Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

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

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

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

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]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain 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/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

January 11[edit]

NetHack/Amulet of Yendor[edit]

Implausible search term. Not a very active user (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wizard of Yendor[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wizard Of Yendor[edit]

Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Baggins of Hobbiton[edit]

Very unlikely search term. Users are going to search for the article, not a draft. Hog Farm (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wulf (Middle-earth)[edit]

Appears to only be mentioned in a Middle-earth sense at Wulf (disambiguation). Hog Farm (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Brambles of Mordor[edit]

"Brambles" are mentioned once at the Mordor article, but in a very generic sense. Nothing in the Mordor article suggests that the Brambles of Mordor are a specific item someone would search for. Hog Farm (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Round Green Door[edit]

Oddly specific and not mentioned under this name at the target article. I imagine this is a reference to the door to Bag End (Bilbo and Frodo's house), but that is never actually referred to by this name to my memory. Hog Farm (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dor-en-Ernil"[edit]

We already have Dor-en-Ernil, and adding quotation marks around the title of this redirect makes this phrase an extremely unlikely search target. Hog Farm (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

The Gentlemen (upcoming film)[edit]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Economic Corridor Digital Innovation Zone[edit]

These search terms are not currently mentioned at their targets. While it's plausible that these topics could be related, an internet search would suggest that the Eastern Economic zones are independently notable of the current redirect targets, and I would thus suggest deletion to encourage article creation. It is not clear to me whether the various Zones are independently notable of each other. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Loving J.[edit]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Loving Joy[edit]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. My top internet search results for this term are a line of vibrators. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Old Pukel land[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. In Middle-earth, the Pukels are a name for the Druedain and their sculptures, but "Old Pukel land" is not mentioned at that potential target, either. Hog Farm (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Gwathir[edit]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Not to be confused with Gwaihir, the name of a Middle-earth eagle, this one is an obscure river. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

East Emnet[edit]

We don't have information about an East Emnet on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete : This was mentioned on List of Middle-earth rivers, but that article has been changed to a redirect. It's still mentioned in Rohan (Middle-earth) and The Lord of the Rings Online: Riders of Rohan, but spelled Eastemnet. Faolin42 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Emyn Beraid[edit]

Mentioned twice on the English Wikipedia, once as an outgoing link on at Outline of Middle-earth and a brief, unexplanatory at Gildor Inglorion. Not mentioned at the target page, and no clear retarget option. Hog Farm (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fault(geology)[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete per current consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete per current consensus. Hog Farm (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. GeoWriter (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: For the record, prior to me making this nomination, I noticed that the previous discussion stated that this redirect had pageviews. After reading that, I also noticed that this redirect had incoming links in the article namespace in WP:PIPE-d links. At this point, those links have bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary clutter, a pure typo. Of course it has had views, readers have been presented with two near-identical links in the searchbox. I also cite WP:UNHELPFUL. Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Denethor I[edit]

Denethor I is not mentioned at the target article. Not to be confused with the more imporant Denethor II. Hog Farm (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Most of the other Stewards who redirect there are also not mentioned in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:39B4:5087:F9E6:41C (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Rotten eggs[edit]

Does not mention "rotten eggs" anywhere in the article, with the exception of the header at the top of the page. 69.92.186.111 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I added the similar redirect Rotten egg to this nomination. I can't think of an obvious retarget for these, but I think we can disambiguate the singular. I'll create a draft on that page shortly. ComplexRational (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not a big fan of that draft disambiguation page. One link is a partial title match and the other is more of a "see also" link. Rotten Egg is a proper name, though. I started a second draft disambiguation page at Draft:Rotten Egg. - Eureka Lott 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Eureka Lott That indeed looks better, I wasn't aware of half those entries. If we ultimately adopt a dab, feel free to merge and/or overwrite with Draft:Rotten Egg. ComplexRational (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was added recently, but it seems like the article does not mention rotten eggs.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Traps Are Gay[edit]

