nor implies a magazine itself, so the former two options would be more suitable for me. George Ho (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment kinda hard finding entries which would meet WP:DABMENTION: there's cover art, and maybe cover model. I really doubt "magazine cover" can mean "magazine cover story" in the first place; e.g. 99.9% of the Google hits for "wrote a magazine cover" disappear if you exclude "wrote a magazine cover story" [17]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cover art. From the available options (especially those listed under "Media covers" in cover), I'd say that cover art may be the most appropriate target; possibly with a redirect-disambiguation hatnote linking to cover story. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cover per nom. Cover art and cover model should be available to select from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Front cover[edit]

A front cover is the front portion of a published product or publication, like album cover or any other cover. I think it should be redirected to cover dabpage (or another target) converted to separate dabpage. Also, the redirect was piped as reference to anything else other than a book cover, like a cover story of a magazine. George Ho (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Cover per nom as it can be any media cover from books to albums to magazines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hillbilly Hack[edit]

Was redirected to this page in 2017 by an IP, a draft with this title does not seem to have ever existed. Pointless CNR. Hog Farm (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The article does not mention Hillbilly Hack at all. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The per IP above. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Moonshiners episodes as an episode title since both words are capitalized. Otherwise, it's not clear if it is a type of life hack, kludge or calling a person a wikt:hack. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: - I'm not sure if retargeting is a good solution, because of the draft prefix (especially since this appears to have never been a draft, and was created as a CNR). Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Hog Farm, actually it should have been CSD G13, not sent to RFD as it's super old and not made into an actual article with history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

ACW causes[edit]

See the dab page ACW, this wouldn't exclusively refer to this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Using the word cause makes it sound like it is talking about a virus or something else. ACW origins would be a better redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be plausibly ambiguous with a least five other entries on the ACW dab page, so would not be significantly better. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Thryduulf maybe Civil War origins. Is that better? OcelotCreeper (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC) but i
        • Not as a redirect to an article about the origins of any particular civil war - almost every country that has had a civil war refers to their own as just the "civil war" with qualification given to others. e.g. to me I would assume it was about the origins of the 1642–1651 conflicts, an American would read it as relating to the 1861-1865 war while a Syrian would most likely assume it was related to the ongoing conflict that started in 2011. It would work as (a redirect to) an article about the origins of civil wars in general. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
N.b., There are several incoming redirects that don't specify the US. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Looking over the disambiguation page, I don't know what else this could refer to. In my experience, "ACW" isn't a very common abbreviation for the American Civil War. But that could just be because I'm American, and we just say "Civil War". --BDD (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tan Huat[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D8. Incorrect random removal of the first syllable of the given name of either Tan Kim Huat or Tan Eng Huat, but not the correct name of anyone, and thus not suitable for disambiguation per WP:PTM. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Disambig It is a very plausible mistake for someone used to British or American naming customs to interpret "Tan Kim Haut" or "Tan Eng Haut" as firstname, middle name and surname - especially if the context in which they've seen or heard the name does not indicate they are Chinese names. We do a disservice to our readers by making it harder for them to find the article they are looking for in situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PTM. Either way, disambiguations should not be created solely based on error. Search results for Tan Huat prominently display both options should someone incorrectly assume the wrong naming custom. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Lingwa[edit]

As far as I can see, the target isn't know simply as Lingwa: the term here is only part of the name, as it is also part of other names, like Lingwa Maltija. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Dhar. It's an inhabited place, mentioned there. I've removed the bad link. Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Lingawa (I don't know if Lingwa is a valid alternative spelling or a typo) is only one of several hundred villages in Dhar www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/3536-kukshi-dhar-madhya-pradesh.html, and I see no reason why this should remain mentioned in that messy text at Dhar (at the very least, the village is in the district of Dhar, not the city that the article is about). There is another village, this time properly called Lingwa, in another part of the same state www.census2011.co.in/data/village/478357-lingwa-madhya-pradesh.html, but unsurprisingly, it's not mentioned in the article about the administrative unit it's part of. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is also the name of a watercourse in the DROC: d:Q22545211. Glades12 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

March 10[edit]

Sai oua[edit]

Nominating these on behalf of Isan1985, who has asserted that these terms are not equivalent and that the redirects should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • From looking at the issue a bit more closely myself, I think that we should probably restore the article at Lao sausage and then either improve it or take it to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

KLEA (defunct)[edit]

This redirect is at an ambiguous title; there is an equally-defunct KLEA (AM) (it and KLEA-FM were co-owned). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are no incoming links and there doesn't seem to be much point redirecting to the dab page at KLEA as an incomplete disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If we really need to keep (defunct) for all radio stations then redirect to disambiguation. Lots of call letters eventually refer to former stations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheryl Texiera[edit]

7 mentions in articles as a cast member, current redirect target says nothing about this person other than she was in the film. Better to delete this redirect than have it point to a useless target. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, these redirects are always terrible. This one is linked to from Encounter (2018 film) and I Married Who?, so anyone clicking on the link expecting an article on the actress will find themselves at a completely different film. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xezbeth. Redirects with no useful information in the target are useless. Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. None of the work she is strongly tied to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipediæ[edit]

