Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Administrator instructions

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

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you 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.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "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]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
  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]

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.
  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]

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{}}}
  • 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]

September 17[edit]

Queen Daughter[edit]

There are loads of daughters of queens. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elisabeth I of Scotland[edit]

Made-up name. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Athletics (track & field)[edit]

This historic redirect should be deleted as the two topics of the sport of athletics and track and field are now separate, thus this redirect is creating problematic links. SFB 21:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Arth[edit]

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and since no proof has been provided on what else this could mean. That, and where is there a consensus-formed "standard wikiproject redirects convention"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talkcontribs) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:AFRO[edit]

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

By "standard wikiproject redirects convention" I mean redirects starting with WP... or Wikiproject... to WikiProject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

GIMP 2.10.6[edit]

I just want to check in on something because there is no policy about this as far as I know:
These three redirects go to a relevant section within GIMP version history, however because they are all {{R from file metadata link}} shouldn't we be sending them to GIMP instead? This way when you click on the link it redirects you to information on the general software being used, and not the specific version.
Pretty much all the remaining redirects here all target to the main article instead of the version history article.
I therefore propose that these three redirects to do so as well and be subsequently retargeted to GIMP.MJLTalk 04:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • There was a similar discussion recently where I wondered if we could change the way the file metadata is processed. I see your point, though humans using these search terms probably already know what GIMP is and are looking for more specific information. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Someone using these redirects (whether by searching or via file metadata) are most likely looking for information on these specific versions. If someone then wants more information on GIMP in general, it is a lot easier to "go wide" and find the general information on GIMP over the vice versa. Accordingly, I would also support retargeting the rest to their respective version sections. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Regardless of how linking in file metadata is set up, this type of redirect serves primarily readers and it will serve them best by taking them to the most relevant article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jugoslawia[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED, Polish is not a relevant language to Yugoslavia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pocket Aces (Company)[edit]

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

LILLIPUTIAN HITCHER[edit]

Delete per WP:RCAPS UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a particularly notable episode title, especially in all caps. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Heartfu(e)l[edit]

No mention of this at target. Cannot find alternative target. FWIW, Creator is a blocked account with a history of redirect creations which have since been deleted. Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned as a track on this album. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 149[edit]

Nominate for deletion. Journalist generated name. No such car existed, it was an expected name of an expected successor. YBSOne (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment, Google searches: No results found for site:alfaromeo.it "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:alfaromeo.com "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:fiatgroup.com "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:fiatspa.com "alfa romeo 149". YBSOne (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Coterminuous U.S.[edit]

"Coterminous" is valid synonym of "conterminous" (used in the article's lead); however, "coterminuous" is not a word and, therefore, not useful for linking. On its own, both the misspelling "coterminuous" and the abbreviation "U.S." are plausible; however, when taken together, and considering that anyone who starts to type in the redirect title will see either Coterminous U.S. or Coterminous United States, the redirect becomes an implausible search term, too (only 7 pageviews in 2018). -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely typo, but consider adding "coterminus" as a valid alternative spelling. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

LH4L[edit]

Either this isn't mentioned in the article at all or it was removed some time after the redirect was created. I have no idea what this redirect refers to in the first place, and cannot find another suitable target. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sneaker Kids[edit]

Not mentioned on target, nor on two released albums. Assume it is a rumoured track before WP:RS available. Richhoncho (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Mike Diver[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, not clear what the relationship is. Most internet search results for Mike Diver (as well as the prior AfD) appear to be about a journalist most recently known for working at Vice. I would suggest deletion unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - That makes sense to me. I can see that I created the redirect about a month ago, but for the life of me I can't remember why. There are several internal links that might date back to 2011 or earlier and which might implicate Reasons for not deleting #4 (RFND4), but I wonder whether the gap between 2016 and 2019 (i.e. between the date the original article was deleted and the date of the recreation of the redirect) might count against the point of RFND4. Perhaps it might be reasonable to ping GamerPro64, PeterTheFourth, Johnpacklambert, and RB88public as they were all involved one way or another with the previous AFD. -Thibbs (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with this assessment. GamerPro64 02:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The person was primarily a music journalist, so maybe he had some connection to this music production company, somehow. However that seems still on the unlikely side, and I do not know of any. More likely it is some other Mike Diver. However with no mention in the article it is hard to justify the redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tree crop[edit]

Delete. "Tree crop" is not mentioned in the article and is a potentially ambiguous term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete or Disambiguate Forestry is strongly associated with managing trees for timber production. Tree crop is a term usually associated with trees managed for uses other than timber production (edible fruits, rubber, etc.). Orchard is more relevant to the concept of tree crops than forestry, but is not the only article on Wikipedia associated with tree crops (Plantation is another). Tree crop was a disambiguation page from 2010 until 2019. Plantdrew (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo 169[edit]

Nominate for deletion. No such car existed, it was an expected name and an expected car. Redirect remained as a remnant of a deleted article. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, the name existed even if the car never got made. Clarity is not helped by someone having removed with whole explanation of the 169 history from the target without explanation and shortly after the merger, but that's hardly the fault of the redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, the name was invented by expecting journalists, no concept car was made only a lot of media-created renderings, 169 name has nothing to do with 166 existing car. Same goes for the expected succesor for the 147 the Alfa Romeo 149. It is just a fake name that circulated in the press. YBSOne (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, Google searches: Your search - site:fiatgroup.com "alfa romeo 169" - did not match any documents. No results found for site:fiatspa.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.it "alfa romeo 169". YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels vs Bret Hart: WWE's Greatest Rivalries[edit]

it looks like this is the title of a book or film, but there is nothing about it in the Montreal Screwjob article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There should be. It's the name of a documentary film which focuses on Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and the Monstreal Screwjob. Also, just so you know, I'm planing on turning most these redirects into articles one day.★Trekker (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob (WWE Confidential)[edit]

unnecessary redirect, there is already a link to WWE Confidential in the Montreal Screwjob article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's common to redirect episode names to the series they're from, this does not break any kind of rule so I don't see how deleting these are helpful to anyone.★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Montreal Screwjob (Dark Side of the Ring)[edit]

unnecessary redirect, there is already a link to Dark Side of the Ring in the Montreal Screwjob article Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's common to redirect episode names to the series they're from, this does not break any kind of rule so I don't see how deleting these are helpful to anyone.★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Ernestine (Sesame Street)[edit]

The character Ernestine is no longer mentioned in List of Sesame Street Muppets. Consequently, I recommend that the redirect be deleted. Alternatively, the content related to this character could be restored to the target page if it can be reliably sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete I was the one who removed the entry, since there are no longer sources that support her existence. I agree that the redirect can be restored when reliable sources are found. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sasago Madono[edit]

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

Bad Photographs[edit]

No mention of 'Bad Photographs' at target page, probably a rumored track title which was no more than that. Redirect no longer serves a purpose. I couldn't find a better target. Richhoncho (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete this wasn't included in the final track listing. By the way, I've merged all of these redirect listings into one thread to avoid duplication. Hope you don't mind. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the Katy Perry Wiki "Bad Photographs" was eventually reworked into "Miss You More", a track on Witness. I don't know if that can be reliably sourced though. PC78 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I don't believe I suggested that it was a good reference, in fact I think I suggested that it wasn't. I merely posted that link as an FYI because it hints at a potential retarget. There's certainly no need to start citing guidelines. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My bad; I somehow got the wrong impression of your comment at first. It now seems clearer after re-reading that what you really meant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries. Perry did mention "Bad Photographs" in this LA Times interview but it doesn't seem to be in the context of any forthcoming album. Inclined to say delete as it's pretty trivial and there doesn't seem to be a suitable place for it. PC78 (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed; the Prism album hadn't even been announced yet at the time that was published, so it at best was just speculated to be there and never was included after the album's name and release date were given. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 10:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Stay the Night (EP)[edit]

There is a song at the target, but no EP, therefore the redirect is misleading Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, "Stay the Night" is the title of a song, not an EP. No other plausible targets. PC78 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Stay the Night (Zedd song), which includes information about a digital EP release of the same name. - Eureka Lott 14:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Good call, I missed that one. Retarget per above. PC78 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. I will redirect as per above now. Thanks guys. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NETANYAHU, YONATAN[edit]

All caps, surname before name, redirect with no page linking to it. Carnby (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • If you think Netanyahu, Yonatan would be a useful redirect, simply create it! There is no need to tie it's fate to a completely separate title. In fact, I have done just that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS, the subject has no affinity to this capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete per Tavix. My comment still stands for the newly created redirect. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I would have just moved it to the correct capitalization. Note that the earliest edit history reflects an attempt to create an article, just at the wrong title. bd2412 T 03:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need for an all caps redirect. PC78 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

Brono[edit]

A putative Norse god listed in some reference works but apparently an invention or a misunderstanding. The page redirected to once listed Brono but no longer does. Haukur (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Broglio, Switzerland as {{R from former name}}. It may need disambiguation in the future if we get an article about the Brono Region of Ghana, or anyone by the surname. But for now I think it's the only Brono we've got. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    That makes sense! Haukur (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 59.149.124.29. Plausible alternative to deletion. Geolodus (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 59.149.124.29. Good catch! --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

New California Republic[edit]

No mention of this fictional element following this. Pinging @Drmies: who carried the edit. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, as it stands there is no warrant for this redirect. It is possible that it might point to some reasonable decent verified text in the main article, but none of that was there. Thanks FoxyGrampa, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. RFDs take one week (seven days) so it takes a while for other people to decide whether or not to keep the redirect. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Geirrendour[edit]

A purported name of a Norse giant listed in some old reference works as a father of the nine waves. But the name is spurious and presumably either invented or grounded in some misunderstanding. It looks kind of like a corrupt version of Geirröðr although that isn't the father of the waves. In any case, a long time ago I turned this into a redirect to a page which included pseudo-entities like this. But it no longer includes Geirrendour so the redirect is no longer fitting and should probably be deleted. Haukur (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Case Farms[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, most ghits appear to be for a North Carolina poultry company that is almost certainly notable per [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I doubt that Case Farms is notable; an Internet search shows rather little in-depth coverage of the company besides the subject's website and the article linked by the nominator. For that reason, I currently oppose converting this redirect to an article, but am otherwise neutral. Geolodus (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarification on lack of coverage: besides the New Yorker article, there's one from ProPublica that a few other sources wrote off of, but that's about it. To add, the New Yorker wrote their article in collaboration with ProPublica (see [2]). Two or three reliable sources is not enough for an independent Wikipedia article. Geolodus (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Imperial feminism[edit]

Imperial feminism and state feminism are sufficiently different topics that this redirect is unhelpful and potentially confusing, and adding discussion of the former to an article on the latter would not be appropriate. Whereas state feminism refers to "feminism created or approved by the government of a state or nation", imperial feminism carries a specific association with imperialism, and (as far as I can tell from a brief survey of the literature) also Eurocentrism, a white saviour mentality and the exclusion of intersectional perspectives. "Imperial feminism" is mentioned in a handful of other articles, but none strike me as more suitable targets. The tenth point of WP:RDEL also applies, as imperial feminism is certainly notable in its own right. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep until converted into an article. From what you say, it sounds like adding an article would be a good idea, probably with cross-linking, even if it's a stub. However, it sounds like an international extension of state feminism, so the redirect seems appropriate until the article is created. Thus, the seventh point of WP:RKEEP applies. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability policy[edit]

A cross namespace redirect, which are generally frowned upon due to the potential for confusion. I'm bringing this here to get a broader consensus on whether this should be kept. Note that while this may be useful for new editors unfamiliar with the structure of Wikipedia, it also is strictly incorrect, as WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. As such I would lean toward this being inappropriate, although I would likely weakly support keeping Wikipedia's notability guideline or Wikipedia's notability rules. Note also that there is a related mainspace article, Notability in the English Wikipedia, which may be a better target, and as of right now I would support redirecting to there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Csw2014[edit]

An internet suggestion suggests that this acronym is not in broad use, most results are about UN conventions or academic conferences. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • delete per below. -- /Alex/21 07:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Bs2015[edit]

Based on internet search results, this doesn't appear to have a particularly strong association with the current target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The redirect doesn't make sense to me either. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bs2015" = "Blindspot 2015"? I dunno, but fully agree with a delete -- /Alex/21 06:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Tailsko[edit]

This is, as far as I can tell, the name of a non-notable fan version of the character who is not (and definitely should not be) mentioned in the target article, and an implausible typo of the same non-notable fan-character. Both were created by the same user who has a habit of creating improper and trolling redirects. Neither are appropriate as redirects to the character page, and should be deleted.Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thalapathi (2017 film)[edit]

Atlee has not directed any film named Thalapathi. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • In that case, I would suggest adding a mention of this working title to the article on Mersal (though probably with another source than that news article, which doesn't state this very clearly) and retargeting the redirect to said article. Geolodus (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

September 12[edit]

Vietnamese language (dialect)[edit]

An implausible title that features two mutually exclusive disambiguators. WP:XY also applies: judging from the history, there has been some disagreement about whether it should target Vietnamese language or Tây Bồi Pidgin French. – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wherever it targets, the title is self-contradictory and thus incorrect. ComplexRational (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP 4 and WP:Redirects are cheap. This redirect has been around since 2005 and it is possible there are links to it that we may break if it is deleted which is why I retargeted it and categorized it instead of sending it to RFD. It isn't actively harmful and while it doesn't make a ton of sense, it's obviously referring to some linguistic classification of Vietnamese and isn't much different from other {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} or {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If we want to respect potential external links, then it would have been more sensible to keep the redirect pointing to the article it used to target from 2005 until earlier today, wouldn't it? – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Respecting external links does not mean redirects are immutable, it means that someone following a link to Wikipedia should get article content rather than a blank page. Nothing about the redirect title or target makes it obvious why the reader was redirected to Tây Bồi Pidgin French, but it is very obvious that someone typing this string is interested in some information on the varieties of Vietnamese. Re Kwami below, it's difficult to know whether links outside Wikipedia exist, and it has received traffic since 2015 that suggests it is being linked to from somewhere. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I think you're conflating two separate sets of considerations here. Plausibility is one of them, and if you see the redirect as plausible then yes, your retargeting to Vietnamese language was the best option. Now, if someone links to wikipedia, they intend a particular article, and unless you assume people would create a link without looking where that link goes (for such a bizarre title, that's difficult to imagine), the intended article is precisely the link has always pointed to, and not any random page on wikipedia. If we're not going to respect the intended targets of potential external links, then it doesn't make sense to respect external links at all; if anything, landing on a non-existent page is less misleading that landing on the wrong page. As for the page views, I don't think 30 of them a year is indicative of meaningful use. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no incoming links to worry about, but there is an odd page history. Is it worth saving? If so, the article should be moved to a more accurate RD name and the current title deleted. The original content was
Vietnamese French is a dialect of French spoken in Vietnam. 
with the 'Varieties of the French language' nav box at the bottom -- but also with 'Vietnamese French' in the 'See also' section! So this was incoherent back in its 2005 conception and IMO the history isn't worth saving. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BITEy[edit]