No mention of this phrase at the target article (see Know Your Meme for context). I can't think of any other article where it would make sense to retarget this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Rick Sanitarium[edit]

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

Astrologaster[edit]

Not mentioned at target page. I looked at this after stub-sorting Astrologaster (video game); added hatnote at Astrology as that's where this points, but can't find the term in the article. Is is just a synonym for "astrologer"? PamD 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Glanhir[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Hog Farm (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom[edit]

  • Delete Extremely long title that as a result is a very unlikely search target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Remnant of a 2008 page move to a more appropriate title. BarkeepChat 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lillies Bordello[edit]

The term is not mentioned in the target article, and, as far as I can tell, never has been. John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wouldn't be surprised if it never has been mentioned - a bordello is a brothel. Note that the creator, User:Rd809, was WP:INDEFfed in 2009 as a WP:SOCK.
Three other redirects were created by Rd809 within minutes of the one under discussion, and I suggest that they be bundled in here. None is mentioned in the target article:
Taboo Navan. This could be Taboo Nightclub, http://www.taboo.ie/[dead link], Navan, County Meath
Nass Court Hotel. Possibly Naas Court Hotel?
Bourjoi. No idea
Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Pearl King (songwriter)[edit]

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment fixed nomination (nominator created an empty section on the RFD log page but didn't use {{rfd2}}). Nominator also left a comment at Talk:Pearl King (songwriter). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dave Bartholomew. The nominator is quite correct. Pearl King was the name of Bartholomew's wife, and was sometimes listed as a co-writer on Bartholomew's songs. She is not WP:NOTABLE in her own right. And she is definitely not the quite separate musician Earl King - although other sources, outside this one, have sometimes got this wrong in the past and caused confusion (including, I'm sorry to say, me in this old edit, now corrected). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Middle-earth Inns[edit]

These inns are not discussed in any meaningful way in the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. They're not discussed in any meaningful way even in Tolkien. Fancruft trivia. Contrast The Prancing Pony, which is a perfectly good redirect to relevant information. Narky Blert (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ascar (Middle-earth)[edit]

"Ascar" is not mentioned in a Middle-earth sense in the English Wikipedia, so a redirect for this with (Middle-earth) on the end is worthless. Delete as obscure fancruft. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrath[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. Mentioned at Misty Mountains as part of the place name "Cirith Forn en Andrath" but I don't think Andrath would be a logical search term even for that. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

These redirects are not discussed anywhere[edit]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

32,768[edit]

Retarget to 30,000 as the redirect from this number seems to be less useful between number and computer and science, I will suggest retarget to 30,000 per WP:NUMBER. 14.207.205.207 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to 30,000 per WP:NUMBER, as the redirect from 32768 and 32768 (number) exists. Also, these redirects should target to the same article. 14.207.205.207 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This IP address is the same as the one that made the nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Targets of other powers of two from 211 up to 232 — 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lithlad[edit]

Targeted to Middle-earth but the only time it's mentioned is exactly once at Mordor. I don't see a reason to have a redirect for something that's mentioned exactly once. Hog Farm (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

West Emnet[edit]

Does not appear to be mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete : This was mentioned on List of Middle-earth rivers, but that article has been changed to a redirect. Faolin42 (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It's still mentioned in Rohan (Middle-earth) and The Lord of the Rings Online: Riders of Rohan, but spelled Westemnet. Faolin42 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

East Bight[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. A Middle-earth redirect whose Middle-earth meaning does not seem to be discussed anywhere. Potentially a confusing redirect since "East Bight" could be a real place. Hog Farm (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Emyn Uial[edit]

This name is mentioned exactly once in the entire Wikipedia. Not mentioned at target article and unlikely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Limlight[edit]

I think this ought to be deleted. By using the searchbar and adding a * to the front to bring up all instances of Limlight, I found two references at Rohan (Middle-earth), one at Fangorn, one at Misty Mountains, and one at Rhovanion. All of these references are brief mentions, usually as either a reference to the river serving as the boundary line to a region, or as the river being listed in a list of tributaries. With no actual description of this river around and brief, approximately equivalent references at four different places, I don't think there's any content to redirect to or a clear target. Also nominating Limlîht and Limliht as alternative spellings mentioned literally nowhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Kibil-nala[edit]