Not plausible, nobody's gonna put the æ ligature there. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep – redirects like this are cheap n harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely because "Encyclopediæ" is not a likely misspelling of "Encyclopædia", especially since it requires a "æ" to be replaced with a "e" and an "a" to be replaced with a "æ". Steel1943 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, encyclopediæ is a plural form, not a misspelling. -- Tavix (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I thought the plural form would be "Encyclopædiæ" ... well, crud, withdraw my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • That would certainly make more sense to me as well—I wouldn't have believed it without an example given. That being said, it's still yet another step to get to Wikipediæ though... -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There aren't many keyboards/browsers that will automatically convert ae to æ or pedia to pædiæ. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete implausiblæ. Cabayi (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Billy Shakes[edit]

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

Mineral species[edit]

This redirect in its current state doesn't seem correct or helpful. With a title such as the one this redirect has, I would be expecting to find some sort of article defining what it means, not a list article which lists names of subjects by an organization. Something isn't right here ... in the redirect's present state, I'm thinking that unless there is a good retargeting option for the redirect which in some way identifies the subject of the redirect, it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. I thought that the idea of mineral taxonomy had been abandoned in the 18th century; see Linnaean taxonomy#Classification for minerals. I've posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Mineral species. Narky Blert (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although "mineral species" is described/defined in the second paragraph of the current redirect target (the list), it is not a good redirect target. A redirect to mineral would be an improvement. For the first 10 years of the redirect's existence, the list did not offer any explanation of mineral species, so I added the brief definition in 2018. The redirect does not seem helpful and I don't object to complete removal of the redirect. Its absence would probably encourage readers to look immediately at the mineral article anyway. (The Linnean classification hierarchy, which is still used in biology, is no longer used for minerals but the term "mineral species" is still used). GeoWriter (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Captive Women (1992 film)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, no clear sign of how they're connected from an internet search. Given that LionFosset made the redirect, I would suspect that this may have been a title used for a Philippines release of the film, but I can't actually find any evidence to support that. Delete unless justification provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Jimmz wales[edit]

Implausible set of typoes. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom not known as Jimmz AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'd previously tagged this one for G2 because the edit histories/summary indicated this was originally a test page. Hog Farm (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not that implausible for people who switch between QWERTY and QWERTZ keyboard layouts. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete odd typo.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – there is good reason to keep this redirect, as some people switch between QWERTY and QWERTZ keyboards when typing in different languages. Sometimes when I am typing in German using QWERTZ then start typing in English again but forget to switch back to QWERTY, I sometimes make such typos myself. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 09:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for Germans who can't buz QWERTY lazout. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth allowing more time to debate whether this is a plausible typo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Child Sexual Abuse Material[edit]

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

Byzatine empire[edit]

Nominated because of this redirect is a typo, but also because the editor who created it immediately recognized the error and blanked the page. Other editors reinstated it, whereas they should have deleted it as intended. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. It looks as if creator was trying to do a {{db-author}} but didn't know the procedure. Narky Blert (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. It's by no means implausible, and early enough in the string to be helpful to searchers (unlike, say, the hypothetical redirect Byzantine Empirt). Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. The Birla House is often misspelled Birla house. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible double typo. It says "Byzatine" as well as "empire". Anyone who types "Byzatine" in the search window will get "Byzantine Empire" with the correct spelling and capitalization as the top search result. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep "Bazatine" is a plausible spelling error, and search suggestions are only a thing for those people who use the internal search engine. There are a great many other ways to navigate Wikipedia, and some of them are case sensitive so the lowercase "e" version is also useful - not the everyone will know that it should be capitalised. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - The first one is a plausible spelling error, and not everyone uses the shift key when typing anyway, so lowercase words aren't implausible. Hog Farm (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Byzantine Empire show up as the 2nd item when you enter "By" in the search, and 1st item for "Byz". This is unnecessarily propagating and perpetuating a typo. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Rock[edit]

Confusing redirect: the target article (Lita Ford) does not mention the subject. 28bytes (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March 9[edit]

Template:User GoogleChrome2[edit]

This userbox was observed to be substanially similar to the target, and redirected by Pmsyyz back in 2012, but remained listed in the userbox gallery until the present day. I removed that link and updated all transclusions, so the redirect can safely be deleted. – voidxor 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Restore template and revert transclusion changes. The former content differs from the current target in that it also mentions Chromium (a slightly different piece of software), and although I doubt there is any relevant guideline, I'd say it is enough to keep the two separate. Alternatively we could merge the templates somehow, but I disagree with simply deleting this. Glades12 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    There's a long history here. Version "2" was created on 2011-06-27 and looked like this. At that time, the original looked like this. Not only do they look identical, but the links and categories are identical too. Inspecting the code, the only difference is that the "2" version dropped the transwiki links. There doesn't seem to be any justification for creating a second template at that time.
    Less than a year later, another user noticed that they were identical and merged them. That was all the way back in 2012. Nobody has complained since.
    As far as the Chromium issue, the original userbox did not mention Chromium. There was some back and forth circa 2010–2011 to do with Chrome's logo being non-free. It kept getting removed due to that. Ultimately, in this edit, the Chromium logo was substituted for the missing Chrome logo and the "or Chromium" text was ad hoc'ed into the userbox. But even by that time, there was an existing userbox for Chromium users, so no need to hijack the Chrome one. Other editors previously put back the Chrome logo, so I just reverted the text change as well. – voidxor 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Oh. Neutral then. Glades12 (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Pit droid[edit]