No real purpose when one can simply write [[WP:BITE]]y Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Plausible redirect. Lmatt (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The redirect is in use as I used it in an edit summary. [3] Lmatt (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Note: Lmatt is the creator of WP:BITEy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with having multiple ways to write this, especially because not everyone knows that [[WP:BITE]]y is a valid format. In fact, I didn't know this until recently. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you were unaware that any text which appears immediately after the right-hand double square brackets of a Wikilink is automatically appended to the link as it apprears, so that one can write "[[Dog]]s" which will appear as "Dogs" but still link to Dog, and one doesn't have to write "[[Dog|Dogs]]"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

AMF Records[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search would suggest that AMF Records is the name of an independent label based in London with no relationship to UMG. I would suggest deletion unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DSFL[edit]

An internet search would not suggest that this initialism primarily refers to the current target. I would suggest either redirecting to Ford Motor Company#Ford Motor Company Fund, as their Driving Skills for Life program is the top Google result for DSFL, disambiguation, or deletion (as none of the potential targets appear to be strongly associated with this initialism in usage in RS). signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

obviously, being the user who created this redirect, i don't agree with this change. in incognito mode, for me, the venue is the top hit. Playground Twist (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

List of new dinosaurs[edit]

Retarget to List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series? "New" is undefined at the target, so this redirect may be confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The original revision of this page was a half-baked attempt at listing all known dinosaur and non-dinosaur "groups", so in that context the title doesn't even make sense. But if we assume "new" to mean recent discoveries then the target article is of no help, nor does there appear to be any suitable alternative. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Extinct There is no evidence that listing "new" dinosaurs has a well-defined scope. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nom. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 10:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lines (punishment)[edit]

Target article does not explain what writing lines is. Unless content is added (re-added?) to the article on school discipline, the redirects would seem illogical. Note that Writing lines also redirects to School discipline, and should share in whatever action is taken about this. Magic9mushroom (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to think that this should be covered at the target article, lines is acommon form of school punishment (or at least it was in my day). Writing lines used to be an article but it was completely unsourced and it doesn't look like anything was merged. Google books search suggests that there is usable material on the subject. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:REDLINK. At this point, someone either needs to add content or we need to give up on it for now. I don't see this discussion going anywhere else. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore this version of Writing lines, and retarget all variant redirects to it (this redirect, Lines (Punishment), and School lines) . It had a sourcing problem, but was a decent start at the topic, and I feel it would be easier to get that article up to snuff than starting from scratch. -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close a sizable (46 discussions!) log page. Per WP:RELIST, this may be closed at anytime.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to writing lines per Tavix; I've restored the article, cut it down, and started rewriting it based on the sources mentioned in PC78's comment. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

List of awesome dinosaurs[edit]

Apparently this redirect was created because "dinosaurs are inherently awesome", but that is subjective and not encyclopedic. Either way, the target does not distinguish the awesomeness of dinosaurs. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Make it extinct. Dinosaurs are certainly awesome but this redirect is just a bit of unnecessary silliness. I'm surprised it survived a previous RfD. PC78 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Pretty much everything could qualify as "awesome". Unencyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsuitable humor in the main namespace. Not helpful for navigating the encyclopedia. Geolodus (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nom. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 10:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Palestine mountain gazelle[edit]

The target has nothing to do with this redirect. This gazelle is distributed in the whole Middle East and I didn't find any scholar mention of it as Palestine Gazelle Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete This is part of the latest disruption by SD to create disruption in articles that have nothing to do with the IP conflict. The mountain gazelle is called the mountain gazelle and there is one article that calls it "Palestine Gazelle" and he is trying to now label that, when IUCN and others don't. We should not be changing articles, and certainly not leads for disruptive purposed. But certainly this is not a redirect that people would use to get to this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep "Palestine mountain gazelle" is a real name for Mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella): The Guardian:[4], The Davidson Institute of Science Education: [5], Antelopes: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia p 100 :

[6], Ramat Handaiv: [7], Bovids of the World p 129 [8]. This shows that the name is well established and used in a long list of reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep without commenting on whether it's an appropriate inclusion in the target's lead, if this is a name that has been used in RS to refer to the animal then a redirect is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rosguill. It is unclear from the sources whether this is simply an alternate common name for the mountain gazelle or a subspecies (or the two possibilities are being conflated), but in either case a redirect to mountain gazelle is appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Saint Frances E.[edit]

Song from an album that is only mentioned in a discography, so redirect is no more than a dead end. Richhoncho (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

One-party participatory democracy[edit]

This redirect is not very helpful. Many people will be looking for one-party state, so it should be deleted to give search results instead. Zerach (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Dilshad Karim Elita[edit]

The article makes no mention of "Dilshad" anywhere. Possibly unsourced. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

One third (fraction)[edit]

Unhelpful, no usage history. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:3.1415926535897932384626433832795[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted per CSD G7 by Alexf.

September 11[edit]

EPIPE[edit]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bina Ganguly[edit]

Based on a prior revision of this redirect (then an article), Bina Ganguly is Subhashree Ganguly's mother. However, she is not mentioned at the target and there is no indication that this is information that can be verified in a reliable source. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Mentioned here, for example, but it doesn't seem like her mother has any notability so I don't see any valid reason for a redirect. Delete. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why bother with it? Not specifically wrong. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I have now added a mention of her from PC78's mentioned source at the target. I doubt the utility of this redirect, but it is no longer problematic enough to justify deletion. If the mention is removed for any reason, I won't object to deleting the redirect as a BLP violation. Geolodus (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre wash[edit]

I don't think this redirect is appropriate. The term does not occur in the article. Leyo 12:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Many washing machines have a pre wash cycle, and a Google search mostly brings up refernces to washing mashines. Do you think it's confusing with something else? It's not strictly necessaary for it to be mentioned in the article, though perhaps smething should be added. PC78 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Teri Meri Kahaani (song)[edit]

The page is about a song. But no details available. Only leaving a redirect. So. it is baseless to keep the redirect. Rather it should be deleted. Sony R (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore article and take it to AfD. This was a bold redirect of a fairly substantial and sourced article, I don't think its fate should be decided at RfD. PC78 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
One can have copyvios that are "substantial and sourced". One can have myths posed as truths and be "substantial and sourced". And then there is our case of passing mentions and un-encyclopedic trivia that can be "substantial and sourced". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel Special (Janet Jackson song)[edit]

Delete. There is no such song by Janet Jackson as "Feel Special", and it is not mentioned at the target article anyway. I originally moved this from Feel Special to its current location, as the South Korean girl group Twice have an EP and song of this name now. After seeing a user saying in the summary that "no such song exists", I searched it and found no evidence it existed as well. It appears to have been created in 2007 with no sources and only a vague claim that it was a song from Jackson's then-upcoming album. Ss112 07:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Figurines(band)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to no space between the title and the disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Clockspider[edit]

Similar to the redirects previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 28#Clock Spider, but this one happened to be overlooked. The rationale is the same: there's no discussion of the "clock spider" images in the target article, and probably never will be. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete per the reasons stated in the previous rfd 193.210.227.241 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure meme/ unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Enclava[edit]

Delete (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action. StopCorruption1 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe that if the Verdis article was deleted, Enclava should be deleted aswell. Both have the same notability.
  • Delete, not mentioned in the target page. 193.210.227.241 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 10[edit]

Template:Holophoner Award[edit]

Unused redirect of a barnstar(?) Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Leftover from a page move in 2007. How do you know it isn't being used? Seems pretty harmless. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Caña (Chilean slang)[edit]

WP:R#DELETE #8, the word "caña" is never used in the article Hangover. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tony Malloy[edit]

Not sure what to do about these redirects. They all point to the same disambiguation page. I couldn't find a suitable target for them, and I don't think it's useful to link to a page which disambiguates a different spelling from the one a user types in. Feedback on what to do with these redirects would be appreciated. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thai Empire[edit]

This page originally targeted "Siam Empire", and about two months later a bot fixed a double redirect to Thailand. I'm not sure that Thai Empire should be targeting Thailand. Since Thailand's borders have been stable for a while now, they don't have any colonies or exclaves, and their monarch is formally a king (not an emperor), searchers will be probably not be looking for modern Thailand. I am not sure where it should go, however.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Siam Empire really should also be discussed here, since there has been no clear consensus on the preferred target. I've tagged it and added it to the discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Torontogirl.jpg.JPG[edit]

Housekeeping. CptViraj (📧) 03:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited[edit]

As a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#How chocolate is made, this target doesn't answer this vague inquiry. It discusses how to copyedit, but not what "these pages" are nor addressing why certain pages haven't been copyedited. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Wikipedia:Why aren't these pages copy-edited, Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited, and probably the rest as {{R with old history}}. Some of these redirects go back to 2002/2004, and I pretty much think anything that old is worth saving (especially projectspace redirects like this). They're less useful as navigational tools, but they show the weird twists and turns Wikipedia took to get off the ground like it eventually did. –MJLTalk 07:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, I just found out something immediately after finishing that comment. @Tavix: They're from a merge that took place ages ago. I therefore suggest we Restore this version (removing the Merge tag of course though) and Mark historical. Then we can Retarget the remaining pages to that one. Would that work? –MJLTalk 07:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Restore etc. per MJL's suggestion above. -- The Anome (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, a restoration would resolve my concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as there is some interesting page history in those redirects. The restore makes sense. Angela (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Z (record label)[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. Previously created as an unsourced article about a record label supposedly founded by Zendaya, it would appear that Zendaya has spent her career signed to Hollywood Records and Republic Records. Zendaya discography doesn't suggest that she has an independent label either. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The article refered to a collaboration with Labrinth and a soundtrack album. The Amazon listing for the song says ℗ 2019 Simco Limited and Z, under exclusive license to Hollywood Records/Republic Records, so it looks legit but it's not the easiest thing to Google. PC78 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yuri Tambovtsev[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, appears to be a non-notable professor who works or worked at Novosibirsk State University. Was converted from article to redirect on G5 grounds by Krakkos as the article was created by a sock and received nothing but minor copy edits from other editors. I think it would have been better to just actually delete with a G5, as there's nothing that a reader would learn from the redirection, and we don't have a convention for redirecting non-notable professors to universities the way we do for albums and musicians. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Inglés[edit]

Spanish translation of English, delete per WP:FORRED. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 14:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Ingles (disambiguation), which lists two Inglés entries as well as Ingles (surname) (which covers the Inglés surname too), and also has {{wiktionary}} links for anyone who was looking for a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per 59.149.124.29. Seems reasonable. Geolodus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:F&D[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox[edit]

Part of an incomplete move. Magioladitis (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. {{R from move}} template page subpage/redirect. The redirect's parent page should be nominated, not this one (though I would state "keep" to that page as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Christ[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Animation Project[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is an unambiguous redirect in the "Template:" namespace causing no harm with existing. Steel1943 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:AnimationProject[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is an unambiguous redirect in the "Template:" namespace causing no harm with existing. Steel1943 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:GTP[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:GTA TF Announcements[edit]

Unused and unnecessary now Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:MaMTalk[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I support removing this obsolete template. I created it when it was needed, and supported making it a redirect (and fixed its destination) when the original project it pointed to went defunct. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

September 9[edit]

Deaf supremacy[edit]

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

Iraq and Syria[edit]

Not a helpful redirect. I'd suggest either redirecting to Iraq–Syria relations or deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ("not ... helpful"). This redirect was recently created, has no incoming links, and no meaningful traffic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Iraq–Syria relations, sounds like a plausible search term. 85.76.1.1 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Iraq–Syria relations, sounds more plausible than the current target. –Sonicwave talk 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The retarget is fine, but I think we're better off deleting this entirely as it's a non-notable search term. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Iraq-Syria relations. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sakuga[edit]

Per Wiktionary, sakuga is: In Japanese animation (anime), a sequence of noticeably higher quality, used to highlight a particularly important scene. It's not mentioned at the target or at Anime, nor is it likely appropriate to add mention of it to either of the articles. It's possible that the term is notable enough to merit its own article, but as a redirect it is not helpful and I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not useful as redirect to Animation article. Could instead possibly be a part of Anime article text. --Janke | Talk 23:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Either soft redirect to wiktionary:Sakuga, or retarget and mention in Anime. I'm not sure if the term really is notable enough for it's own page. 85.76.1.1 (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Sakuga Group. Seems to be the closest match although it can be argued that it's just a partial title match. I'm fine with delete as well. --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect or retarget per 86.76.1.1. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Corendon Airlines Flight 733[edit]

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

Template:Bus&Econ[edit]

Unused for a long time now. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I was asked to comment here. redirects are WP:CHEAP. What is this standard convention that this is violating?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. No transclusions and minimal pageviews (14 during 2018). WikiProject templates should be clearly named, and this one is named like a content template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I agree with TonyTheTiger above that redirects are cheap, and so I'm not opposed to keeping. But I do think Black Falcon's point that it's not titled in a way that makes it obviously a WikiProject banner is problematic (I was confused by "bus", thinking at first that it referred to the vehicle). There's no transclusions, and external links to a redirected template are unlikely, so I see no harm in deleting. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Venu Isc[edit]

I don't see the value of this redirect. Nobody looking for Venu, a cinematographer, is likely to know that he is a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers and search for those postnominals. Also, it would be ISC not Isc. I have gone through and swapped out links to Venu Isc with Venu (cinematographer). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Only 10 news articles exist at Google News with this wording:
One says "...for Venu Isc-directed Carbon." This is arguably poor journalism, since Isc is not his name. It would be the equivalent of calling the American film director "Tarantino Dga"
One appears only in an article's comment section.[13]
Two articles (one is a repeat) call him "Venu(ISC)" [14][15][16], i.e. not the wording used in the redirect.
Two only have the wording as article keywords[17] i.e. he is not referred to that way in the article
Two articles that have this wording are just republishing the signatories on an appeal,[18][19] are just the republishing of the signatories on an appeal document Meaning he would have signed his own name that way.
Same deal with the interview example, where he probably noted that the ISC should be added, because that's what his society requires him to do. But it is not a pairing that is in wide usage, making it a pretty improbable redirect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
So those are post-nominals for their occupation Indian_cinematographers#The_Indian_Society_of_Cinematographers like Casting Society of America or Producers Guild of America. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Animated Feature Film[edit]

Pointless unused redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Move without redirect to List of animated feature film and mark as {{R from singular}} AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are literally thousands of these, and it makes no sense to discuss them on a one-off basis as opposed to making a mass nomination that would treat them consistently. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Move as per AngusWOOF. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. Feel free to create List of animated feature film if you think it would be useful, but there's no need to tie its fate to this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done, and now the redirect is up and running in a shorter amount of time than waiting for this RfD to resolve. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Move per AngusWOOF. This redirect has no value or utility, and while it is true that there are thousands of these, that's no reason to tie this one's fate to the others. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Triphosphene[edit]