Obscure fictional spring mentioned about two or three times on the English Wikipedia and not mentioned at the target article. Very unlikely search term, too Hog Farm (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

January 9[edit]

Little house of loreto[edit]

No mention of this phrase at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what I've always heard it called. Even if it's not common enough to be mentioned in the article, it's a term some people might know it as. And I don't see how deleting redirects makes Wikipedia any better to use. WP:Redirect: Reasons for not deleting 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." Just because one person's never heard of a term doesn't mean others haven't. PaulGS (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Majoritarian socialism[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, a Google Scholar search would suggest that this isn't really a term in use, and the few matches do not use the phrase "Majoritarian socialism" equivalently to "democratic socialism" (e.g. ...robust enough to produce an impressive though never majoritarian socialism. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - Democracy is about majority votes. So democratic and majoritarian are very similar words. Crashed greek (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
A government can be majoritarian without being democratic. signed, Rosguill talk 05:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least redirect to socialism. Majoritarian and democratic are not interchangeable. A democracy can be non-majoritarian, and many aspects of the United States democratic republic are democratic but non-majoritarian such as super-majority margins and minority protections such as the Electoral College and filibuster. Similarly, a government can be majoritarian and non-democratic, aristocratic deliberative bodies like the early English House of Lords would be an example of a majoritarian government that is non-democratic. All of this is a little beside the point though because democratic socialism is a political ideology that covers far more than vote thresholds whereas "majoritarian socialism" covers any socialist ideology that makes decisions through majority decision. I think deletion is probably better per Rosguill, but I'd be fine with redirecting to socialism given the broadness of the term and potential use as a search term. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vega Real[edit]

No battle by this name, or even just Vega Real for that matter, is mentioned at the target, nor at the esWiki article. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

88100[edit]

There's several other examples of the number 88100 being used in other Wikipedia articles (and even Motorola 88100, which would appear to be the intended target of the first redirect). Given the broad variety of possible targets, I would suggest deletion and letting the internal search do its work. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom and also fails WP:NUMBER as a non-notable number. If the argument is that it's a partial title match of a Motorola product, then that's also a reason for deletion. Utopes (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason behind the creation of these redirects is the precedent set by 68000. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

BiglyBT[edit]

Redirect to a non-existent section. As part of continuing spam, please salt after deletion. The Banner talk 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where you're seeing spam. You exhibit a consistent pattern of removing the section on a fork of Vuze, which is a legitimate bit of information about the formerly free software project. Unless you can prove you're not affiliated with Vuze, I assume your interest in not having this information available. I will have your behaviour reported. Andrej Shadura (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"I will have your behaviour reported" is a WP:THREAT and should be withdrawn. Narky Blert (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

F Line (Los Angeles Metro)[edit]

Please delete this redirect page. LA Metro has tweaked the letter assignments and will no longer establish the "F Line." RickyCourtney (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

British National (Overseas) - extra information[edit]

Redirect is named as if it points to a specific section within the British National (Overseas) article and is not an alternate name for the subject of the target article. Horserice (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick B[edit]

Not mentioned in the target as an alternate name, searching online I found results about someone who was on The Bachelor and a Russian youtuber. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neither his Discogs entry nor his Allmusic (signed) biography mention "Nick B". Despite the imperfections of those as sources, Discogs in particular is often good on musical aliases. All I found was Nick-B, someone else altogether, a WP:NN rapper. Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Obscure Middle-earth redirects[edit]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target (or anywhere else); no use to anyone. Nor should it be mentioned in the target: all this Middle-Earth fancruft which would have trouble justifying its existence in a wikia needs to go. This is WP:NOTDIRECTORY stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. If these terms were at least mentioned on the target article, I could see a case that the links were useful. But without even that, I'm not sure how to justify their existence. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oven Toast Grill[edit]