This specific fictional element has a few mentions in various articles but no actual coverage, with no mention at all in the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Droid (Star Wars).  Bait30  Talk? 23:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
    That article only mentions a specific named one, there's not enough coverage to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    Would it not fall under R from subtopic? I'm new to RfD so I'm still getting the hang of it.  Bait30  Talk? 08:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

More Music from Peter Gunn[edit]

Procedural listing; redirect was blanked by Patricia Tegtmeier. See User Talk:Drbogdan#"More Music from Peter Gunn" ≠ "The Music from Peter Gunn". The concern seems to be that while this is briefly mentioned at the target, it's a separate album that should stay a red link there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(fixing broken ping to Patricia Tegtmeier. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - as OA of the Redirect, whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS is *entirely* ok with me, no problem whatsoever - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The only other alternative I see is retargeting to Peter Gunn#Music, but the information there is so sparse, and just by the name of the album, it's unlikely readers wouldn't think to go straight to Peter Gunn if that's what they wanted. --BDD (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    Hadn't noticed the article is covering the second album too. That seems a bit iffy to me, but means the redirect is fine. --BDD (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, the target article covers both albums. Perhaps there should be a split, but unless that happens I'm fine with the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, tag as {{R from album}}, and possibly categorise it. The target contains useful information: the release details and the tracklisting. Unless More Music can be shown to independently pass WP:NALBUM, the redirect looks entirely appropriate. Compare what I did with the non-notable book Cut for Partners. Narky Blert (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Eþþa[edit]

Not an alternative spelling. According to Wiktionary, this is an alternative spelling of the old English word for "or". I don't know if that's enough to justify a wiktionary link, but I don't think there's any article on enWiki that this is a suitable redirect for. signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Espagueti[edit]

Nothing particularly Spanish about spaghetti. Delete per WP:RLOTE. Some of these appear to be misspellings that based on internet results are Spanish misspellings. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sexually suggestive content[edit]

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

Forever Love (1992 film)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target nor in any of its sources. Note as well that Backstreet Dreams is a 1990 film. I wasn't able to find any films by the name Forever Love searching online. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. The disambiguation page Forever Love lists four unrelated movies by that title (as well as The Color of Love, released under Forever Love in the United Kingdom and also unrelated), and describes Backstreet Dreams as having been released under the title Forever Love in the Philippines. However, there's no mention of that title in the article (or (the year of) its release in that country), and a search on Google and iMDB turned out to be fruitless for me. -Regards, SONIC678 04:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as not mentioned. If the film was titled Forever Love and was released to the Philippines in 1992 as a notable release, then it can be mentioned there as well as the disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Matsuoka Shirojirō[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. I tried finding various possible transcriptions of Shirojirō on the linked jaWiki article but wasn't able to find anything. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The name Shirojiro was mentioned on a previous edit of Republic of Ezo. I've never seen the name personally, couldn't find a specific citation for the name, and don't know of any other Matsuoka that had a leadership role at Ezo so assumed it must be an alternate name for Bankichi that I didn't know of so figured I should redirect instead of simply editing out in case there was something I missed. Matsujima (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The Japanese Wikipedia article on Matsuoka Bankichi says that he and Matsuoka Shirojiro (松岡四郎次郎) are different people who are frequently confused with each other. Printed sources also list the two men as holding different positions [18]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

29.9792458°E[edit]

Misleading redirect. This is half of a coordinate, but not a correct half. A Google search seems to indicate that 29.9792458 degrees north is part of the coordinates, but that the east coordinate is a different number. Could also refer to other places, given that this is a latitude/longitude line with only half of the coordinates. Hog Farm (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sher-e-Ban National Cricket Stadium[edit]

No reason to keep a wrongly spelled redirects. There is another redirect Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium which is often used. But this redirect is very unusual with a wrong spelling. So, requesting to deleted it. Sony R (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Redirecting from a misspelling is encouraged by WP:R#KEEP. Spike 'em (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep This naming convention is often confusing one but it will be handy to keep it. Abishe (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirecting from frequent misspelling is encouraged. This bizarre form was made once, by an IP editor in this unexplained and unhelpful edit. It is as unlikely to occur again as it is for users to accidentally type Wemb Stadium or Wrig Field. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Spike. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google exact-match search turned up a couple of dozen hits; none obviously WP:RS, but that makes it a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. The Google results are all Wikipedia mirrors (Wikivisually, Wikiwand, etc.) besides one obvious rehash [19] of an old vandalised version of our Soumya Sarkar article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RHARMFUL and K5. There is extremely little benefit to be reaped from deleting this redirect, and it is demonstrably helpful. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