Triphosphene is a different chemical, which would have formula P3F3, that is not mentioned anywhere except in {{Hydrides by group}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would leave the redirect alone. People have troubles with spelling of organophosphorus compounds (e.g. phosphorus vs phosphorous and phosphine, phosphane, and phosphene). Phosphene might mean (to some people) the phosphorus equivalent to a nitrene, i.e. a phosphinidine. Diphosphenes are a well developed class RP=PR. Triphosphenes, well are just very obscure, as a quick check of ChemAbs shows (6 refs, mostly theory). Wikipedia chemistry is well managed project, so we dont need a lot of help. We allow mispellings to help guide imperfect readers to more likely target articles, like triphosphane (also pretty obscure). Those are my views. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; while "Triphosphene" may have a similar spelling to "Triphosphane", these are entirely different chemicals and people searching for the target of "Triphosphene" are surely to be extremely confused to realize that they both point towards the same subject. This redirect meets WP:R#DELETE entry 2, for the redirect and the destination are two completely different compounds, and could cause confusion from those searching for information about Triphosphene. While the redirect's creator certainly acted in good faith here, the redirect is not fit for Wikipedia, regardless of the notability of the compound of Triphosphene. Utopes (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Skeletron Prime[edit]

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

Battle of south guangxi[edit]

Delete as a redirect that is useless for linking as well as searching (absent the redirect, the search engine would automatically direct the search to the article). The redirect has no incoming links (except links related to this RfD) and no useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, the capitalization of the redirect is incorrect, so this will never be useful for linking. 85.76.0.232 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RCAPS, plausible miscapitalization. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:RCAPS notes that the search function is generally case-insensitive, meaning that the redirect is not useful for searching. That leaves just linking, and WP:RCAPS is based on the premise that a "aid[s] linking from other articles and external sites". While you raise a good point for redirects from alternative capitalizations in general, this particular redirect should not, and has not (as far as I can tell), ever been linked. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RCAPS and LaundryPizza03. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Eminem – Soul Intent[edit]

Poorly formatted redirects that are unlikely to be used. There already exists two redirects: Soul Intent (band) and Soul Intent (group). Both show up instantly in the search engine. The last redirect Soul intent (band) is a incorrectly capitalized duplicate of Soul Intent (band) Mysticair667537 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

September 8[edit]

Nu-goth[edit]

Delete. Article it links to has no reference to this term, does not seem to be interchangeable so it should not be interpreted this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • It is used by mainstream sources like Fuse [20] and Billboard [21]. These redirects were created because we had sources using the terms on highly visible articles and we were linking to these articles. I was going to add to the articles have been working on other things. Dartslilly (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Billboard seems to label as not even being a music genre, and Fuse does not go into description of the term or what it means. And so far you have not connected them to the genre you are linking to as there is no information about the genre there. If it is even a music genre, as the sources seem to conflict here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not clear whether it's a fashion / subculture, like pastel goth [22], or a music genre as it is not explained in either of those articles. Can be revisited if such a list is made in those articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pop-trap[edit]

Delete, this article re-directs to a genre that would seemingly be related but the term is never used there or explored there. It appears to be a genre that is not commonly used and should not be linked this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a lengthy section that discusses it here Trap_music#Influence_and_cross-pollination. We shouldn't delete a genre redirect that is used by mainstream sources like The Seattle Times [23], Rolling Stone [24] - edit warring over info box genres is common, so we stick to what the sources say. Dartslilly (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Except there are no sources that describe what this genre means or what differentiates it. Currently, the re-direct links to Trap as an EDM style, not the article you linked too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:AutomobileWatch[edit]

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

Template:Library[edit]

Unused for years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Health[edit]

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

Template:England[edit]

Unused. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Csbir[edit]

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

.pjp[edit]

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

Template:Oporto[edit]

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

Fir Tree (version 2)[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moved to Fir (tree) without leaving a redirect

112 (atomic number)[edit]

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

Template:AncientEgyptBanner[edit]

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

Template:Intrel[edit]

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

Template:Tolkien-project[edit]

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

Template:Soviet[edit]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sailing[edit]

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

Template:CPGI Award[edit]

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

Template:Businessman[edit]

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

Various Kingdom of Loathing-related redirects[edit]

None of the terms appear in the target page. I propose to delete them all. 46.132.189.159 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, leftover neologisms from the community not explained and not notable enough for articles. Retarget NS13 to Yishun MRT station AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, even within Kingdom of Loathing, rather historical terms nowadays (or a year ago when I last cared). NS13 is probably the most important of the terms from an in-community of KoL perspective. I oppose the proposed retargeting, as this doesn't seem a common way to refer to MRT stations (and we don't have redirects for any of the other NSx that I checked). —Kusma (t·c) 20:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Kusma, are there others? They could be disambiguated? I was thinking of that first, but only Yishun showed up. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: I think NS4 is the only dab page listing one of these MRT stations. Some Googling reveals that the abbreviation is indeed used (and I know not enough about Singapore to say how common it is, so I struck part of my comment), but I am still not convinced this is super useful. —Kusma (t·c) 19:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Lord Althorp[edit]

Retarget to Earl Spencer (peerage) or Disambiguate. No evidence that this is the primary topic, in fact by pageviews, the current target page is one of the least visited articles: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_5th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_3rd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_9th_Earl_Spencer%7CGeorge_Spencer,_2nd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_6th_Earl_Spencer DrKay (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The 3rd Earl was a very prominent politician *during his time as Lord Althorp* - leader of the House of Commons who pushed through the Reform Act, etc. This is not true of any of the other people who were known as "Lord Althorp," as far as I'm aware. (The 6th Earl to a much much lesser extent.) The 8th and 9th Earls are better know *as Earl Spencer*, but nobody much calls them Lord Althorp. Do I need to explain how courtesy titles work? john k (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 7[edit]

Square Enix Ultimate Hits[edit]

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Legendary Hits[edit]

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

Lauren Orlando[edit]

Redirect from a non-notable person to an associated organization whose article completely fails to mention her name at all. I get that she is associated with it, that checks out in sources, but if her involvement isn't important enough to actually get her named in the article body then there's no need for a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ultimate Hits (Square Enix)[edit]

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ultimate Hit[edit]

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

Laughing Buddah[edit]

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

Cellular & Molecular Biology[edit]

Cellular & Molecular Biology is a legitimate journal. See [25] and [Title+Abbreviation].

The OMICS journal is Cellular & Molecular Medicine: Open Access, not this one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, although the simplest way of action probably would be to simply convert the redirect into an article on the notable legit journal. --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This would depend on the journal scores for notability, but if it passes that, there should be no objection to create article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Globalize subpages[edit]

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[edit]

Redundant to Environmental Protection Agency and EPA, both of which redirect to United States Environmental Protection Agency. Also, we don't usually include both name and abbreviation in a title; as an article title, this would fail WP:CONCISE. Narky Blert (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Implausible search term. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Redirect to United States Environmental Protection Agency per below readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia title conventions may try to search with this string. As the redirect could not possibly refer to anything other than the current this target, and is unlikely to ever need updating, keeping it is harmless. signed, Rosguill talk 02:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If it should point to anything, it should be United States Environmental Protection Agency not the current target. Narky Blert (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I misread the original target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Own Bán Gallagher[edit]

While technically similar sounding to Eoghan, "Owen" is a common enough name that anyone looking to anglicize this name (or who had heard it said but not written) would use that spelling. The "One" examples are even less likely. Moreover, these spellings doesn't appear to have ever been used for this subject. signed, Rosguill talk 09:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

TPIX[edit]

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

Medstat[edit]

Not mentioned at target, I would suggest deletion unless an appropriate justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 07:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

On the discussion page, I provided articles that shows the path by which Medstat was purchased by Thomson Reuters to become Thomson Medstat, and then sold to become Truven Health Analytics, which then was aquired by IBM to become IBM Watson Health. So, rather than put an article on the Medstat page, I just used a redirect. Hoshisabi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

David Gowan[edit]

The AfD mandated a merge to Tonto Natural Bridge, so now David Gowan redirects there. However we have David Gowan (politician) which should be the primary topic. --Pontificalibus 07:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yoshio Ishizaka[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

His main claim to fame is writing some books about the Toyota way https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AYoshio+Ishizaka&s=relevancerank&text=Yoshio+Ishizaka&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 . He has also been a Toyota employee since 1965. As such, I also think we should delete the redirect to Toyota.  Stepho  talk  08:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete might be good to consider adding his books to Further reading for either Toyota or Toyota Production System although the book is more about sales/marketing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore article per WP:BLAR. This is invalid as a redirect due to a lack of mention. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lee Soon-shin[edit]

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

Wikipedia:BADFAITH[edit]

It is a WP:SURPRISE that this redirects to a parody page when "bad faith" is a legitimate problem with encyclopedia users. I think it should instead redirect to the same place as WP:NOTHERE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep shortcuts to humour pages aren't problematic, unless they're hijacking a primary target. In this case, there are none, so there is no problem. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is problematic because up until last year it redirected to a non-humor page and was switched in apparent vandalism. I could just revert it to the correct one but I think that the proposed target is the better place to redirect. WP:AGF doesn't contain much about "bad faith" actions, which are equivalent to WP:NOTHERE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the same place as WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to be the primary target. Having it redirect to a humor page is misleading. 85.76.1.1 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is nothing about bad faith there. If it's to be retargeted, it should be to WP:AOBF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree, that suggests that there is no such thing as bad faith on Wikipedia and therefore you shouldn't accuse people of it. Obviously accusing people of bad faith is not the norm, but pointing people to that when they might use the redirect to indicate "what bad faith behaviors are" is a bit ridiculous. WP:NOTHERE lists all the things that comprise actual bad faith editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 6[edit]

Will Swanner[edit]

Name was removed from the list in 2017.[26] Should temporary redirects such as this exist when most will eventually be deleted? Peter James (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha[edit]

Not needed per WP:FORRED, articles are not specifically about Thailand. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Strongly delete: พุทธประวัติ; the word "พุทธประวัติ" means "history of Buddha", not Buddha as human.
Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Prince Siddharth[edit]

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

Union of India[edit]

Disambiguate: India is also the Union of India, and is still called that, see Category:Supreme Court of India cases for examples. Recommend reversion to the disambiguation page per [27], with the addition of Political integration of India. DrKay (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for post. Yeah, but the "Union of India" of every civil lawsuit etc in India, is antiquated usage of the sort that survives in law everywhere. Between 1947 and 1949, however, it was actually called Union of India, and not Dominion of India except in the India Independence Act (a primary source) and some British and international legal literature pertaining to that. For many years this page was Union of India. That the British Raj split into the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan was stated on the British Raj page as well. (See here) In fact the OED copied from us around 2009 (verbatim that is, which I noted at that time on the Talk:BR page), and they continue to state the same until now:

OED: "raj" n., 2. spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh)

I'm mystified that the page was moved to Dominion of India and would like to see the discussion around the page move. I'm mystified also because it was a big point for the Indian nationalists, not just of pride, but also of usage and of questions of succession, that the new dominion be called "Union of India," not "Dominion of India." Conversely, the Pakistanis were not happy that India came to be called "Union of India," and feared that India might employ sophistry to make the legal point that it had not officially recognized the Partition, that that Union of India was really the Old Raj which its wayward child, Pakistan, could rejoin whenever it came to its senses. I don't have the time now as I am stepping out, but pinging @RegentsPark:, @MilborneOne:, @Philip Baird Shearer:, @Abecedare:, @Moonraker:, @Rjensen: @Kautilya3:, @Vanamonde93:, ... lord knows there should be others but my memory is failing me. It should really be the other way round: Dominion of India ---> Union of India, which it was until it was moved. We can't have this sort of antiquated revisionism on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't notice. After the Indian constitution was adopted, the country has come to be called the 'Republic of India'. This source says it explicitly. The country has not been called the 'Union of India' afterwards. On the other hand, the Government of India's legal name is "Union of India" as per Article 300 of the Indian constitution. That is why we find it in the Supreme Court cases. If we think it is bothersome, then yes, a disambiguation page would cure it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. The "antiquated usage" Fowler&fowler talks about is as likely to come up in a Google search as anything else. It even appears in the constitution, unlike Republic of India. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Fowler&fowler. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm back. You've probably already figured out that it was moved from UofI to DofI in this hurried page move. Here are two sources:
    • Winegard, Timothy C. (2011), Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-1-107-01493-0 Quote: “The first collective use (of the word "dominion") occurred at the Colonial Conference (April to May 1907) when the title was conferred upon Canada and Australia. New Zealand and Newfoundland were afforded the designation in September of that same year, followed by South Africa in 1910. These were the only British possessions recognized as Dominions at the outbreak of war. In 1922, the Irish Free State was given Dominion status, followed by the short-lived inclusion of India and Pakistan in 1947 (although India was officially recognized as the Union of India). The Union of India became the Republic of India in 1950, while the became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956.”
    • Desierto, Diane A. (2019), "International law, regional developments, South and South-East Asia", in Petra Minnerop; Rüdiger Wolfrum; Frauke Lachenmann (eds.), International Development Law: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, pp. 560–582, 562, ISBN 978-0-19-883509-7 Quote: "The British Raj would terminate in 1947, through the official Partition of the British Indian Empire ('Partition') into two separate, self-governing dominions: the Dominion of Pakistan, which declared in-dependence on 14 August 1947, and whose territory included the territories of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Union of India, which declared independence a day later on 15 August 1947. The two largest provinces of the British Raj, Punjab and Bengal, would be subdivided between the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India. On 26 January 1950 the Union of India would be dissolved in favour of the Republic of India."
    • I'm too busy right now to attempt to move the page back to Union of India. But the nonsense about George VI being the King of India has to go. If he was, then is there an example of him being called that in the presence of an Indian, a Nehru perhaps? I'd like to travel back in time for that event? Any example, for that matter, of an Attlee or the Bevans, or Strafford Cripps calling him that after 1947? Is there an example (a chance photograph perhaps) of anyone raising the Union Jack in India after 1947, let alone singing God Save the King? I have hundreds of coins from 1768 (EIC days) to 1964 (Death of Nehru). You can see some of them on the British Raj page, but I've never seen a coin issued after August 14, 1947 that had the bust of a British monarch on the obverse., This is precisely the kind of nonsense that gets created on Wikipedia. I will be removing it from this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The argument isn't over whether the dominion was called the union, we know it was, but the government of India is also called the union. Most google hits for "Union of India" refer to the modern usage, in fact virtually all in my searches, except for wikipedia pages and their mirrors, which would make the modern usage the primary topic. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No tertiary sources today say, "India, officially, Union of India." That term is employed in India as a synonym for "federal," (Union Territory, Union minister, ...) and also in case citation as the universal respondent in federal cases. Both these turn up on Google. But my sources aren't just randomly spewing "Union" in a Google search. They are focused scholarly searches and the say precisely that the political union that in common international and diplomatic parlance was called "India" between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950, that moreover was a dominion, was officially called the "Union of India." Furthermore, if a source mentions, "the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan," in the same breath, when referring to some event between those two dates, then it can't be because they have let the words of the Indian Constitution (about India being a union of states) somehow confuse them. They are doing so because India actually was not called the "Dominion of India," in the way that Australia, NZ, South Africa, Canada, and Pakistan (and later Ceylon) were. See, for example:
  • Debs, Alexandre; Monteiro, Nuno P. (2016), Nuclear Politics: The Strategic Causes of Proliferation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 327–, ISBN 978-1-108-10773-0 Quote: "Since it became independent, Pakistan has viewed India as its main foreign threat. In August 1947, the British Indian Empire was divided along religious lines, with the Dominion of Pakistan as the Muslim-majority state and the Union of India as the Hindu-majority state, leading to massive population transfers that entailed great bloodshed, and a death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands."
  • Tillema, Herbert K. (2019), International Armed Conflict Since 1945: A Bibliographic Handbook Of Wars And Military Interventions, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1979–, ISBN 978-0-429-71509-9 Quote: "India and Pakistan were founded as separate states at independence in August 1947 (17.1). Individual princely states recognized under the Raj were expected to select whether to accede to the avowedly secular but Hindu-dominated Union of India or to the Moslem-dominated Dominion of Pakistan to the east and west of India."
  • As for your valid point about Union of India not being well-defined, there an easy way to fix it. Make two pages: (a) Union of India (dominion) and (b) Union of India (case citation). Move this page to (a). Redirect Dominion of India also to (a). Add a paragraph of explanation to (b). Then let Union of India go to a dab page which has two entries (a) and (b). Your kind of dab page is ahistorical. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Key point from this post is "let Union of India go to a dab page". DrKay (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: I agree that Union of India should not redirect here, so it should go to a dab page. I am sure it's a good idea to have a separate page for the Union of India while it was still a British dominion, so the issue then is what to call the page. "Union of India" doesn't work, because it's too ambiguous, as explained by others. Union of India (dominion) is clumsy, and India (dominion) is just an awkward way of saying Dominion of India. Indeed, that isn't what India was commonly called at the time, but it was sometimes called that, and from where we are now it's probably the best option. Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking. ... @Moonraker: First, thanks for a clear reply. A few things worry me though including about my own solution above.
  • If Union of India goes to a dab page, and this page remains the little shrine to a faded age that it is, or was until yesterday, the chances are even greater that bright-eyed Wikipedians of the near future will turn Dominion into standard usage for post-colonial South Asia, not just for India. (Don't put it past them to write: Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was born on blank blank 1948 in Lyallpur, Punjab province, Dominion of Pakistan, during the reign of King George VI.) The other thing I don't understand @DrKay:: you seem like a bright person, you give concise cogent responses to my long posts, and it seems like you're maintaining this page, why have you allowed this little shrine to continue in all its faded glory on this page? George VI, by grace of God, what faith might he have been defending in India after 1947, especially when he isn't doing any of that on the British Raj page, nor are his ancestors? I mean if we want a litany of the regnal titles, in the 21st century, we'll go to the monarch's page, why are we getting this enforced double education on the sleepy little dominion of India page?
  • My final question is the most important one, and it applies to the India page as well on which people were opposing the mention of "officially/official name Republic of India" on the grounds that India's constitution says, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states ... etc.," i.e. interpreting that to imply "India," unadorned, to also be an official name. Final question: What then is "Union of India" if it is not the dominion in question? I'd like a clear delineation of that other Union of India supported as clearly by scholarly sources as the Union (dominion) does above. It is not enough to type in "Union of India" in Google and interpret the data by eyeballing it or by parsing primary sources. (For "Republic of India," for example, there are dozens of such clear definitions (see: here or on the Government of India's own official web site: scroll down here to "Government"). I'd like to similar clarity for Union of India in the period 1950 onward.) ... thinking more ... Given the likelihood of no clarity, I fear that dabbing Union of India will have the effect of killing it for ever. So, until we have such clarity, I'm voting Keep with the added proviso that the lead sentence and the infobox both say, "Official name, or officially, Union of India," and the page be disabused of monarchic beneficence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The world is full of people who aren't paying attention, and no doubt some Wikipedians will make that mistake, and others, but on the South India pages I believe they will be corrected soon enough. I think what you have quoted above is the only thing in the Indian constitution which suggests the name of the country, and in English it points us towards "India". That works for things like coins and stamps, where it is unambiguous, and we also have our main article on the present-day country at India, which also seems to work. (That article claims, with several citations, that the "official" name is "Republic of India", but the sources all look like second-rate directories published in London and New York, which seems to show no authentic source for an official origin has been found yet.) I support adding "officially, Union of India" into the Dominion of India page, if a good source goes with it. On that "monarchic beneficence", we know there was almost none of that, but India remained a kingdom until it became a republic in 1950, and Pakistan was one until 1956. They are strange facts, but still deserve to be noticed, perhaps! Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly as regards titles; there was no separate title for *any* of the Dominions until 1953; when each dominion passed a separate Royal Titles Act to specify exactly what title said dominion wanted the Queen to bear in right of it. (Curiously enough; Pakistan's didn't mention Pakistan, but did the United Kingdom, though it omitted 'Defender of the Faith'.) There certainly *were* treaties made in the name of George VI as regards India during the period August 1947-January 1950. I'll do a bit of digging and see what I can find.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the text of the Treaty of Friendship between India and Switzerland, carried out in the name of George VI:

https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishmenthttps://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishment

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


  • Redirect to Names for India and add necessary explaination on the target page about what it is, when was it called so and so on whatever Fowler explained here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿[edit]

This title is not rendering properly in my browser, so it's possible that it creates a relevant emoji character (I just see a black flag followed by two white boxes). That having been said, I'm hard pressed to think of an emoji that could unambiguously refer to the target, and would appreciate having a justification provided for this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Flag; the current target doesn't make much sense to me either. At least a few Google search results call this emoji "England flag", but redirecting to England also wouldn't make sense; Flag seems like the least ambiguous target (if this is kept). As a side note, User_talk:Error#🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿 might be relevant. –Sonicwave talk 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A quick look at [28] See also section shows that unless rendered properly the redirect as it is displayed could refer to any number of flags. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to flag; I can't see any reason why a flag emoji should be deleted instead of pointing to the flag article. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose retargeting to Flag. Possibly retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags. This is a specific emoji sequence, which, were it properly rendered, would show the flag of Chiang Rai, not a generic flag. There's already a 🏴 redirect that correctly points to Flag. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Edit: Also, not opposed to deleting, since it's extremely unlikely that a character combination with no known rendering support will ever be a useful redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Name Codepoint UTF-8
WAVING BLACK FLAG U+1F3F4 F0 9F 8F B4
TAG LATIN SMALL LETTER T U+E0074 F3 A0 81 B4
TAG LATIN SMALL LETTER H U+E0068 F3 A0 81 A8
TAG DIGIT 5 U+E0035 F3 A0 80 B5
TAG DIGIT 7 U+E0037 F3 A0 80 B7
CANCEL TAG U+E007F F3 A0 81 BF
  • Retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags per Paul 012's suggestion. I'm also not particularly opposed to deletion, but it definitely shouldn't point to flag. For those of you for whom it's not showing up, the character sequence is in the table at right (to summarise, that's a flag followed by the ISO 3166-2:TH code for Chiang Rai written in Tags (Unicode block) characters). Emojipedia link, FWIW. Regards, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: On Firefox, black flag. On Google Chrome, black flag. In Internet Explorer, black flag unless it is a link, in which case the flag takes on whatever link colors the user has chosen (defaults to blue). On Microsoft Edge, black flag followed by five white boxes (all one really wide character; you can't select just one of the boxes). All browsers latest versions running on a fully updated Windows 10. If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results. Fun fact: List of black flags. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results - FWIW I'm on an Ubuntu 18.04 box right now and I get a black flag on Firefox 68.0.2 and a flag with question mark on Chromium 76.0.3809.100. Also might be worth noting: most flag emoji are not "Recommended for General Interchange" by the Unicode Consortium. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags. Some background on how emoji flags are done via Unicode [29] The "Flag for Scotland" section explains the situation for what we're seeing with the Unicode. So, what fits
    [waving black flag] T H 5 7 [cancel tag]? As 59.149.124.29 has pointed out, it's the flag for Chiang Rai. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chiang Rai Province, where the flag is shown with context. For reference, here is the Emojipedia entry. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And you chose that over the hundred or so other provinces that are listed on the same Emojipedia page ([30][31][32][33][34]...)... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Because this is specifically "Flag for Chiang Rai"—the flag for Chiang Rai Province. The rest of the provinces are listed under "see also", where similar emojis, but not this exact one, are listed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. I'm running IE, so as Guy Macon noted, it just looked like a really basic dark flag, identical to 🏴. I now see that they have different coding, %F0%9F%8F%B4 versus %F0%9F%8F%B4%F3%A0%81%B4%F3%A0%81%A8%F3%A0%80%B5%F3%A0%80%B7%F3%A0%81%BF, but since I don't pay much attention to emojis, I didn't realise that they have 4 and 24 percent-encoded characters, or I would have known that they were different. Since this has Chiang Rai-specific coding, yes, let's send it there. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. I did not notice that the flag should be that of the province Chiangrai Flag.png, not that of the city. Ideally Wikipedia should have a page for Flag of Chiang Rai Province and this would redirect there. Even better, we would have pages or redirections for the flags of all the Thai provinces, and the corresponding emoji sequences would point to the page or the target of the redirection. --Error (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If kept, this should point to wherever Flag of Chiang Rai Province redirects. Please also make sure it's tagged with {{R avoided double redirect}}. (Personally, I'm not really convinced that the province article is better as a target than the flags list.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Angela Allen (paedophile)[edit]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects issue we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • So do we just go for "Angela Allen (criminal)"? Seems quite a bit less precise, and "murderer" is used in other instances for example.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm on the fence about this one, as while we should always be very cautious about redirects like this, Ms Allen has been described as a paedophile in sober reliable sources like the Daily Telegraph.[35] If we need a redirect for the person (which is again borderline imo) then something like Angela Allen (nursery worker) might be better. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are going to keep this redirect, there is no need for any disambiguator. It could simply be Angela Allen. I see that the other people involved in this case - 2009 Plymouth child abuse case - all have redirects without a disambiguator; I hadn't noticed that. In the discussion at AN there was a feeling that we should not have redirects from every perpetrator in these cases, and most of them have been deleted, but that was partly because of the tag of paedophile. I guess we could rename this, without a redirect, to get rid of "paedophile" - and then separately tackle the redirects as a group. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: I didn't think to check whether the base name was available. Google tells me though that there is a BAFTA-winning script supervisor by this name who might be notable (I haven't looked in detail) and if they are both notable I would not be able to immediately say who was primary topic and there is also a band member (Carmen (band)#Angel Allen) who is definitely not primary topic. I certainly have no issues though with the group discussion you suggest. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete does not have enough notability as a name/term to justify its non-neutrality, not to mention its inflammatory nature. Create a new redirect at just "Angela Allen". – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • John M Wolfson, I'm unclear what you are recommending: should we have a redirect from Angela Allen to the article about the case, or should we not? "Delete" suggests not, while "create a new redirect" suggests yes. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • MelanieN, yes, we should have a redirect, but it should not have the "(pedophile)" at the end as it is unnecessary disambiguation and problematic, so delete the current redirect in question. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page and then both the actress and the paedophile are listed then IMHO this should be kept atleast to avoid confusion with the actress, From a quick search the actress does appear to be notable, I'd prefer the disam route but if that can't be done then I'd support keeping the current title (unless something better comes along). –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. If we ever have a Angela Allen (actor) page we can create a disambig at that time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP. If this person is not notable enough to have their own article, then there's no justification for having such a non-neutral redirect. The name is already in the article so it will be indexed by search engines and able to be found without this redirect. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The answer seems very simple to me, if we actually want to have any such redirect at all, which apparently John M Wolfson, Davey2010, and Guy Macon do. As MelanieN said, just rename this redirect to Angela Allen, without leaving a redirect behind at the current title. There seems to be no route for then developing that, either as a primary topic or a disambiguation article, which involves this page title being used again. A headnote at a primary topic would not; nor would an entry on a disambiguation article. A script supervisor is different to an actor, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Where do you get that I want the redirect to exist? Was my "Delete" not clear enough? "Angela Allen (paedophile)" has to go. "Angela Allen" is not needed. Searching on that name finds the article without any redirect. Just delete it. Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects issue and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects again. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The part where you said "we can create a diambig", which only makes any logical sense if Angela Allen is a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • That's not true. I wrote "If we ever have a Angela Allen (actor) page we can create a diambig at that time". Specifying a hypothetical situation (a future where we have articles on Angela Allen (actor) and Angela Allen (musician) for example) where we would need a disambiguation page at Angela Allen does NOT imply that we should have a useless disambiguation page there now. Right now the Wikipedia search function works just fine to lead the person searching to all of the different Angela Allens. Again I say, delete the redirect at Angela Allen (paedophile) and do not create or rename anything. I hope that my position is clear on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
          • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to be neutral so long as it is used in reliable sources. We have sources (and the article itself FWIW) that refers to Ms Allen as a paedophile, so that is good enough for a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate what I said earlier: IMO "keep as is" should not be an option, if only because there is no need for disambiguation. If people believe there should be a redirect from this person to the article about the case they were involved it, the redirect should be named Angela Allen. Personally I would prefer not to see redirects from the name of the criminal to the article about the case, but all of the other criminals in this case have redirects so it can be argued that she should too. I nominated this for deletion because of (paedophile). Based on the discussion here I will withdraw that nomination in favor of "keep but rename to Angela Allen. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Since there is now a DAB page at Angela Allen, renaming this to Angela Allen is no longer an option. In that case I favor simple deletion, as I explain below. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a poor but acceptable second choice for me. My first choice remains deletion, because typing "Angela Allen" into the search box brings up links to the criminal and the musician. Making an Angela Allen redirect loses the link to the musician. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)That doesn't work because there are several other people named Angela Allen who are valid WP:DABMENTIONs, a couple of which are at least as notable as the paedophile. I'd argue that the musician and the BAFTA award winner (who is an MBE) fit that criteria. I have created a dab at Angela Allen to illustrate what I'm talking about. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, which covers redirects from commonly-used POV, non-neutral, and controversial titles, and per WP:NOTCENSORED. Disambiguation is required (per Tavix) and the selected disambiguator is accurate, sourced, and used as a primary descriptor in the article. Furthermore the redirect received an average of 11 pageviews per day in the default period (30d?) prior to the nomination, so it is clearly useful. WP:BLP says "get the [page] right" (word "article" replaced, emphasis in original), not "cover up accurate info because it's distasteful". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out before,
[1] Per discussion at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Paedophile redirects issue) we shouldn’t call anyone a paedophile in an article title, even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender.
[2] We now have a perfectly fine disambiguation page at Angela Allen that lists:
In my opinion, this should be closed as delete based upon the strength of the delete arguments and the weakness of the keep arguments. There simply is no need for a redirect at Angela Allen (paedophile). I would also note that one of the keep !votes specified "Unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page and then both the actress and the paedophile are listed." Well, Angela Allen is now a disambiguation page and both the actress and the paedophile (along with four other Angela Allens) are listed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this some more. Our article on Pedophilia says that "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." That's a medical/psychiatric diagnoses. But our article on the 2009 Plymouth child abuse case says that Allen was convicted of one count of distributing an indecent image of a child and four counts of sexual assault involved children. That's a criminal verdict, not a medical diagnosis.
So should we call someone like Allen a convicted sex offender instead of a pedophile? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented on this at BLPN but we should only be using 100% factual disambig terms in cases like this. "paedophile" is not 100% factual, its a theory/diagonsis of their mental state, where as something like "convicted sex offender" is 100% true (they were convicted even on the slim change they were truly innocent). If a redirect is necessary (I don't see the need since the disambig page exist), it must use the more factual term. --Masem (t) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or change to "Angela Allen (convicted sex offender)." Yes, pedophilia and child sexual abuse are commonly considered the same thing among the general public, but they are not. There are more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists (both male and female) than there are pedophiles. And pedophilia is extremely rare in women. If Allen was diagnosed as a pedophile, that's different, but it seems we should go with "convicted sex offender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - News Journalism is not reliable in the psycoanalysis arena when not reporting on psychoanalysis. Journalists engage in a certian amount of sensationalistic name-calling; encyclopedia editors do not. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Claiming that we don't ever have to comply for redirects is a thinly veiled excuse to use inflamitory language when it's not substantiated by reliable sources, and also not necessary. The term "felon" should do nicely if disambiguation is needed. Oblique references characterizing a person's psychological state can be misleading. There is no impartial analysis of psycological scrutiny of the subject. Wikipedia does not engage in, or promote, name-calling. When someone starts typing in the name and an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis appears on the screen, Wikipedia is unfairly stigmitizing the person as having a particular psychological makeup. It's understood that the editors felt they were supplying more complete and specific information in a concise way; however, there was obviously original analysis by the editors or journalists to do so, with no scientific basis. It is suggested that we cut out the sensationalistic name-calling from WP. - NewageEd (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Whether or not it's appropriate to tag someone as a paedophile in an article title—and I agree that it's probably not—is a separate question from whether this is a suitable redirect. I think many readers will not distinguish between a paedophile and a child molester, or think it inappropriate for this person to be referred to as the former. So I think we have a likely search term, and a way of providing some distance between this person and others with the same name to help allay potential BLP concerns. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A likely search term? You think someone is going to search for "Angela Allen (paedophile)" when "Angela Allen" already brings you to the correct page? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not? "Angela Allen" alone does not bring you to the right page. Yes, it brings you to a disambiguation page that links to the right page, but there's no reason to force users to go through another click. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be claiming that users will search on "Angela Allen (paedophile)" before searching on "Angela Allen". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus forming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no reason to have this redirect at all. Levivich 22:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete A person convicted of a sexual offense against a child is not necessarily a pedophile. Use of that term would need its own sourcing. The term "convicted sex offender" is sufficient. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete clear WP:BLP violation. Sex offender is correct within policy. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (since I am the nominator this is a revote - basically a clarification.) If someone types in Angela Allen, it will now take them to the DAB page, which will take them to the article they are looking for. There is no need for us to wear out our brains thinking of an appropriate disambiguator for this relatively obscure person. It's not as if she has an article we need to find a title for; we are just talking about a redirect. The DAB page will do the job just fine. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Call for close[edit]