Quite possibly one of the most odd redirects I've ever seen. It is in Category:Redirects of dubious utility, a template category, and the template says that redirects in the category should be raised here. InvalidOS (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target article and unclear exactly what this is supppose to mean. Hog Farm (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

John Doe (rapper)[edit]

A link to a DAB page with no relevant entry. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator. Not a useful redirect for anyone, and no history that needs to be preserved. Glades12 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronna[edit]

Two incoming links, neither of which is about the target, and each of which is about something different. This would likely be better as a red link. Wikiacc () 08:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Set index or dab? Not sure how to go about it but there are several articles about people named "Ronna" --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Convert into {{given name}} page. I've added the text for one below the RFD notice. Narky Blert (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose converting into a name list. Neither of the current links from the main namespace (Special:PermaLink/922738594#Districts and Special:PermaLink/935118945#Fashion career) are apparent references to people, so the drafted set index would not be useful for followers of those links. I'm not sure what to do instead, but lean towards disambiguating with both the subjects referred to by the links and people with the name. Glades12 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ronna in the first permalink is sv:Ronna, a place, with no article in any other language. I've edited the article to turn it into Ronna [sv].
Ronna in the second permalink is obscure. Neither the Italian nor the Japanese equivalent articles mention Ronna; and neither WP has an article on that word. The citation is print-only, but I found a French version. I could find nothing more about Ronna in Japan. I've redlinked it in the article as Ronna (brand). Narky Blert (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Then your proposal is fine. Struck my original comment. Glades12 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Glades12: No worries, you prompted me into doing the extra necessary work! Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Eofor (Middle-earth)[edit]

Eofor as a Middle-earth topic does not appear to be mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Esgalduin[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, no good alternate target page. Hog Farm (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Firienholt[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, no good retargeting target. Hog Farm (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Máhanaxar (Two spellings)[edit]

Mentioned once (not at the target article) in Wikipedia and the mention is not substantial. Unlikely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Tyrn Gorthad[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, no good redirect point. Hog Farm (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Amon Lhaw[edit]

Not mentioned at target article, not good retarget point. Hog Farm (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Middle-earth redirects not mentioned on the English Wikipedia[edit]

Not mentioned at all in the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Adorn (Middle-earth)[edit]

Not referenced at target page, no good retarget option. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

January 8[edit]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Hollyoaks[edit]

Unlikely search target, recreation of recently deleted article. — MarkH21talk 23:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article was recently deleted and redirect target makes no sense. Ajf773 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Teeth of Mordor[edit]

The "Teeth of Mordor" does not appear to be a place, thing, or anatomical function described in Wikipedia. A movie with this title appears to be referenced exactly once in a filmography, but since the apparent film has no article, no reason to redirect there. I think this is an attempt at "The Towers of the Teeth", but I wouldn't call this a logical search term for that target. Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thistle Brook (Middle-earth)[edit]

Not discussed at target article. Hog Farm (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Faolin42 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Middle-earth inns[edit]

The topic of Middle-earth inns is not discussed on the target page, or anywhere really. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Duin Dhaer[edit]

Not mentioned in any article on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Faolin42 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Movie theaters and handpainted movie posters[edit]

Not a plausible or relevant search term or link. —Matthew - (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Longest Street in North America[edit]

Misleading redirect from an implausible search term. While it is true that Yonge Street was once incorrectly labelled by sources as the "longest street in the world", that's been disproven and is no longer claimed -- however, now that it's lost that braggadocious claim and had the sources chop it back down to its actual length, it definitely does not continue to hold the status of being the longest street in North America either, as it's fifteen miles shorter than the length ascribed to Colfax Avenue in Denver CO. And even Colfax Avenue is merely claimed by some, but not all, sources as the longest street in the United States alone. I can find no sources that make any claims as to the longest street in North America as a whole — but even if there is another street longer than Colfax, it definitely isn't Yonge. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous and misleading redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator. Indeed misleading, and risks being that regardless of what it targets. Glades12 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Noo Yawk[edit]