List of stuff[edit]

Implausible, “stuff” isn't only lists of lists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Implausible and too vague to retarget to anything else. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, could conceivably refer to any list. "Stuff" is too vague. Hog Farm (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As I recall, my thinking in creating this was that it was a reasonably plausible search term for someone looking for an index of the topics covered by Wikipedia, and that List of lists of lists satisfies that goal to some extent. Basically Wikipedia:Contents, in other words (which might be a better target, aside from that it would be a CNR). Seems like it's better than nothing for that search. If consensus is to delete, though, I won't be heartbroken; I do see how those aren't quite the right target for this, and there isn't anything closer as far as I'm aware. Call it a weak keep, I guess? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

2w1[edit]

Not a commonly used abbreviation for this topic. Hog Farm (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete – very unlikely to be a search term. Senator2029 “Talk” 09:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search turned up a protein called 2W1; De Vere Field, an airfield at Cle Elum, Washington with ICAO code 2W1; a large amount of woo relating to enneagrams; and nothing about WWI at all. Narky Blert (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete kind of a typo since 2 is next to W, but not likely neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the type literally translates to two war one, nobody understands this synonym. Editoneer (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete′ the First World War isn’t abbreviated like this, we don’t have an article on the airfield, and while we do have an article about Enneagram of Personality it doesn’t mention the term either.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Killa City[edit]

Alternate name not mentioned in target article, could possibly be used to refer to multiple cities. Hog Farm (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Symcor[edit]

This is mentioned in the target, but note that Toronto-Dominion Bank is only one of three owners of Symcor, the largest back office cheque clearing service provider in Canada. The other owners include Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Montreal, so, per WP:XY, we have multiple potential targets here. Symcor may be notable in its own right, and I would like to add this to my list of articles to write, so per WP:XY and WP:R#D10, I'm proposing that we delete this redirect to encourage article creation. Doug Mehus T·C 02:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep for now since it describes the other three banks in that paragraph. Add {{R with possibilities}} and feel free to start up a draft or boldly edit it into an actual stub article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams (change)[edit]

Delete, the (change) at the end makes it seem like an unlikely search term. -Regards, SONIC678 05:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as housekeeping intermediate term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams -[edit]

Is the dash at the end necessary? -Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nonsubstantive punctuation at the end of a redirect is not plausible. Hog Farm (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - not part of the video game title stylization, looks like a typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fishspinner[edit]

Infrequently used WP:NEOLOGISM. Was kept in 2005 in a discussion with little involvement, (see [[20]]), but I'm not getting the uses for hurricanes on Google that the discussion mentions - It's all about fishing lures. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete – very unlikely search term. No matter how 'hip' someone is with modern slang, their not going to type fishspinner when looking for info on hurricanes. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. My first thought was Spinnerbait, often called just "a spinner". Narky Blert (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

European Imperialism[edit]

The above two have different lettering cases but also different targets, which would befuddle readers. Regardless of different capitalization, the two should redirect to the same target. Either "list of former European colonies", "Colonial empire", or somewhere if possible. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree that they should both point to the same target. I suggest retarget to History of colonialism, whose lede mentions the five main European imperial powers. Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In some academic circles European imperialism is a valid and long standing course title and subject area, to redirect to a list seems odd, colonial empire or history of colonialism seems a lesser evil. JarrahTree 09:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of colonialism. Polyamorph (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Imperialism, as the term can be used to refer to international dynamics other than outright colonialism. signed, Rosguill talk 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Annoying Thing[edit]

Like The Most Annoying Thing in the Universe, this could refer to practically anything. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per the first sentence of the article, an alternative name for the subject of the target article is "The Annoying Thing". The variation of that without the word "The" (in other words, the nominated redirect) is a plausible modification of that search term. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Shuttle-A[edit]

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

Algorithmic design[edit]

Should this redirect target Algorithm#Design, where the topic exists as a subsection; Generative design, which is a similar topic; or should the redirect be formed into an article? I should mention that Algorithm design is already a redirect and is tagged with "R from merge", from which the content at "Algorithm#Design" is derived from. [21] Utopes (talk / cont) 00:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - algorithmic design does mean generative design, the process of (artistic) design using an algorithm; it by that token does NOT mean the design of algorithms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am the one who submitted the redirect request. While I, too, believe that algorithmic design is practically equivalent to generative design [22] and semantically distinct from algorithm design, I could imagine a compromise in the form of a disambiguation page that links to algorithm design as well as generative design. — Batrachocottus (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

HDMMX (instruction set)[edit]

I've found nothing to indicate that Intel's MMX was ever called "HDMMX"; what "HDMMX" I've found on the Intertubes has nothing to do with MMX, so this redirect should perhaps be deleted. Guy Harris (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can find no evidence that the instruction set was ever known by this, or that it was ever offered in HD. Hog Farm (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