By my count we have:

  • Three keeps,
  • One keep unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page (which it has),
  • One delete and create an Angela Allen disambiguation page (done),
  • Ten deletes,

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been seven days since the last person !voted. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Gasu[edit]

This, as far as I'm aware, is just the word "gas" in Japanese and has no additional meaning. I have no idea what relation it has to this series but a reader would be better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page GASU that I've just created. This barely merits disambiguation IMO. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohammad Rafiq (Norwegian folk hero)[edit]

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

Italy 2026[edit]

Too vague, not an official title, will eventually be confused with 2026 in Italy signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as entirely unambiguous. Even down to page 6 of a google search every single result is about the Winter Olympics. If it does become ambiguous in the future then this can be revisited then, but most likely a hatnote to 2026 in Italy will suffice when that becomes a blue link. We don't delete redirects because there is a theoretical problem with them in 6½ years time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how such a title could be considered "entirely unambiguous", it is hardly "theoretical" to suggest that other things will happen in Italy in 2026 (the 2026 Winter Paralympics for one). However, note that other such redirects either target that year's Summer or Winter Olympics (USA 2028, France 2024, China 2022, Japan 2020, Korea 2018, Brazil 2016, China 2008) or don't exist at all (Russia 2014, Canada 2010, Italy 2006, Greece 2004, Australia 2000). PC78 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Theoretically ambiguous and ambiguous in actual reality are not the same thing. At the present time the only thing referred to by this title is the Winter Olympics. If it becomes ambiguous in the future then we can revisit this, but unless and until that happens this should be kept. What other redirects exist or don't exist is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Paralympics, as I mentioned above? And no, the other redirects are not irrelevant in the slightest. This redirect does not exist in isolation, and the perceived problem of ambiguity would be better addressed by looking at those belonging to past events where your "theoreticals" don't exist. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
        • If those other redirects are ambiguous then they should be disambiguated, retargetted or have hatnotes added depending on what people are looking for when they search for those specific terms. What people are looking for when they search "China 2008" has no bearing on what people are looking for when they search for "Italy 2026". This redirect has a very clear primary topic - 100% of the google results on the first six pages were for the winter Olympics. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete ambiguous. Sawol (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Except it isn't. And even if it was, there is a primary topic so hatnotes can link to alternative uses. And even if there wasn't a primary topic, then a disambiguation page would be the answer. There is no need for deletion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
      • But it is ambiguous. Arguing that it should be kept as a primary redirect is valid, but that is not the same thing. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Find me anything else that is actually currently being referred to by this name. Not just theoretically might use this name, but actually does. Not even the Paralympics in my search results. That might change in future, but per WP:CRYSTAL we don't redirects because they might potentially be ambiguous in the future - especially when a disambiguation page would be possible for all the things it might potentially become ambiguous with. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Find me some solid examples of these Olympics being called "Italy 2026" that don't just come from running text. Most of those Google hits are just "...Italy's 2026 Olympic bid..." and such, which really isn't the same thing. Italy 2026 could refer to anything happening in Italy in 2026, I genuinley don't see how this can be considered unambiguous. PC78 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my above comments and per WP:COSTLY as an ambiguous redirect that is likely to become problematic later. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree entirely with Thryduulf's argument (it is ambiguous) but I find myself here anyway. Until 2026 in Italy exists, I see no issue with this redirecting to what is undoubtedly the most notable scheduled event in Italy in 2026 per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per PC78. Initially I was going to say "weak", thinking this was like a time-sensitive redirect that had already expired, under the assumption that Italy had bid for and won these Olympics but had not yet selected a host city. That does not seem to have been the case, and all those red links from previous Olympics testify to the fact that "Country Year" is not a common shorthand for Olympic games. I'd be more sympathetic if the host city were not well known internationally, perhaps if it were Cortina alone (or, I don't know, Esino Lario). Milan 2026 or Milan-Cortina 2026, sure. I'm less concerned with the idea of ambiguity and more that this is a novel or obscure synonym for the games. And for the record, "Italy 2026" isn't a likely search term for "Italy in 2026" either. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Democrazia Cristian[edit]

Obvious mistake, the word "Cristian" is non-existent. It should be deleted. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  • First, R3 does not apply either way as this was created in 2008. Second, the page you linked to is about articles and does not even mention redirects from plausible errors. Geolodus (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I consider as a plausible error, for example, a name of a party written in an alternative way from the correct one. But it is harmful to keep invented words as a redirect (for example, I noticed "Alleanza Nationale" because it was used on 1/2 pages, the fact that users can use invented words as functioning redirects is not a good thing....)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • These are misspellings of existing words, not invented ones. I agree that they shouldn't be linked or used in any other way that makes them seem correct, but there is longstanding consensus that many such redirects are useful and should not be deleted. See Category:Redirects from incorrect names. Geolodus (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete It's a small error, but "Cristian" doesn't look Italian, so I don't think it's very plausible. Democrazia Cristiano, maybe (not at all saying that someone should create it, just that it's a more plausible error than this). --BDD (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In Love With The Song[edit]

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

Blue dress[edit]

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

Incarnations of Starscream[edit]

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

September 5[edit]

Sounds of the Skeng (Stormzy album)[edit]

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

Sounds of the Skeng (album)[edit]

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

Wellington Lima (Palhaçada)[edit]

The original title of Wellington Lima (acrobat) may be disparaging, as "Palhaçada" is apparently Portuguese for "clown", and nothing in his article indicates he was one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The nominated redirect should go (on "implausible foreign-language" grounds rather than NPOV grounds), but it brings another question. Wellington Lima should probably be moved to Wellington de Lima Gomes (the actual name of the person described here, currently a redirect), in which case the (acrobat) disambiguation is no longer needed for the acrobat. Even if WdLG was mentioned as WL by multiple sources (which does not seem to be the case), I don't think it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Parx (DJ)[edit]

Per item 5 of WP:R#DELETE, The redirect makes no sense. There is no reference to Parx (DJ) in the article that is directed to. - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a reference to "Alone" (Parx Remix) in the tracklisting section of that article; but delete in any case because it's pretty tenuous. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sharpiegate[edit]

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

Autophilia[edit]

"Autophilia" is not mentioned in the "Narcissism" article, and no clear alternative target is apparent to me. I do no believe "autophilia" and "narcissism" are related terms at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Autophilia should redirect to self-love. Self love could be narcissism but not necessarily. Wictionary references narcissism as a possible meaning of autophilia which is consistent with self love. --Penbat (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I can go along with that, but the article on self-love currently does not mention autophilia either. It does not define it as a synonym or anything like that. I do prefer this target over narcissism, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a better match.--Penbat (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad[edit]

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

Scott Baron[edit]

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

Hinotama[edit]

From reading the target and the linked Japanese Wikipedia article, it would appear that while Hitodama (人魂) refers to a type of ghost, Hinotama (火の玉) just means fireball (not quite, see following comment by Osarusan). While Hitodama supposedly manifest as a ball of light, I don't think that makes this an appropriate redirect and would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 08:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The two items are very different, in terms of folklore. The hitodama is a human soul and appears as a glowing ball of light. Hitodama are magical fireballs and there exist many dozens of different types. One could argue that the hitodama is a type of hinotama, but not vice versa. They should be separate pages. Osarusan (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Andrew Lewis[edit]

Delete because The redirect is to an unrelated topic which happens to include a minor reference to someone with a similar name. Sir Andrew Lewis was an Essex deputy Lieutenant. There is already a redirect for Sir Andrew Jopp Williams Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm at sleepers (talkcontribs) 07:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • This nomination was a bit malformed. I have cleaned it up (no opinion on the redirect currently). Geolodus (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

*I deproded the redirect, as the individual concerned is on the list, therefore it could potentially have use. I admit that the usefulness is rather limited, but redirects are cheap, and this redirect is hardly misleading. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Change target to Andrew Lewis (Royal Navy officer) per Clarityfiend ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September 4[edit]

Todd McCormick[edit]

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

Gilles de Rais (Castlevania)[edit]

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

For the Love of Money (2011 film)[edit]

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

John Wells (20-century British politician)[edit]

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

The Real Definition of a Republic[edit]

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

Prince roger nelson[edit]

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

Plastron[edit]

Revert to a disambiguation page. There are many incoming links for uses other than "the underside of a turtle shell". JIP | Talk 13:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, this has never been a disambiguation page. It has the potential to become one, though. You could create a draft disambiguation page for review, if you'd like. - Eureka Lott 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • After further review, I have to go with keep. While the nominator is correct that this term has multiple meanings, the large majority of links to the page refer to turtle anatomy. We also lack content for the other definitions, except for Plastron (arthropod), and that's linked via a hatnote. The remaining subjects are essentially WP:DICDEFs, and we don't create disambiguation pages for those. - Eureka Lott 01:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hartford Patriots[edit]

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

The li[edit]

Ambiguous redirects. gnu57 06:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. When I see the "The Li", Leadership Institute wouldn't be the first thing in my mind. Perhaps I might think of the Li River or a mispelling of Lea (the river or the valley), and googling "The LI" gives Landscape Institute. Could be redirected to something else, but what I'm not exactly sure. Hzh (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Depictive construction[edit]

These terms are not mentioned at the target, and Google scholar searches would suggest that these are features are not exclusive to sign languages. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find a more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Polymorphemic verb is mentioned as an alternative to the term classifier construction in Schembri 2003 p.4 used by some people. As a word, it can only refer to classifier constructions. The expression can also be used as a phrase however, where it simply means "a verb with multiple morphemes". This is the meaning found in certain writings on oral languages. I'd say that people who are looking for polymorphemic verbs are doing so because they found an author that uses this alternative term. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to look up "verb with multiple morphemes" with this term, in which case they're probably looking for polysynthesis or something.
I can't defend the term depictive construction the same way. I can't even find where exactly it was mentioned. Google also shows lots of unrelated results, so I would be fine with removing this redirect.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Heimr[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. The wiktionary entry for this term would suggest that it is an Old Norse word for "world". While both of these terms likely played a role in Norse cosmology, I think it's a bit of a stretch and possibly misleading to redirect Heimr to Hel. Norse cosmology would be a more suitable target, but the term isn't used there either. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find an appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 06:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that Hel isn't an appropriate target. Norse cosmology does mention the níu heimar ("nine worlds") including Vana-heimr etc. and would be okay as a target. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If heimar is just a different form of heimr, I have no problems with targeting there. signed, Rosguill talk 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, to clarify, heimar is the plural and heimr is the singular. Haukur (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually "heimr" is home and and its meanings as "world, abode, etc." are figurative (Just like for the English word). And there is a considerable discussion about this in Talk:Norse cosmology# Translation of "heim" and I am wondering why none of it in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Flerovium-283[edit]

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

Boy next door (stock character)[edit]

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy next door (stock character) concluded with targeting it to Girl next door. I object it and suggest to use soft redirect to wikt:boy next door. Reasons:

  • GND article does not define the term (no refs), while wiktionary does.
  • There is no evidence that BND is basically same as GND (otherwise we could have written this up in GND article, right?)
  • the argument in AfD that BND is a variation of GND does not hold water has no solid founding in sources, and I find it dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I did exercise a good deal of due diligence, and I found not a single reliable source that discusses the term rather than simply uses it. Otherwise I would have simply added the ref to the GND article (since I have already wasted lots of time to find it) without bothering the community. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wrong venue: if you think the AfD was wrongly closed you should list this at WP:DRV. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    No. The AfD was closed correctly. Please read carefully what WP:DRV is for. And this venue is exactly what I need: "central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. ". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    The AfD was closed correctly, but you "object [to] it" anyway? Please clarify. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    I stated my reasons, see above. In Wikipedia we discuss articles, not editors, and my intentions are none of anybody's business, unless they interfere with "wikipediting". That said, here is my story: I voted for deletion. After closure I tried to make the redirect reasonable, i.e., tried REALLY FREAKING TOO HARD (for such a trifle) to find sources with minimal discussion, to use in in GND article; in vain. During the search I found that the term is defined in wiktionary, and here you go. You may also want to ask why did I exert myself for a piece of trivia. Because I am kinda linguistics buff and non-native English speaker. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe that you could not find any sources, and if there are no sources supporting usage of the phrase, the redirect should be deleted. Even though there is a Wiktionary page, Wiktionary is not considered a reliable source, as far as I am aware; therefore, linking to an un-sourced definition is not advisable either, imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I know why there is GND, but there is no BND cliche. My long search shows that unlike GND, a BND can by of any possible character: nerd BND, gay BND, "good boy" BND, villain BND, serial killer BND, etc., in addition to standard love target, with the only thing in common is being an "ordinary" (or seemingy ordinary) one. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

September 3[edit]

Dharma (Hinduism)[edit]

Dharma in Hinduism is a general philosophical term, quite distinct from Yama, which is a specific deity. Redirect to Dharma#Hinduism, by analogy with Dharma (Buddhism), which also links to its own section in Dharma. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. That seems to be the most intuitive target. ComplexRational (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Bukowski (201X film)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no action required.