Delete. Not a plausible search term or link. The only plausible explanation for this redirect that comes to mind is that it was meant as a joke. R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

'Keep Common enough spelling for how it's heard in a New York accent, or at least perceived as such. It's in Wiktionary. Google finds the term having been used in the NY Times and Post, and in other media sources. It might be obvious enough to an American what it is, but someone whose first language isn't English might not know. "I wouldn't search for this term" doesn't mean nobody would. Redirects are cheap. PaulGS (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per PaulGS. Redirects like this are cheap N harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if a joke, it has significant enough coverage in reliable sources that linking and searching for it are plausible. (We even have an article Noo Yawk Tawk, by the way, also connected to its usage). ComplexRational (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, retarget to New York English per Glades12 as that seems to be the theme of many RS. ComplexRational (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not delete: This has use in reliable sources,[1][2] and is clearly a plausible search term referring to New York English. I am not sure if the current target is the best though. Glades12 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dave Anderson (August 5, 1998). "Sports of The Times; Franco's Noo Yawk, Noo Yawk". The New York Times. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
  2. ^ Sheila McClear (February 6, 2010). "Why the classic Noo Yawk accent is fading away". New York Post. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we have a consensus forming against deletion, but I'd like to see a little more discussion of redirect vs. keep before closing (although obviously if editors feel strongly about deletion they should not hesitate to argue for that point as well)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DSC[edit]

There are too many delsort topics starting with C to single out cricket. ミラP 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty cheap retarget/delete given only 10 links. (More likely delete unless someone comes up with a good target.) --Izno (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Girdley Island[edit]

Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ignacio Parada[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. In an internet search, I was able to find [1], which would establish that Parada was a passenger on the plane. However, given it is unlikely to ever be DUE to mention at the target, and thus I'd suggest deleting the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Disparity(Brain)[edit]

A redirect with a doubly-malformed qualifier (no space, capital letter) to a DAB page - delete. (Nb The correctly-formed Disparity (brain) exists.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Gabbard[edit]

Not a useful redirect, subject is not notable and not mentioned in target section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Greenlander(s)[edit]

These should target the same place. Glades12 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Weikfield Foods[edit]

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

Blue Mountains north of Grey Havens[edit]

This redirect is oddly specific, and is probably too specific to be a logical search term. Hog Farm (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: Could we bundle these? Having all of them as separate discussions clogs RFD. Glades12 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Glades12: I agree with you, but I'm not familiar with bundled RfDs, and bundled XfDs often fail on procedural grounds. However, I would be open to bundling very similar ones. If you know how to bundle to an existing RfD, could you either add The Floating Log to the Floating Log entry or point me to where this is explained on Wikipedia? Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
      • How to (manually) bundle RFDs is explained in the second step of WP:RFD#HOWTO. I am not exactly sure which ones should be bundled either, but I think I can add The Floating Log. Glades12 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Four Middle-earth redirects with similar names[edit]

These items do not appear to be mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  •  Note: Originally RfD'd separately, manually bundled to reduce clogging/clutter. Hog Farm (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Brown Lands/The Brown Lands[edit]

Not mentioned at all in target article. For an explanation as to why I'm RfDing so many of these, AfDs of list articles have led to a lot of stray redirects leading to the section Middle-earth#Geography, and I'm cleaning up the more obscure ones. Hog Farm (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  •  Note: The Brown Lands was originally listed separately, but has been bundled to reduce clogging. Hog Farm (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Floating Log[edit]

Not mentioned in the context of Middle-earth (target article) at all. Delete as weird fancruft. Hog Farm (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: An inn mentioned once in Lord of the Rings, which the characters don't visit. Very weird fancruft!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note: I added The Floating Log now. Glades12 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Forsaken Inn[edit]