March 8[edit]

Enkyklopaideia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Enkyklopaideia

Encyclopedia of silliness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Encyclopedia of silliness

Blocking minority[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Pronunciation of X[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Pronunciation of X

How to pronounce English[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#How to pronounce English

/°C[edit]

The coefficient of thermal expansion can be expressed as the reciprocal of temperature, but as far as I can see – and I'm no physicist or engineer – so can any other temperature-dependent coefficient. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Reciprocal temperature makes as much sense as reciprocal pressure, acceleration, or longitude; i.e. none at all. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Jon Perrin[edit]

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

The Windy Apple[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, 14 pageviews in 2019 [23], no real utility. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak-ish keep due to the low-ish pageviews. No other English Wikipedia articles mention The Windy Apple and, upon doing some Google searches, I can see it's the nickname for the fictional capital city of the state in which the Simpson family. As well, from what I can tell, no other places are called The Windy Apple, so there's little to no ambiguity or confusion per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY. Thus, it's harmless and, potentially, modestly useful. I would add {{R from fictional location}}, {{R without mention}}, {{R to section}}, and, possibly, {{R for convenience}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere so should not be a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Xpert Engine On[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - what User:Rosguill said. Teh Google doesn't seem to find much about "Xpert Engine On". Guy Harris (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Intelligent Technology and Electronics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Intelligent Technology and Electronics

Hitler dead[edit]

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

Deſign[edit]

No reason a reader would search for the term with a long s. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see a good reason for this either. Biogeographist (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - No clear reason to insert the nonstandard character, not helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thiſ iſ not the eighteenth century. Narky Blert (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shurely shome mishtake! Designergene (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Shak-spere[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Shak-spere

Generation V[edit]

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

Yup yup yup[edit]

Has other uses beyond that in The Land Before Time, delete as ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment (was Keep) Yes, it's got potential other users, but any extant to English Wikipedia? Even still, it's one of the most memorable lines in the film, not unlike, "life's like a box of chocolates...you never know what yer gonna get," is to Forrest Gump, so I think it's potentially at least a weak-ish primary topic here. If not, I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR here. Doug Mehus T·C 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that the phrase isn't even worthy of a sourced mentioned, let alone discussion in the current article. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't really care about sourcing for redirects, though, as long as it's plausible and there are no other targets extant to existing English Wikipedia articles. I can confirm there are offline sources which do confirm this line from the film, but equally important, the primary source (i.e., the film) is just as valid and can be used, per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I can, with certainty, say that offline reliable sources do exist for this phrasing. Moreover, we have primary reliable sources, which confirm this phrasing. I would support a retargeting there, but given that it's mentioned in the first film, I think refining the existing target to where Ducky is mentioned is better. We could add {{R from misspelling}} and then create a second redirect for Yep yep yep for the correct spelling. Or, alternatively, retarget yup yup yup to the suggested target by the IP editor, and yep yep yep to either of the two targets. Doug Mehus T·C 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question for 59.149.124.29, what exactly is "marginal" about Syracuse.com? It's a born-digital, hyper-local news publication owned by Advance Local LLC, itself part of Advance Digital, that is itself owned by Condé Nast owner Advance Publications. I have no concerns about its editorial reliability whatsoever. Doug Mehus T·C 16:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dmehus: My exact words were "marginal-looking". In particular, the "byline" on the Syracuse.com piece is the name of a zoo rather than the name of a journalist, which made it look like a reprint of a press release or native advertising or something similar. I remain neutral between deletion and retargetting. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
59.149.124.29 Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Doug Mehus T·C 02:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep at its current location (2nd choice) with rcats {{R to article without mention}}, {{R from catchphrase}}, {{R from alternative spelling}}, and {{R from fictional element}}. No real reason for deletion here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Even though I am an IP currently, I would like to say Delete because people who have watched the film are the only people who would get the reference and even then, they are very very unlikely to search up The Land Before Time this way. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, too vague. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Customs and Immigration[edit]