President Andrew Jackson’s[edit]

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

Nelson Mandela’s[edit]

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

Alfred Hitchcock’s[edit]

Notice the use of a curly apostrophe (’); this goes against MOS:' and WP:TSC (advises against such use in page titles). Alfred Hitchcock's already exists with a straight apostrophe. This was originally part of a batch nomination and not noted separately. ComplexRational (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep pending a discussion on the utility of Alfred Hitchcock's. If one is a useful redirect, then the other is a useful {{R from alternative punctuation}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's highly unlikely anyone would ever use this exact text as a link or search term, especially as it has a curly apostrophe instead of a regular one. JIP | Talk 08:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Santana (wrestler)[edit]

Santana and Ortiz a new page goes into more details about both wrestlers careers, rather than just at one promotion. Therefore a re-target seems appropriate to me. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Admin note - I started to add Ortiz (wrestler) to this per Galatz's comment ([36]) but found that both of these redirects are full protected. It seems that both titles are former articles on the wrestlers which have multiple times been redirected as a result of a deletion discussion, and are protected against repeated recreation. I'm a little concerned that the Santana and Ortiz article is an end-run around AfD. Ping protecting admin Beetstra for input. Also I have not tagged the redirects through protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It would greatly surprise me if this new article wound up at AfD. The Wikiproject recently finalized an essay on notability, with criteria specific to tag teams at WP:PWTAG, which they very easily meet. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Per Beetstra's comment below I've gone ahead and tagged the redirects to point to this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Santana (disambiguation) as there are multiple wrestlers with that name, like Tito Santana and Santana Garrett, the latter of whom had gone as the mononym Santana as a ring name. Santana and Ortiz article is also newly created but Ortiz (wrestler) can redirect to LAX until the duo's article is clarified. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, this is only a protection to avoid the continuous recreation of the single-wrestler articles which were heavily focused on 'A did this with B' vs. 'B did this with A' -the couple was shown notable, not the individual wrestlers. I'm fine with everything. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Santana and Ortiz. The duo clearly meets notability guidelines and the new article will not possibly end up at AfD. The place readers will find the most information about Santana or Ortiz would be the Santana and Ortiz article. StaticVapor message me! 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget Santana (wrestler) to Santana, and Ortiz (wrestler) to Ortiz Santana and Ortiz. There are two wrestlers listed on the Santana disambiguation page neither of whom can be said to be the primary topic. There are seven wrestlers listed on the Ortiz anthro page; coincidentally, one of the wrestlers listed on Ortiz also goes by the ring name Ricky Santana. These are both too ambiguous to target any particular individual. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed the list, while I could see some arguments for which one is primary, they are the only ones who go by this exact and only name. Therefore I disagree with the retarget, we can just have a redirect hatnote to help people. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      • No, they're not. Both Mike Draztik (of this pair) and Santana Garrett use[d] "Santana" as a mononym. You seem to be right about [Angel] Ortiz, though, and so I've modified my comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Drama[edit]

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

Homo depot[edit]

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

Passato prossimo[edit]

I found it surprising that this redirect led to a page about a film rather than the Italian tense. Considering that the current target averages 2 views per day, and the first few pages of Google search results are mostly related to Italian grammar, perhaps the redirect should instead lead to Italian conjugation#Present perfect (Il passato prossimo), as this seems to be the primary topic. ComplexRational (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Seeing as the redirect is spelt out in the opening line of the film article as the Italian title. Per the maming conventions for films, the foreign-language title should be a redirect. You could put the hatnote on the film's article to say it redirects here and if you want to look at the Italian verb usage, then link to it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example on another film article. There are countless others too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I would be fine with a hatnote if the current redirect is kept. However, I do not exactly see the resemblance between this and the other redirect you linked (another common use of the same term). Thus, I still ask: is there a clear primary topic, and if so, could the naming conventions override this (I would not think so)? ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Inclined to support a change given that interest in the obscure Italian film is so low, but the term is covered in other articles (i.e. present perfect, preterite, untranslatability, modal verb, etc.) so it's not obvious what the best target is. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This is the actual title of the film, and in an English-language encyclopedia, we shouldn't expect readers to look for present perfect generally in Italian. There is some discussion of the tense in Italian at that page, though, and at the page cited by the nominator. (That gives us a bit of an WP:XY problem.) --BDD (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nominator. Usage of the sentence-case phrase "passato prossimo" in English-language books overwhelmingly refers to the tense rather than the film [37][38]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Toa So Dou[edit]

Apparently a misspelling of Tang Soo Do that was made with regard to Bill Duff by some PR people, hence the current redirect, but seems confusing without some kind of explanation. Keep, retarget to Tang Soo Do, or delete? Previously discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review/3rd March 2010 so pinging Niteshift36 who commented back then. PC78 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • It probably is a misspelling, but I don't see any harm in keeping the redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Tang Soo Do, on the usual principle that we should regard misspellings which have appeared in print as plausible search terms ... otherwise I'd say delete given the sheer number of errors in the spelling (the usual limit at RFD is one, and this one has what, five?) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cognitive problem[edit]

As far as I can tell, these terms are not synonyms. The target is about a category of medical conditions, whereas a google scholar search for "cognitive problem" mostly returns results about problem-solving skills. signed, Rosguill talk 08:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, in the few cases it is used it seems to be about cognitive deficits [39][40], but I also found one mention in an old philosophical chapter ("the problem of cognition"). The papers on problem-solving all use full term "Cognitive problem-solving". – Thjarkur (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Cognitive test may be a better target, but I am neutral for now. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Transfan[edit]

[Later note: Also the redirect transfans should have the same action taken toward it as toward this one.]

Looking up the word "transfan" on Google seems to indicate that it is way more common to use it for fans of Transformers than for those who have attraction to transgender people, the current target.

The current redirect seems to be a historical accident. The "attraction to transgender people" article was once named "tranny chaser", and it was moved to "transfan" because "tranny chaser" is generally considered offensive. [41] It was later moved to its current title.

I propose this redirect go to Transformers instead; and given the lack of reliable sources indicating it is in use for the other meaning, there is no need for a hatnote at the new target. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC) added note -Crossroads- (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the comments below, I am now arguing for deletion of this redirect instead. There does seem to be consensus so far on this, especially on the fact that it should not redirect where it currently does. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I support. In addition to what Crossroads says, I've personally never heard the term "transfan" outside of this page in any context even though I have heard the terms "chaser", "tr*nny chaser" and even "trans amorous". Loki (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Seriously, "tr*nny chaser"? Since when has "tranny" been an obscene word? JIP | Talk 10:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Our own page on the word says Tranny (or trannie) is a term for a transgender, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person, and often considered to be derogatory or offensive. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term is a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride. In 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook (emphasis mine) Plus, I get the Daily Beast calling it an "anti-trans slur" in the first page of a Google search. (So, taking your question literally, at least since 2017 and probably since the early 2010s?) Loki (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
        • This seems kind of funny, because way back when people still used UseNet, from the middle 1990s to the early 2000s there existed an on-line discussion called "The Trannies" where people voted for their favourite Transformers-related things. That "Trannies" came from "Transformers", not from "transsexual". JIP | Talk 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I was originally arguing for a retarget, but given what you mention here, and the apparent rarity of the term in any context, I would support a delete also. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Changed my nomination to arguing for delete. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Transformers or delete per nomination. I have known of "transfan" meaning "Transformers fan" for over two decades but never of it meaning "transvestite fan". Note that the redirect is included in a navbox template about transvestitism, so if something happens here, the template has to be fixed. JIP | Talk 13:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Transfans was not tagged or officially added to the nomination prior to this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Trojan milestones[edit]

No mention of "Trojan" in the target. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Where's the deletion-otherwise requirement that the term appears in the target? The target article could be clearer, certainly, but I can't see (yet again, I never see this) how making things incrementally worse is supposed to be an improvement.
As to the term, then look at the first reference. De Rose (2004) uses Horse in the title, so I hope I don't have to point out the reference (Also 'CLIX' is another name for it). Or else there's Witt; Metzing (2010). Linguistic Modeling of Information and Markup Language. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a hard and fast rule about redirects being mentioned, though this category speaks to the rationale somewhat. Consider a reader trying to figure out what a Trojan milestone is. Will the status quo satisfy them? (Not being familiar with the subject, I genuinely don't know.) --BDD (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
But if the target's unclear, do you fix the target? Or do you delete the redirect? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Bringing the redirect to RfD prompts page watchers of the target page to do exactly the former. If no-one does, then redirecting without a mention amounts to WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
AfD is not cleanup. Nor is RfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
That essay argues against deleting an article as a means of improvement (i.e. against WP:TNT). Starting an RfD asking for editors familiar with the subject to provide a justification for the redirect is completely different matter. signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Only used in De Rose's paper and another paper that references De Rose's paper. Not expanded upon in the article as one of the typical terms associated with milestones in computing. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC) updated 19:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Donald John Trump[edit]

Delete per WP:COSTLY and WP:UNDUE: "Mr." and "Mrs." are not normally honorifics for which full-name redirects are created. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. These are well used terms that unambiguously refer to the subject. "Mr. Donald John Trump" gives me 169,000 ghits (eg: [42] [43] [44]) "Mr. Donald J. Trump" offers 46,000 ghits (including: [45] [46] [47]). -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep while we shouldn't encourage people to make such redirects, they're essentially harmless and creating an RfD for them is more costly than ignoring them. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's what I meant about WP:UNDUE: there are 1.7 million articles withing the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. In order for these three not to receive undue weight, relative the other biographies on Wikipedia, by virtue of these redirects existing but the other ones not existing, (1.7 million - 3) redirects would need to be created. Can you please explain what the value of that would be? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
UNDUE is about article content, and doesn't really apply to redirects (redirects are only mentioned in neutrality policy in relation to explicitly non-neutral titles, which isn't the situation here). On a less lawyer-ish note, undue weight is a problem when it lends disproportionate credence to one idea or perspective over another, inhibiting Wikipedia's neutrality by distorting the relative importance of various viewpoints. Having a redirect from Mr. Donald Trump but not from say, Mr. Barack Obama (or any other person) does not give precedence to Donald Trump over other people, and won't even be noticeable unless someone specifically types in these search terms. signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, (and I should have made clear my my cite was based on the spirit behind, not the letter of, the policy) because the Wikipedia search box starts showing suggestions as soon as characters begin to be typed into it. So the user is presented with three (!) Trump redirects, and not the article they are seeking, even if they start typing Mr. Don Kintd, Mr. Don Johnson, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld or any other similar plausible combination. (even Mr. Doctor Who!). UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - the search box excludes redirects to the same target. It is not doing so right now (as UnitedStatesian described) because the RfD banner hinders that functionality. Also, what Tavix said. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, we should generally not have redirects from "Mr." (and so on), we should have (I presume we do) a search engine that mostly ignores those. And editor able to link the proper name.- Nabla (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nabla. These are useless; if you search for this string or link it or go straight to the URL, and you find that it doesn't exist, you'll try searching/linking/going to the name without the "Mr." The fact that almost no biographies have these "Mr." redirects makes it less plausible, and also more confusing: anyone familiar with our naming conventions will not expect to find a redirect with a "Mr." prefix, and anyone not familiar who encounters one of these is likely to expect there to be lots of other pages. Although a different situation, obviously, the potential problem for the not-familiar issue is comparable to the Dutch speaker looking for "Klimaatverandering" at WP:FORRED. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the first two as per above, but delete the third, as I see it as much less likely to use than Mr. Donald John/J. Trump. James-the-Charizard (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Nabla and Nyttend. These are relatively newly created redirects with no significant incoming links and minimal pageviews (0–2 per year before the RfD), so the argument about their utility simply does not stand up, in my view. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to attempt consensus clarifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nabla and Nyttend. Plantdrew (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Prop (stage, screen)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completely harmless. This is a misinterpretation of WP:RDAB, which isn't intended to apply to cases like this. - Eureka Lott 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The point of RfD is to discuss what purpose a redirect has. "Harmless" implies the nominator thinks the redirect is "harmful", when in reality they just think it's unnecessary and a clog of Wikipedia. Without specifying what purpose it has, this just feels like a WP:POINTed opinion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • If there's a valid reason to delete this, I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not aware of one, though. - Eureka Lott 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's your reason. A parenthetical disambiguation describes what the page IS, not what it's USED FOR. Therefore, it's essentially saying that it is a stage called a prop, not that it's a prop used on the stage. This is understandably confusing and should qualify it for deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish I could agree with you, but that rationale is contrary to WP:NCDAB, which states that using "the subject or context to which the topic applies" is a typical form of parenthetical disambiguation. I also checked the page view statistics, and this redirect gets regular use, which means that it's helping people find the target article. - Eureka Lott 01:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you even reading the pages that you are linking to? The most recent one (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) is about violating policies and guidelines in order to change them; it is entirely unclear how EurekaLott is doing that. Geolodus (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - No valid reason has been given to delete and I can't think of one. It doesn't clog WP, the original reason given is completely bogus, and the subsequent reason doesn't have sound basis. Given WP:NCDAB, as stated above, it's doubtful that a good reason exists. - NewageEd (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a standard disambiguator or one we'd want to use willy-nilly. By all means, we could mark it {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} or at least {{R unprintworthy}}. But I think a lot of users will struggle coming up with the "right" search term for this beyond just "prop". I'm no expert, but I've acted and even directed club/community theater, and didn't know for some time into that that "prop" was short for "property". This is undoubtedly the right target for this search term, so I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Brazil 2016[edit]

Either delete or retarget to 2016 in Brazil. Vague and ambiguous, and AFAIK not a common way to refer to the Olympic Games. Search engine results may vary, but for me a Google search brings up a fairly mixed bag. Some for the games, yes, but often for peripheral topics such as Brazil at the 2016 Summer Olympics rather than the games itself, and other stuff including the 2016 Brazilian Grand Prix. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- it is normal to refer to Olympics in this way. Consider, for example, the book Rome 1960. Matchups 12:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The link you chose an example undermines your point. Rome 1960 is a disambiguation page. In any case, the corresponding page for the 1960 Summer Olympics would be Italy 1960, which doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Novel way of referring to an Olympics, compared to the more standard "City Year" format. I could see this being an acceptable substitute if the host city were not a well-known world city, but that is not the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2016 in Brazil per Dass Wölf. Tons of things happened in Brazil in 2016, and such a title doesn't make sense as a redirect unless it's going to a "year in country" overview article like this one. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in an attempt to clarify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

China 2008[edit]