Mentioned once, and not at the target article, in a passing sense. No reason to redirect to Bree (Middle-earth) if there's only one minor mention of it there, or to Middle-earth, since no mentions there. Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: this is an abandoned building mentioned once in Lord of the Rings.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Minor miscellaeneous places in Arda[edit]

Minor places in Arda redirects to Arda (Tolkien). However, I cannot anticipate "Minor miscellaeneous places in Arda" being a logical search term, even without the apparent misspelling of "miscellaneous." Hog Farm (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ibrahim S. Quraishi[edit]

An editor added Ibrahim S. Quraishi to the cast list of The Night Clerk but Quraishi's part is so insignificant that it's not even listed on IMDb so there's no sense in keeping a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Gwathlo[edit]

Mentioned approximately four times in all articles in Wikipedia (three articles, none of which are the target article), all very briefly, and with no clear priority for redirect. As an implausible search term, I suggest deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Langwell (Middle-earth)[edit]

Mentioned once in the Wikipedia, and the one mention (not the target article) is is in a page that does not seem likely to survive AfD. Hog Farm (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete: an unimportant fictional river.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Faolin42 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Lond Daer Ened (Two spellings)[edit]

Does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  •  Note: Originally nominated separately, but have been bundled due to the redirects' similarity. Hog Farm (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Druwaith Iaur[edit]

Mentioned once each in a minor way on three different pages in the English Wikipedia, none of which are the target article. Since this is really obscure fancruft with no clear priority for the redirect, I think deletion is a definite possibility. Hog Farm (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bundushathûr[edit]

Not mentioned in target article whatsoever and implausible redirect target. Is mentioned at Khuzdul, but since Khuzdul is a language article where "Bundushathur" is only mentioned as an example, it makes little sense to redirect there either. Hog Farm (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

All-welcome Inn[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article whatsoever. Appears to have been redirected to the target article after the redirect of the original target. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete: According to this, the inn was only mentioned in a 1960 rewrite of The Hobbit that was never published.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

January 7[edit]

Nicolas Po[edit]

This does not appear to be an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. ULAN has an authoritative list of variants of the name; Nicolas Po is not among them. Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Midel[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy procedural close, redirect converted to article

How to tie-dye[edit]

Delete More "how to", Quora-type redirects that we have regularly deleted at other discussions. The one that is a cross namespace redirect does not meet the high bar we have for those. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

4680[edit]

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

Galactic Marines[edit]

Per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#Galactic Marine. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Désormeaux[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search didn't seem to turn up anything relevant. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Latinos[edit]

Retarget to Hispanic and Latino Americans. A quick perusal of incoming links shows most using "Latinos" to refer to the ethnic group, not the terminology. This is consistent with using plural demonyms in general to refer to people groups. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. @Sangdeboeuf:, Latinas and Latina, the Spanish feminine plural and singular, also target Latino. Perhaps they should be added to the nomination, or is it too late?
At least "Latina" also seems to be linked mostly for the ethnic group, though there are many incorrect uses where Latina, Lazio is intended.
Also considering the text at Latino#Criticism, these could be categorized as {{R from non-neutral name}}, but that doesn't make sense vif the term "Latino" itself is not neutral.
I remember having some qualms about these when copy-editing "Equal Pay Day" a few weeks ago. But I did nothing about it, then. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd support a retargeting of Latinas as well. Not sure how to properly format the nomination after the fact, though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (again). I've gone through the links for Latina and fixed the articles that should have linked to Latina, Lazio or elsewhere. There were quite a few of them. This redirect has been retargeted a few times over the years, but not with any discussion after 2009 that I could find. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
I've gone ahead and added the requested redirect while relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Orcan[edit]

This word isn't used in the target (though "orkan" is), and most Google results seem to refer to other topics. There are some sources (and some Wikipedia articles) that refer to "orcan" as a synonym for the target, but I haven't been able to find anything substantial enough to add it to this article or any other. Given the absence of useful content and the likelihood that a reader who searches for this is looking for something else entirely, I think we might be best off deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

January 6[edit]

Ostrich egg[edit]