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts for this redirect were that "Customs and Immigration", especially in that order, is most likely to refer to the process at airports. Customs, a related topic, is another possibility, with government agencies being a less likely intended search target. as far as I can tell, the only government agency with an article on Wikipedia that includes "Customs and Immigration" in their names in that order is States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. Confusingly, the previous target for this redirect, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), doesn't actually conduct customs checks at borders, a task left to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ICE is mostly known for carrying out deportations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I question the value of this redirect. Immigration and customs doesn't exist, even though in my experience that's the usual order of processing. Land and sea routes are also important, notably in Europe. One role of the UK Border Force is to check for illegal immigrants, so that checking the contents of a lorry is a combined customs and immigration operation. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My comments are similar to the above in that I would prefer to see Customs and immigration, with Customs and Immigration using {{R from other capitalisation}}, target to a generic article on foreign affairs, immigration, customs, immigration and customs enforcement, and the like. Being targeted to the article on international airports is not the greatest. I think it's fine, for now, but without prejudice to a bold retarget to a more appropriate target. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Narky Blert, Dmehus, how would you feel about Customs as a potential target? signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Glancing at the sections of the article, it does focus on immigration enforcement and customs, import tariffs, and so forth, but it's actually not that great. I'd actually prefer to see Customs move to Customs and immigration, with Customs continuing as a redirect to the section on Customs. Or, instead of a redirect, Customs would then become a dab page for border-related "Customs" and topics related to social and political customs and traditions. Or, alternatively, if editors want to have a separate article on more immigration-related topics, then dab-ifying Customs and immigration. As to the order of the title, in Canada, as well as the United States, "customs" usually comes first and, alphabetically, this seems to make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill: two separate things, so WP:XY. We may be lacking an article which describes even in general terms what can be involved in crossing a frontier, with or without goods. I can remember both currency controls on leaving and duty-free goods on reentering UK. (That redirect is very poor. All purchases made outside UK were subject to customs duty, up to a personal limit of something like 200 cigs and a bottle of booze. At one time, there was even a limit on the amount of money you could bring into UK on returning.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment. There is history, even recent history, in this. Immigration and customs aren't always about just routinely showing your papers to and opening your suitcase for a couple of bored officials. (1) In 1959, we went on a family holiday to northern Spain. The second or third day there, my father was up early in the morning with a pair of binoculars, birdwatching, when he encountered a policeman. To avoid possible trouble, he volunteered in broken Spanish an explanation of what he was doing; but the policeman just smiled, and said, We know. (2) In 1964, I went on a school trip to Russia. One of my friends had an orange, and the customs officer made him peel it. Why? So that he couldn't sell it on the black market. (3) In 1968, my parents were in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded. They were advised to, and did, leave in a hurry. Neither the Czechoslovak nor the Austrian border guards had the slightest interest in their papers or in what they might be carrying; nor in those of anyone else crossing in the same direction. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Customs which in its lead mentions migration/immigration authorities and has a link to Immigration. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY unless a retargeting option is found where this redirect is a proper name of something. Oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration since redirecting to either one causes the WP:XY issue, since one target is inexplicably preferred over the other in such circumstances. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Although no action was recommended by the nominator, and I am fine with closing this as no action if the previous participants @Prisencolin, Rosguill, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, and Steel1943: are as it's not a targeted to a terribly bad location, but it's also not great either. Like Narky and Steel1943, I would be oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration per the above, and am more or less neutral on deletion. I think, ultimately, what we need here, if action is to occur, is for Customs and immigration to either be converted to either of (1) (a) a disambiguation page or (b) a broad-concept article or, in absence of consensus on how such a page would look, deleted or kept as is without prejudice (as is the case with all deletion discussions) to recreation in the future when suitable alternatives emerge. What do you guys think? Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I'd support a WP:BCA, which need only be very short; effectively, an annotated list of targets. I would not support a DAB, because there are no full title matches. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Narky Blert Yeah, I concur with your arguments re: the partial title matches. Any idea what one might look like? If you get a chance to draft it below the target, we can work on it. I think we should relist this to suss this idea out. Doug Mehus T·C 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to further evaluate a brief broad-concept article as an alternative to deletion or, as was desired as an alternative by most of the participants in the discussion, to take no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • delete (or...) per Steel1943. Plus, the search engine is good enough to find both "Customs" and "Immigration" - Nabla (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
PS: I think deleting is still better than "border control" (although it is better than "customs" or "emmigration") - Nabla (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Border control, which covers both topics. If "customs and immigration" (or "customs, immigration and quarantine") are combined together, they usually refer to the processes in the context of border control. feminist (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral on either delete-ing, per Steel1943 below, or retarget-ing to Border control, per feminist above. It's not necessarily ideal in that I'm not sure that article is appropriately titled, but I would concur that both aspects are broadly discussed. I would add {{R to related topic}}, {{R from synonym}} (broadly speaking, it is), {{R for convenience}}, and any other rcats as may be appropriate. I would also encourage feminist to participate in some other close discussions—their participation is invaluable and welcome! Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to discuss the retarget option identified by feminist, which discusses both customs and immigration broadly speaking. Pinging the previous participants via {{ping}} @Prisencolin, Rosguill, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, Steel1943, and Nabla: in order to update them on the potential target identified by feminist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I oppose retarget to Border control since there could still be someone looking up this term looking to find specific information about Customs and Immigration combined. Best to just delete this redirect to help readers the most. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    I maintain my support for targeting Border control, because when "customs and immigration" is used as a combined concept it is usually in reference to border control (including at international airports, seaports, train stations etc.). Readers rarely combine the two concepts in any other context. feminist (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Noting Steel1943's convincing counter-argument to retargeting to border control, I thought the suggestion was better than any of the other targets identified, but I was never completely satisfied with that target. I now think either retargeting per feminist or deletion per Steel1943 is probably best here, to encourage article, including a broad concept article, creation. What I'm only opposed to is to retargeting to Customs or Immigration. Revised and amended. Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget border control where readers may find relevant information about customs and immigration being enforced in the same place. Deryck C. 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close oldest log day. Any uninvolved discussion closer can close this at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rome II Conference[edit]