Either delete or retarget to 2008 in China. Vague and ambiguous, and AFAIK not a common way to refer to the Olympic Games. Search engine results may vary, but for me a Google search brings up a fairly mixed bag. Some for the games, yes, but not overwhelmingly so. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep the Summer Olympics are the clear primary topic for this term. A hatnote to the Paralympics already exists so another isn't needed, but can be added to 2008 in China if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Not clear at all. On the first two pages of the linked Google search, less than half of the results refer directly to the Olympics and those that do come from running text, i.e. "Human Rights in China: 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics" and such. PC78 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete vague. Sawol (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget (my preferred option) or delete per nom. It's quite ambiguous, but notable events are listed at 2008 in China. - Eureka Lott 19:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Matchups 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Novel way of referring to an Olympics, compared to the more standard "City Year" format. I could see this being an acceptable substitute if the host city were not a well-known world city, but that is not the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2008 in China per comment by Dass Wölf on the Brazil 2016 discussion. Lots of things happened in China in 2008, and while the Olympics are outweigh most of the others individually, everything else outweighs them by a massive margin. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in an attempt to further clarify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Magic Seal[edit]

Okay, this is really not something unique to the game, or series. Overly vague fantasy term. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, all of them are too vague. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Disamb. would serve nicely for several of these terms. –MJLTalk 22:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind disambiguations are only for articles sharing the same title, not containing the concept. That would be better served by Search.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally, you make a bunch of redirects to where they gotta go. I did a light draft for Sword of Flame to give a sense of what I am talking about. –MJLTalk 06:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not particularly convinced we need a disambiguation for Flaming sword either. Flaming sword (effect) is already explained in Fire eating. Sword of Flame is not how people generally serach for "Flaming sword".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've got a mixed bag:
    • Retarget Magic Seal to Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow#Magic Seal, which looks like the primary topic to me.
    • Delete Dark Druid. There are a few minor mentions in other articles, but I don't think there is anything significant enough for a disambiguation to make sense. There is some mythological usage (eg: Sadhbh), so there may be scope for an article on this.
    • Weak disambiguate Sword of Flame for its usage in Fire Emblem (this is the translated Japanese subtitle), Flaming sword, and The Artefacts of Power (where The Sword of Flame would need to be retargeted). I agree that such a disambiguation would not be for listing all usage in fiction that happen to have a "Sword of Flame" as an element, I believe the typical way to handle it would be in a section like Flaming sword (mythology)#In fiction. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure redirecting Magic Seal to the Castlevania article would be that useful given how many works of fiction have magical seals in them. There's also no currently (or at least one I know of) article that discusses magical seals- either in fiction or the occult sense so I don't know where it would be redirected to. As for Dark Druid Delete, the concept of dark (evil) druids doesn't seem unique to Fire Emblem (or any fiction) so having it redirect to it would be misleading. No opinion on the flaming sword redirect, however. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was expecting concepts like Weapon triangle to be redirected to the series. These are too generic. Anyway:
    • Retarget Magic seal to Sigil (magic) since sigil=seal
    • Disambiguate Sword of flame to Flaming sword (disambiguation) to include Flame-bladed sword, Flaming sword (mythology), Flaming sword (effect) and Fire and sword disambiguation. Fire Emblem can be added if it has a distinguishable fictional element
    • Delete dark druid not specific to this game
AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Aphex Twin's 1993 track "On"[edit]

Not a plausible search term, I would suggest deletion. This redirect has had a belabored history, as it has now twice been nominated for deletion using invalid rationales (CSD G4 and PROD). An article was also created with this title, puzzlingly by the same editor that nominated the redirect for PROD. I don't think that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion; I would simply like to clarify that I am not intending this as any sort of back door deletion, as this title is inappropriate regardless. If anyone wants to pursue creating an article about this song, it should be done at On (song) signed, Rosguill talk 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The title is certainly specific enough but as a search term it's very convoluted. PC78 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipædia[edit]

These should be deleted because these are not something anyone would ever search for. Would anyone possible ever search for "Wikipædia" or "Wikipaedia" when looking for Wikipedia? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 11:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep both "ae" and "æ" come from the alternative spellings of the word "encyclopedia" [48] --LukeSurl t c 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both The theoretical reason explained by LukeSurl just above is borne out by the facts. Both these redirects receive ample user traffic, with 33[49] and 91[50] views, respectively, in the last 90 days.Largoplazo (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both per WP:ENGVAR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both per above.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both (to make life easier for those who use this space). MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is a plausible typo. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are not just used as search terms. Many pages link to them. -- œ 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Gastropods[edit]

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

Template:Electro[edit]

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

Template:Econ[edit]

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

Remain Alliance[edit]

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

Beckman Professor[edit]

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

The live guy[edit]

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

Thai mistranslation[edit]

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

Ingurisshu[edit]

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

Blue Guy[edit]

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

Miscellaneous Thai translations of words[edit]

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

Thai names for other Asian countries[edit]

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

Thai terms for regional Buddhist topics not directly relevant to Thailand[edit]

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

Bardzrberd[edit]

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

Third industrial revolution[edit]

The target of this has been changed several times. Current target is not mentioned in the article, but is related and plausible. But the book The Third Industrial Revolution is a closer match with the actual wording. I think we need a discussion to avoid moving this back and forth. I recommend the book. MB 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2[edit]

Wikipedia:Books/AC/DC[edit]

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

Z-Knights (Europe)[edit]

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

Attitude (song)(Metallica)[edit]

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

.io game[edit]

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

Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

There is no chronological information in the article, so the reader will not find anything about Europe's "last" dictatorship. Also the article lists four of them. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • IIRC, this originally pointed to Belarus but was deleted after an RfD discussion. I consider the current target to be reasonable as Europe has relatively few countries that are considered dictatorships. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Dictatorship#Communism and Fascism in 20th-century dictatorships, where most of the examples are 20th century dictatorships in Europe. The current target, as well as List of totalitarian regimes, do not have a clear focus on Europe; they give long lists of dictatorships in other parts of the world. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to name a "last" dictatorship, as several continued simultaneously decades after World War II, so one could also make an argument based on WP:XY. ComplexRational (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to Belarus, where the label is discussed (in the lede!). From a cursory search both on and off Wikipedia, the label seems common for Belarus and I was unable to find competing usage. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Durga (2014 film)[edit]

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

Waymarking.com[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Waymarking.com is a specific website; there is no information in this article and I find the redirect confusing. Recommend delete. MB 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I too find this confusing. Delete Waymarking.com. Rwood128 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Waymarking.com, a website for Waymarking, I can see the redirect was intended to provide info on the concept, for lack of a page for that website. For those with an inkling of what is Waymarking, which I gained just now(!), it may be helpful. For that I say keep. DadaNeem (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, we wouldn't redirect Cars.com to Car if it didn't have its own article. Either it's notable or it should be deleted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Waymarking.com is more closely related to Geocaching than Trail blazing. The website was created by Groundspeak Inc. (the dominate geocaching company) as an alternative to creating more virtual caches. If the redirect is to exist, it should point to something on the geocaching article, not trail blazing. –Sparkgap (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

KVBT-LP[edit]

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

Aurora Beacon News[edit]

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

September 1[edit]

Seth Ator[edit]

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

ToonTime ...In the classroom[edit]

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

Combies[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, based on internet results this is an informal plural of "Combi boiler", a Navien brand name. As this doesn't appear to be an actual nickname in use by reliable sources, and it is a surname (albeit not one of anyone that already has a Wikipedia article), I would propose deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep but change target: (I created the redirect) "Combi boiler" is a UK generic short form of "Combination boiler", and is not specific to the company named above (if it ever was; but in any case, cf hoover). The usual plural is "combis": like all plurals in "-is" it does occasionally occur spelled "combies" but prob too occasionally to be found (yet) in reliable sources. The notional surname is irrelevant, but because "combies" is also short for several other things also beginning "combination..." it could sensibly point to the existing disambiguation page Kombi. Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kombi as per Combi, of which "combies" is a plural. PC78 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kombi per Ingratis. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

UBX:GAL[edit]

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

Salad's Sauce[edit]

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

Dressing of Salad[edit]

Unlikely capitalization and unlikely phrasing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: Not very plausible as a search term, but not misleading or or otherwise problematic enough to justify deletion. Redirects don't have to be perfectly phrased or capitalised simply to exist. Geolodus (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Golodus. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not a likely search term, and useless for linking. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Geolodus. Nothing wrong or ambiguous about it. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Debian 6.0.? Squeeze[edit]

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

Debian 3.2[edit]

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

Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's[edit]

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

August 31[edit]

Writing as Jessica Beck[edit]

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

Svetosavlje[edit]

These do not refer to the same subject, although they are related, see their respective entries on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, [51] and [52]. As Svetosavlje is not mentioned in the target article, I think deleting and leaving it as a redlink is preferable to the current redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep "Svetosavlje" is Serbian term for the "teachings of Saint Sava". Since we do not have a separate article on his teachings, this is a useful redirect. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like Svetosavlje has a life of its own that extends far beyond St. Sava's teachings, as evidenced by the content of Svetosavlje and the related article on Svetosavan nationalism [53]. Moreover, a Google scholar search suggests that in English texts, Svetosavlje is used exclusively in the context of religious-nationalist movements that did not arise until long after St. Sava's death. While it may yet be acceptable to include a section on Svetosavlje ideology in Saint Sava, without such a section the redirect has the potential to be misleading for English speaking readers, as it would suggest that the modern philosophy and the medieval saint's philosophy are synonymous. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Université de Birjand[edit]

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

Waterloo Station[edit]

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

Template:WSSProposalArchive[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Nedeia River (Garbovul)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That was quite an intense barrage of wiki jargon. Even I, with more than 8000 edits, could barely understand what you just said. Geolodus (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. If this stream exists, it should be on this detailed hiking map, but all I can find is a summit "Vf. Nedeilor" (elevation 1619 m) southwest of the village Câmpu lui Neag. There is no tributary of the stream Gârbov (right tributary of the Jiul de Vest) named "Nedeia" on this map. Markussep Talk 12:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nedeia River[edit]

There is no indication in target list article of why these redirects point here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Negovanu River (Bosorogu)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. If this stream exists, it should be on this detailed hiking map, but all I can find is a summit "Negovanu" (elevation 1936 m) north of the peak Șureanu. There is no tributary of the stream Boșorog named "Negovanu" on this map. Markussep Talk 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Neagu River (Sebes)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target articles of why the first 2 redirects point there. The 3rd target article is an anthroponymy article. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
...Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Mânza River[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I found two streams named Mânza on a detailed hiking map (spelled "Mînza"): they are two parallel right tributaries of the same river Iapa, one 2 km west of the other, west of the village Negulești. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is an error on the map, it doesn't make sense to give the same name to two streams so close to each other, and this local website only mentions one stream "Manza". Apart from this website and Wikipedia and clones, I have found no mention of these streams. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Mocirlele River (Sugag)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 3 km long, and flows into the small river Șugag south of the village Dobra. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). I added this stream as a tributary to the infobox of the Șugag River article, so at least the redirect is less surprising now. Markussep Talk 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Moraru River (Plostina)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all three. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map (as "Morarul"): it is about 1.5 km long, and flows into the small stream Ploștina (a tributary of the Cracăul Alb) south of the village Mitocu Bălan. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Moara Dracului River (Hogea)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As a river the Moara Dracului is not notable, but I found there is a small natural monument or nature reserve which covers the Moara Dracului gorge. There is a map on this website, see "TRASEUL 6". I'm not sure whether it's notable though. Markussep Talk 09:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Moara Dracului River (Falcau)[edit]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 2 km long, and flows into the small stream Falcău (a tributary of the Calul) west of the village Poieni. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

C16H19N2O9S2[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Forms of Digivolution[edit]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Useful navigation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 17:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - target describes "digivolution", but not different forms of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the "Mega" and "Ultra" mentioned at the section forms of Digivolution? --BDD (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Rukoru[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Grado Empire(Fire Emblem)[edit]

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

Affinity (Fire Emblem)[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Sigma personality[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's actually really hard to sort through all the various personality type pseudoscience floating around online to find anything resembling a "reliable source", but generally alpha wolf/alpha versus lone wolf/sigma are used fairly interchangeably.[54] I'll add a mention in the target article. -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the term floating around on the internet. What ultimately pushed me to make the decision to nominate was that we don't even have Alpha personality. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
True, and yet we do have Beta male (slang), which could reasonably be a target for beta personality. Even for pseudo-science, the topic as a whole isn't being approached with much rigor as things currently stand around here considering it's a theory everyone has at least heard of. Linking the topics together was as far as I got with it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Alpha personality would go to Alpha (ethology). But back to the original sigma term, I don't see any reliable sources that use this term, only unreliable blogs. Books that have the word "sigma" and "lone wolf" refer to six sigma in business or fraternities that might have sigma in their names. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Mentioned in the article now, albeit with a tag. This feels like one of those cart-before-horse situations where we really need to first determine whether we want the content in the article. If it's there, the redirect is obviously helpful; if it's not, the redirect is probably confusing. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:WPHawaii/sandbox[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Lakshmi (Buddhism)[edit]

These redirects have misleading disambiguators, as Lakshmi and Saraswati already have significant amounts of content about their observance in the Buddhist tradition. Kisshoten and Benzaiten specifically covers the deities' adoption in Japanese religious traditions. I would suggest deleting this redirect, and perhaps creating Lakshmi (Japan), Lakshmi (Japanese religion), Lakshmi (Shinto), etc, although it's not clear to me that readers are likely to search for these subjects this way. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue seems to be standardization of article names. Kisshoten and Benzaiten are simply Japanese language translations for these deities that feature in Mahayana Buddhist texts. Several Asian-language Wikipedias treat them this way as well. Another option could be to keep the names of the current articles as those that focus on Japanese-specific Buddhism and extended traditions (Shinto, Shugendo, etc). In this case, Saraswati (Buddhism) and Lakshmi (Buddhism) may serve as their own articles to distinguish between larger overarching traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; similar to how Yama breaks into Yama (Hinduism) and Yama (Buddhism). Keep for now as they are still extensions of Buddhist tradition. --Invokingvajrastalk 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I admit to minimal knowledge of Buddhism, but these do look problematic. Lakshmi touches on Buddhism in a few places, liking to Kisshoten in the Japan section but also to Palden Lhamo under Tibet and Nepal. The situation with Saraswati is similar. It's probably better to either retarget to the main articles or delete. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

He Never Dies[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

House of Swabia[edit]

Misleading. The redirect suggests a noble family, but the target is on a former duchy ruled over by multiple families, none of which are referred to as the House of Swabia.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Hohenstaufen per this. Are you suggesting deletion? (Is it just assumed that RFD means redirects for deletion?) Srnec (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Srnec, the page is, in fact, called "redirects for discussion". Eman235/talk 01:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. But I find it odd that no suggestion as to what be done is routinely put forward by nominators. Is it taken as granted that absent an explicit suggestion, the nominator is asking for deletion? I've been around since this was actually called Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but I rarely participate here. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's accurate. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Srnec: I disagree with that proposal, if based solely on that link. Those are just the results of an internal search engine, with the only result being a section about a famous member of the House of Hohenstaufen who happened to be a Duke of Swabia. My default position is "delete if no better alternative can be found".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Every Duke of Swabia for 200 years was a Hohenstaufen. Srnec (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I believe the nominator is correct that there is no "House of Swabia". I don't understand Britannica's organization well enough to really know what's going on here. I don't know if the "directory page" suggests an intent to create an article. But they don't use the phrase anywhere. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A Google search for "House of Swabia" returns many hits, mostly from older works. It should point to Hohenstaufen, the general meaning. It's a not unreasonable search term. The Hohenstaufen are strongly associated with Swabia. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Hohenstaufen. Spurious uses still top the Google results, but there are some from older books that use the term in the way Srnec has argued for. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Square root of 1[edit]