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

Google Generation[edit]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete because apparently, these titles are ambiguous and could also refer to the subject in Generation Alpha. Comment: All sources I found seem to state that the subject of the redirects refers to anyone born on or after 1993, which applies to both part of Generation Z and all of Generation Alpha. Per the fact that the sources also do not seem to mention Generation Z or Generation Alpha, the subject of these redirects seem to be a standalone and possibly notable subject, so deleting these per WP:REDLINK also applies. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This title is rather confusing as it can refer to the Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, especially the latter two. I entered this phrase into multiple search engines and found that it is not that common a name. Moreover, it can be used to refer to people from multiple demographic cohorts, say 18 to 34, meaning both most the Millennials and the first wave of Generation Z, as in this article. Nerd271 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Leptosomatidae[edit]

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

Fooking, Austria[edit]

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

Future of English[edit]

This redirect says almost nothing about English's future (nor its future tense for that matter). The Italian one says literally nothing about it. I would suggest deletion for both. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note I've gone ahead and added Future of French for the same reason as the originally nominated redirects. I'm inclined to leave the Portuguese ones alone, if only because there's actually a section discussing projected future trends in the distribution of Portuguese. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how I had missed that section for French. I'm fine with keeping that redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Fwiw, there are corresponding sections for the other languages too: Italian conjugation#The future and Future tense#English. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all as ambiguous. But even if we ignored the meaning intended by their creator and instead decided that they should only refer to the future tense of the respective languages, then they're still problematic. They use one of the many ways of descriptively referring to the topic (Future tense in French, Future in French, French future, etc.), and I see no reason why we should have any of them. We just don't have redirects at such a low level of granularity for individual grammars. – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

List of portugese butterflies[edit]

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

Portugese india[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Portugese india

Beisebol[edit]

WP:FOREIGN, nothing particularly Portuguese about baseball. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Arithmetique[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Arithmetique

Barycentriq[edit]

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

Arithmetiq[edit]

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

Langue anglaise[edit]

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

Stabbery (Shrek)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Stabbery (Shrek)

Northern Ireland women's national under-17 football team[edit]

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

Espanolo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Espanolo

Neo Patwa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Neo Patwa

Shooting at the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Globasa[edit]

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

Concours D'Elegance[edit]

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

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle[edit]

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

I see, said the blind man[edit]

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

Windows Express[edit]

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

The Battles (or Invasion) of Naboo[edit]

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

R2-A6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#R2-A6

'Gnostic'[edit]

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

March 7[edit]

Vigennial[edit]

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

Congo (Democratic Rep)[edit]

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

St Fort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#St Fort

Diversitycomm[edit]

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

China men's national under-21 volleyball team[edit]

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

Standard Galactic Grid[edit]

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

Time elemental[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Time elemental

Giant mantis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Giant mantis

25 Henry VIII.[edit]

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

Triennial[edit]

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

Radium anniversary[edit]

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

Queen's University Current Events[edit]

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

Queen's School of Computing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#Queen's School of Computing

LetterATopics/Aaron[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#LetterATopics/Aaron

X.520[edit]

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

Porn++[edit]

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

TMNT Nickelodeon[edit]

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

Smirch[edit]

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

Fish Belly[edit]

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

Slavs in Germany[edit]

I don't think that this is an appropriate redirect, as while the redirect title could conceivably cover all Slavic speakers that have ever lived in Germany (see Slavs), the target article is exclusively about historical Slavic tribes living in or near the Holy Roman Empire (even calling the region Germany is ahistorical). I would suggest deletion, but am open to proposals to disambiguate or target this redirect elsewhere. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment. There's a fair bit of history in that idea, and I would stay out of it. Breslau was a German-speaking city for a thousand years, but that name is now a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Noting your modest amendment to your !vote, thanks for the clarification, Narky. It does make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 01:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to discuss the last minute retarget suggestion if desired
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rosguill to settle the relisting. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. This is, as stated above, immensely vague. I've no prejudice against creating a future article, but I'm not sure what it'd look like either. In the meantime, deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD: The section is extensive, but has plenty of information about Slavs in Germany, including the aforementioned Sorbs, so it's a great target. A section need not be exclusively about Slavs in Germany to be the right target for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to generate a stronger consensus following the late contributions of Amorymeltzer et al. While a handful of participants have notionally !voted "delete," despite this being not a vote, two of those including Kusma and myself have nothing against a disambiguation page or other options. As well, ~Amory and BDD have discussed retargeting two retarget options. Finally, Kusma and ~Amory had both been expecting Sorbs to be the retarget suggestion. Thus, there is not yet a particularly strong consensus in either direction. One more week should be sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time. It looks clear that there is not support for the status quo ... but as the song sort of goes: Should it stay (retargeted to Demographics of Germany), or should it go (delete)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, upon giving this more thought, I think that going to 'demographics of Germany' does seem reasonable enough for right now. I still believe that the ideal would be deletion followed by the creation of a kind of broad concept article, but in the meantime, yes, a retarget appears to be right. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't really give a strong vote in my nom statement, but at this point I think retarget to Demographics of Germany is better than deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 5[edit]