Not a useful redirect. No one looking for the article on the number 1 itself would be searching for this, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTCALCULATOR. (Yeah, I know this doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    ...Geez, articles like Square root of 2 exist? Never mind then. Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't Root of unity what a reader might be looking for? – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm, possibly, but I guess I was looking at this along the lines of the actual articles at Square root of 2, Square root of 3, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, to a non-mathematician like me, it's not at all obvious that Root of unity should be titled the way it is. If I were looking for this topic, I'd probably search using something like Root of 1, Roots of 1, Root of one, or Roots of one, none of which exist as redirects. Do you think I could create them? – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Retargeting to Roots of unity is definitely a possibility, though I've never seen "roots of 1" and "roots of unity" interchanged, so I'm not sure how useful this would be. I don't think the current redirect is very helpful either; there is nothing remarkable about the square root of 1 labeled as such (note also that square root of 9, etc., don't exist, for the same reason of being unnecessary), and one could even argue that it would impede a search for Roots of unity if left as is. Regarding other possible redirects, the intuitive Nth roots of unity already exists, so I don't see a strong need for these other redirects to be created. ComplexRational (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Paraul Varului[edit]

More unexplained redirects concerning Romanian rivers. There is no indication in the target articles why these redirects target those pages. Note that Pârâul Mărului also exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

...Afterwards, and articles that are restored can be nominated for WP:AFD if need be, and then the redirects would follow suit and be deleted per WP:G8. The way it stands though, a lot of these redirects are {{R with history}}s or {{R from merge}}s and were WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed in a way that made them troublesome redirects since they are not mentioned at their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Camden NJ (1943-1953) station[edit]

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

Final Fantasy bestiary[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The "(A-Z)" ones, that's improper punctuation, and the one with the capitalised "B". "Final Fantasy bestiary" is fine.  Nixinova  T  C  01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nixinova:There is nothing that could be called a "bestiary" in the article, however.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • delete / keep per user Alsee, i.e. delete the fan's excesses, keep the needed attributions. - Nabla (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Tavix, what's the solution for this sort of problem again? We move the ones with attribution history to other plausible titles without leaving redirects? --BDD (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @BDD: The options are listed at Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like?. You can move without redirect to a plausible title, but I'm not sure what that would be here. There's way too much history for the paste history/authorship and delete options so I don't think that works either. I dislike moving to a talk page subpage because it obfuscates the namespaces. Since the merged content is no longer extant anywhere, I think the easiest solution would be to just delete these. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. As a reminder, per WP:RELIST, once consensus can be assessed, this discussion can be closed at any time (even before the 7-day window.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

J.R.R. Tolkien's[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Houston Port Authority[edit]

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

Verdis[edit]

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

John Bampton (Archdeacon of Lewes)[edit]

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

National Library of North Korea[edit]

Misleading because this institution is not the national library. It merely acts as a "quasi-national library" (International Dictionary of Library Histories) alongside the actual National Central Library (North Korea), for which we don't have an article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • KEEP. According to International Dictionary of Library Histories, there is no report about the “National Central Library” anymore after 1971, seems it disappeared, or, a reasonable peculation could be that it just move or became a part of the Grand Study Hall of the People: National Central Library is the predecessor of People's Study House before 1982. Plus, according to this story (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20773542)by BBC magazine in 2007, the Goethe Institute, clearly called their North Korean partner, the Grand Study Hall of the People, as North Korea's national library. As the Goethe Institute runs long time programmes with the North Korean government, they must pretty sure about the situation there, could not make a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 安眠3 (talkcontribs) --Garam (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the full quote from International Dictionary of Library Histories:

North Korea also has a national library, which came into being in 1946 when the Pyongyang Public Library was designated as the national library of North Korea, subsequently changing its name to the National Central Library. ... In 1964 the collection of the National Central Library was approximately 1,500,000 volumes. This increased to about 2,300,000 volumes by 1971. Since then, officially reliable data about the National Central Library have not been reported. North Korea also has a quasi-national library, the People's Great Learning Center, founded in 1982 to celebrate the 70th birthday of Kim Il Sung.

This is a specialist source, acknowledges both libraries, and based on information available to them – even though limited – explicitly decides to call one of them the national library instead of the other. The source gives absolutely no preponderance to 安眠3's theory that Grand People's Study House was elevated to national library status sometime after 1971. The national library is not the only North Korean institution for which reliable data has been unavailable for decades but scholars still assume it exists (e.g. Central Bureau of Statistics). As for the BBC source, it's a single casual remark in a piece about something completely else, likely a mistake made by a non-expert. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete 安眠3 makes a very strong argument, but it's so difficult to look into North Korea. There are two things I'll say with the information we have available: 1) the GPSH functions a lot like a national library, and 2) though it has a stronger historical claim, we really can't be sure whether the National Central Library still exists or functions like a national library. I completely understand the desire to fill in "[Foo] of [Country]" topics, but I'd rather leave it to search results than risk WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hung Chow[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Advice for editors[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

C8H14MgO10[edit]

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

C82H50O50[edit]

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

Nomo Sapiens[edit]

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

Mental health of Donald Trump[edit]

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

August 29[edit]

Wikipedia:GOTPAID[edit]

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

Kate Donnelly[edit]

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

Wikipedia:BADFAITHONOM[edit]

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

Aboriginal language[edit]

These should both target the same article, probably Indigenous language. Also note the existence of Aboriginal languages (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Agreed, point both redirects at the general synonym Indigenous languages, which is an umbrella that includes Australian Aboriginal languages. Michael Z. 2019-08-30 14:35 z
  • In principle yes, but do other countries use the term "Aboriginal languages" to refer to Indigenous language(s) in general? If the use is not general and widespread, is it not better to manage it with hatnotes - which Australian Aboriginal languages does have, but would need to have Indigenous language added... and actually I think that Aboriginal languages (disambiguation) needs Indigenous language too? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Canada does ([55] for example). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Tiffin boy'[edit]

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

Kind boy[edit]

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

Rockland r[edit]

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

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR[edit]

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

Very stable genius[edit]

This phrase, which refers to Trump's description of himself in a January 2018 tweet, isn't mentioned in the target and doesn't appear to have ever been. The only articles where the phrase is mentioned in the body are Dump Trump (statue) and Fire and Fury; the latter might be a viable target, as might Stable Genius Act, though that article doesn't use the precise phrase. We could find somewhere to add a mention, but I don't think deleting these would be a great loss to the encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and we can assume that some non-zero number of readers are going to want to search on this phrase, and probably will decades from now. If they do search on the phase, the current target seems the best of some poor choices.
The fact that Donald Trump on social media is broken and doesn't contain any info about the term is a fault of that article, not of the redirect.
In fact this phrase should have its own article. I have seen it used scores of times in various contexts, in highly notable publications, and it continues to be so and probably will be for years. Because of this, an article of several paragraphs could easily be constructed. There's no question that people studying this highly important period of American history will coming across this quote and be be looking to find out more about it decades and probably centuries from now.
To give these people nothing beyond a "not found" error message is not helpful to the reader. However, any attempt to make a proper article where the reader can be pointed to the original tweet, various examples of it being invoked, some analysis perhaps of the context (it was in response to someone's earlier statement I believe) and so on is out of the question -- I've tried stuff like this, and the deletionists won't have it, period.
I can't help that, but there's no need to make the situation worse by destroying even redirects to where there at any rate should be useful information is not helpful to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Retarget to Stable Genius Act. This can serve as the redirect for any "stable genius" phrases. Luckovich's book can be added as a media response. It looks like the Stable Genius Act was created in response to the Trump tweets so "very stable genius" would be appropriate as background. [57] The article should also have a section for reaction to the phrase, as well as redirecting Stable Genius and STABLE GENIUS Act. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget. This is something he has said often, both in person and on social media. For example, [58] January 6, 2018 [59] May 23, 2019 [60] July 11, 2019. It is virtually a catchphrase of his. It gets over a million hits on Google. However, the target is wrong. He actually says this more in person than he does on social media. This should redirect to Stable Genius Act. If the article does not explain the origin of the title, I will rectify that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the article Stable Genius Act does use that very phrase. Right there in the lead. I will add additional examples. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
There is now a paragraph on the subject at Stable Genius Act. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested. Thanks MelanieN. — JFG talk 06:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

KB![edit]

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

Have you seen this boy?[edit]

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

ATWAS[edit]

While reviewing the discussions below (The Real Ronaldo, White boy music) I came across these other questionable creations by the same user. Reviewing, but probably leaning delete unless there's any evidence of use. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • After reviewing: I removed one which was obviously a misread on my part. Of the remaining, the only one where I could find any evidence of use is Professor Hoofenstein, and it does appear that it refers to the targeted article although this player's supposed nickname is not mentioned there; redirect has 3 hits this year. Chappy Ferrer and Robbie D are both ambiguous: Google suggests this could refer to any of several people with no primary usage implied, and these names are not included in the target articles; also 41 and 32 hits respectively this year. Page view stats are similar for the rest. The Phil Lynott redirect is a copyvio if it's lyrics (as implied by the creation edit summary), but I could not find evidence that it means anything at all. Delete all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Per nom. gnu57 15:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget ATWAS to All the world's a stage as it applies to that title more so than the albums or other pieces. There's a non-notable school in Michigan named ATWAS. Delete cheese sondwich. Searches point to cheese sandwich right away as a typo, and the word isn't hard to spell. Professor Hoofenstein has some mention in fan blogs, but need more news articles to affirm it to be an official nickname. Delete Frankie Lamps as I'm getting a number of Frankie brand table lamps that don't seem to be pointing to any single notable organization. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget ATWAS and delete the rest. GiantSnowman 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Real Ronaldo[edit]

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

File:Viele1v.JPG.jpg[edit]

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

Bearbeastnotpussy[edit]

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

Virgin Screwdriver[edit]

Joke redirect. gnu57 15:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Screwdriver (cocktail). It's a real thing, and yeah it's just orange juice, but this particular combination ends up being a WP:SURPRISE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is it? It's not mentioned at the article. I get that a "virgin screwdriver" would just be orange juice, but we need more than that. You could drink liquid dihydrogen monoxide too, but that doesn't mean we should redirect it to Water. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Might See TV[edit]

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

Zoe Dog[edit]

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

How Kid boy got his name[edit]

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

Jumping box[edit]

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

São Paulo (cidade)[edit]

WP:FORRED, specifically the disambiguator is in Portuguese. DaßWölf 14:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Portuguese is a language pertinent to the topic though. I'm leaning keep for that reason. Geolodus (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to pt:São Paulo. Someone searching for this is probably looking for info on the city in Portuguese, where it's a featured article, so let's offer that target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the stats are out of whack because several templates currently incorrectly pipe links to the city through this redirect, which is incidentally how I encountered it. DaßWölf 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Templates in question: [61] [62] [63]. DaßWölf 06:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I admit that applying FORRED to a disambiguator seems novel, but it clearly meets the "related to that language" (or "affinity") standard. Since there's a São Paulo city and state, I don't mind the disambiguation; I'd be less open to something like Minas Gerais (estado). --BDD (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Chuckwallis E. Cheese[edit]

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

10 to 25 people desperate for attention agree to live with each other for 60 to 130 days in order to gain fame or a cash prize[edit]

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

Kid boy chow[edit]

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

Bate and switch[edit]

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

White boy music[edit]

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

Visible light (disambiguation)[edit]

Consider this a nomination of the DAB page in the state it was before my recent edit turning it into a redirect. Non-redirect pages do not seem to be RfD-able, even though RfD is clearly a better forum than AfD. So I turned it into a redirect to make the nom work. I will gladly accept any trouting accompanied by an explanation of what to do for future DAB pages. Anyway...

I WP:BOLDly retargeted visible light from light to visible spectrum (which I think is not very contentious but I could be wrong) and did some cleanup at the hatnotes of the various articles. The result is that the DAB page had two items, with one the clearest WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ever, and the other covered in a hatnote. Hence, I think the DAB page should go. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • In response to the small text, DABs are normally discussed at AfD, not here. I'm going to say restore dab because this seems to be a pretty busy page suggesting it's useful or linked from somewhere. Also note that it is a dab page with three links, not two: one to light, one to visible spectrum, and one to a relevant collection of short stories, and I think that visible spectrum does not do a sufficiently good job of disambiguating that the page is unnecessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    The page was linked from light ("visible light redirects here, for other uses, see <DAB page>"), so there's probably the source of most traffic. (The page view ratio is 1:200; a 0.5% click rate on the hatnote does not seem absurd.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ivanvector. This is the wrong forum for discussing a disambiguation page. I suggest closing, reverting, and sending this to WP:AFD. - Eureka Lott 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wrong venue to discuss a dab page. I reverted the change to a redirect. The dab page has three valid links. I also reverted the change in redirect Visible light. Light is the better target for this link.--Srleffler (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (nom comment) OK, so my retargeting is not consensual. I still think that "light" is not a clear primary topic for "visible light" (compared to "visible spectrum"); maybe we could move the DAB Visible light (disambiguation) over the redirect Visible light instead? TigraanClick here to contact me 09:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

QIA[edit]

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

Queen cake[edit]

I can't find any references to the term "queen cake" in the article. Georgia guy (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This was originally a redirect to king cake, which does mention queens, but not specifically queen cakes. - Eureka Lott 15:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This should either be mentioned in the cupcake article or it could retarget to Queen Elizabeth cake as per some recent articles about the Android 10 [64] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of cakes. Queen cake is listed and pictured there (it looks very similar to a cupcake). Incidentally, if we anchor it to the appropriate part of the list, Queen Elizabeth cake is right after. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We also have new redirect at Android Queen Cake, courtesy of @Tbhotch, so disambiguation is an option. I think I prefer BDD's suggestion, though. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - When I was a kid, "queen cakes" was the name my Mum used for the small cakes she made, much the same as what I've seen others call "fairy cakes". I've no idea if this name is more common in Scotland? Obviously personal anecdotes like that don't constitute citable evidence(!), but (for example) there's an example of "queen cakes" here. (I notice that's a South African site). Point is, there does seem to be some evidence for the term's usage out there. Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    That looks like the same kind listed and pictured at List of cakes. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    Queen cakes are indeed like fairy cakes, see Queen cakes – 18th century dainty bakes. There is a recipe in 'Cakes, scones, biscuits & fancies for afternoon teas' by Bridget Amies (1953).Northcote Lea (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

All the languages spoken in india[edit]

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

Indian languages and resources[edit]

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

Vietnamese language (dialect)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 12#Vietnamese language (dialect)

C32H52O15[edit]

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

Bali boy[edit]

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

August 28[edit]

Template:WikiProject GLAM-IHS/doc[edit]