Latine[edit]

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

F. W. Benson[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

San jo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#San jo

List of Teachers (US TV series) episodes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#List of Teachers (US TV series) episodes

Boucherie[edit]

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

Sara Havener[edit]

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

Techniques (Pokemon)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#Techniques (Pokemon)

Technique (song)[edit]

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

Tech2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#Tech2

Redirects to Cary Grant[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep Cary grant and Archibald alec leach, retarget Carygrant to a relevant list of minor planets, delete the rest.

Tanner Fox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#Tanner Fox

2020 coronavirus pandemic tables[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#2020 coronavirus pandemic tables

Population centre[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget Population centre to Center of population

Chris Burns (radio host)[edit]

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

Irma Gonzalez[edit]

I cannot discern a primary topic from the either the wrestler or the judge. They both get similar pageviews, but the page with less views is a GAN. Disambiguation could is possible, but there are still only two entries, so it will have to be clear that there is no primary topic. I don't intend for there to be a large discussion here, as long as there is consensus on where these redirects should target. However, there is no reason for some of these to target one article while the others target another. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate page at Irma Gonzalez as nom. The spellings are near identical that I don't see a reason to split the targets of these redirects in question. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per nom. J947 (c), at 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Irma Elsa Gonzalez seems to not have the "á" in her name? or maybe I'm just not looking at this right?? ALso Irma Gonzales is an alternate spelling for the wrestler, is it also used in sources for Irma Elsa Gonzalez? I genuinely do not know. couldn't this be solved with a hat note one each of them? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The wrestler is Méxican. In Spanish, it's written González. However, the judge is from United States, in English, people don't use accents like in Spanish, even if it's a Spanish last name, Like Colby Lopez or Pamela Martinez. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK. I've already checked the links and none goes to the wrong article.
Irma González is not ambiguous. The judge is never referred to that way. We use this approach all the time, e.g. Gúa vs Gua vs Guà; canape vs. canapé; borek vs börek. There's no reason to redirect that to a DAB page.
SMALLDETAILS actually says " The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages..." (my emphasis). There aren't currently hatnotes because there's no ambiguity in the article titles, only the redirect "Irma Gonzalez". 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
"It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK." A counsel of perfection; but, many editors simply do not do so. That's why there's currently a backlog of 10,611 known bad links in WP:TDD (in June 2010, there were 961,936 [sic]). That's why I and other editors have to my knowledge fixed 100+ bad incoming links to each of multiple WP:PTOPICs. That's why another editor and I about a year ago ran a project to fix a subset of bad links to surname pages: we found and fixed about 1,500; it took us a fortnight. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but there's all kinds of ways editors can make bad links and surprises. We're still expected to follow policy and guidelines that have consensus.
When it comes to titles that vary only by diacritical marks, the consensus seems to be that those marks are enough to disambiguate. So, while it may be the case that "Irma Gonzalez" is ambiguous, it is not the case that "Irma González" is ambiguous. Were it so, then Gúa and Guà (to repeat the example I gave earlier) would be ambiguous and should target the disambiguation page at Gua.
Now, if we hatnote, some readers get the right article first time and the others are one click away. If we disambiguate and redirect both Gonzalez and González there, no readers get any article the first time and all readers are one click away. We've made the reader experience worse for all readers, and better for none. These are not big articles, so bandwidth is not an issue. It's just a better reader experience to hatnote them rather than disambiguate. We shouldn't visit editors' past sins onto readers. We've also potentially broken external links. Simply reversing the redirects and hatnoting avoids all of that.
The basic question is: does the misspelling of "Irma González" (without the diacritical mark) count towards WP:NOPRIMARY? 85.238.91.68 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote to Irma Elsa Gonzalez, without prejudice. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I'm of the opinion that we should disambiguate at the base title by default whenever there is significant disagreement about the primary topic. Deryck C. 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Deryck Chan. This will establish a baseline which will make it much easier to gauge primary topic in the future. I strongly reject the SMALLDETAILS argument and the obviously false argument that foreign-language diacritics are never used in English. I have a coworker who uses one in a Spanish name, and he's a native-born American with no accent. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, Reverse, and Retarget, respectively. The accentless redirects should target the judge and the wrestler's page should be titled "Irma González". Personally, I find the WP:SMALLDETAIL a naturally elegant way to disambiguate. Anyone looking for the other topic will be presented with a hatnote, but ~most will find the topic they want right away without having to fumble through a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

10 Inch Nails[edit]

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

Mindeb[edit]

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

Kalapani (1988 film)[edit]

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

Langflood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 12#Langflood

End Rape on Campus[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=946089084"