I agree that this is ultimately "with possibilities", as it's tagged, but there's no discussion of eggs at the target article. I was trying to find out if ostrich eggs are eaten by humans. I did find some relevant content at Egg as food. Retargeting there would only be covering one aspect of ostrich eggs, but may be acceptable since Chicken egg, Duck egg, and Goose egg all redirect there (but Quail eggs is its own article). I could live with either deletion or retargeting. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect to common ostrich, where the information is (for now). Srnec (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to egg as food. IMO, it's more likely that a reader entering this search term is looking for information about cookery than about the bird's reproductive habits. Definitely {{R with possibilities}} - a Google search for 'ostrich egg cooking' turns up all sorts of stuff, including this RS report that they've been sold for cooking in UK. (Apparently, boiling and scrambling are the recommended methods; frying, not so much.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narky Blert: Both incoming links to the redirect are really about ostrich eggshells as objects. When I created it and tagged it as having possibilities, it was this long tradition of using ostrich eggs as containers and as decorative objects that I had in mind. There is an article on ostrich eggs in the Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts. Of course, a fully developed article would include the actual biology and any culinary uses as well. Srnec (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Pigs (1972 film)[edit]

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

Several redirects to Russell's paradox[edit]

Alright. I've deleted all of my other issues on this page, just because I've recently discovered Special:WhatLinksHere's capability of showing redirects to pages. I've discovered several redirects that belong to the realm of WP:DAFT, so many that I've created a special RfD section. I apologize if this is frustrating, but the page would be WAY too big if I didn't do this. Here are all of the offending redirects:

So, luckily, that's all. I've left a usersubpage redirect and two set-of-sets-containing-itself question redirects, because one is just a usersubpage and the others are questions directly asked in the paradox. I think all of these should be removed as they are unnecessary. Nobody will ever really search for these, and they're mainly just jokes. As said, a good place to put these would be WP:DAFT. NineFiveSeven 19:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments before this nomination was bundled

Clerk comment: There were some comments that were lost when the nominations were bundled. [2] I've readded them under this collapse so they aren't lost. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope this isn't spam at this point. But seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. How many redirects to Russell's paradox do we need? NineFiveSeven 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHEAP. They are useful. What's the point in deleting them? If someone doesn't remember the name, it's a helpful aid.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)January 2020 (UTC)

Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Today#List_of_lists_of_lists_that_don't_include_themselves, it's the same thing as this. (This is absolutely not because I want to help set a new record for fastest-deleted article. Not at all.) NineFiveSeven 17:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@NineFiveSeven: No it's not the same thing. That's why I created it. Russell's paradox has two levels, not three. A list is essentially another word for a set of finite cardinality, and this has potential to be referenced much more. That's why I created it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is no such list in Russell's paradox or anywhere else on WP, and absolutely no need for one. If it is desired to illustrate Russell's paradox, it can be done more clearly with ordinary sets; there is no need to illustrate it with Wikipedia lists. This would be a pointless article. --ChetvornoTALK 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: It would have nothing to do with Wikipedia lists. Just because the title starts with "List" doesn't mean it's a Wikipedia list. It's just a reference to Russell's paradox. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. I do think it should go to WP:DAFT if it is deleted. NineFiveSeven 17:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. It would be helpful if some mathematics books described it this way, but it has no Google results besides this article and references to it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I just created the redirect for List of lists that don't include themselves. I personally am surprised this didn't exist.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is one too many repetitions of the word "list" in the title, so it should be deleted as meaningless. If it existed there would only be one "list of lists that don't include themselves", so a "list" of such lists would only have one member. Second, neither of these lists exist in Russell's paradox or anywhere else on WP, and there is no purpose for having them, so both article names should be deleted as WP:DAFT. It's just a cute joke. --ChetvornoTALK 17:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: The redirect with only two lists instead of three, which I created after seeing this deletion discussion, obviously isn't supposed to be a list article. It's just another way of saying Set of sets that don't include themselves. If someone forgets the name of Russell's paradox, they should be redirected there. The shorter redirect is not a joke. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Naddruf: The article name is misleading to readers on two levels: first, it implies that such a list of Wikipedia lists exists, and second, it implies that it is significant. Why should Russell's paradox be illustrated with WP lists? If it is another way of saying Set of sets that don't include themselves why didn't you create that redirect? (don't take this as a suggestion, it's not needed) --ChetvornoTALK 18:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: It has nothing to do with wikipedia lists. We also have Set of sets that don't contain themselves. At this point we should really wait for other opinions.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, delete all. Also, please sign the above post. --ChetvornoTALK 19:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Set of all sets that do not contain themselves as a standard description of the core of the paradox; neutral on the other two variants of that as much less likely targets; delete all the rest (the "list"-based ones are somewhat confusing with respect to WP's uses of lists). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, neutral, and delete the redirects per Deacon Vorbis; I had come to the same conclusions. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
  • Keep sets, Delete lists. My reasoning is generally the same as Deacon Vorbis, except I believe the other "set" entry to be a likely attempt by a non-specialist to enter the first "set" entry, and the "list" entries may correspond to a different paradox. As a specialist, I could be wrong about what non-specialists see, though. List/set of all descriptions which do not describe themselves corresponds to a different paradox. Invited from WT:MATH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the ones starting with "set"; delete the ones beginning with "list". The former are standard ways of summarizing the paradox, while the latter clash with the specialized Wikipedian meaning of "list" as a type of page. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the ones starting with "set"; delete the ones beginning with "list". Per others above. Paul August ☎ 14:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mandalorian (Star Wars)[edit]

Keep as is, retarget to The Mandalorian, or create The Mandalorian (disambiguation) and retarget it there? Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Creat Disambiguation I say we create a disambiguation page and retarget it there. Due to the show we now have a few articles on the topic and it's a bit confusing.HAL333 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Create a disambiguation and retarget. I think we have enough articles on the show to warrant a disambiguation. NineFiveSeven 18:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be "The Mandalorian (character)" - All the Mandalorian content is related to Star Wars. So, "The Mandalorian (Star Wars)" adds no clarity at all. Likewise, it's redundant to include "Star Wars" in the parenthetical disambiguation. So, "The Mandalorian (character)" should be sufficient. "The Mandalorian" article should remain about the TV show because that is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A separate "Mandalorian (disambiguation)" page can be added to point to everything else. Starforce13 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Mandalorian, the established primary topic. If we moved that article to The Mandalorian (TV series), which I currently take no position on, it would be appropriate for this to point to the disambiguation page. "(Star Wars)" does not disambiguate the character from the series, or indeed from anything, since all notable uses of the term relate to Star Wars. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Convert to disambiguation article, in the same format as Green Arrow and the Canaries, which contains the episode of a series, and the spin-off of the same series. Same concept here: the series itself, and the character of the same series. -- /Alex/21 06:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

List of ambassadors of India (disambiguation)[edit]

The target is not a disambiguation page: it is a list of lists and does not disambiguate the term. Speedy delete G14 declined, but other (disambiguation) redirects targeting lists of lists have been speedy deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. 'G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).' (That guideline could be clearer, e.g. by adding "are" after "or".) Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Reluctant keep. WP:G14 is ambiguous: 'G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).' However, {{db-g14}} is unambiguous: '[G14 applies to] a redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" that targets a page that is not a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function' (emphasis added). Taking the two together, (disambiguation) redirects to certain non-DAB pages (those which "perform a disambiguation-like function", horrible expression) are legit.
I think that is bonkers. The only purpose of a (disambiguation) redirect is to tell User:DPL bot that a link to a DAB page is legit, and should not be flagged as a WP:INTDAB error. IMO (disambiguation) redirects to name pages, SIAs, or lists or whatever have no purpose, and should be deleted; but G14 says not. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. If anyone feels like opening a discussion on the wording of G14, please {{ping}} me. I may have a strong feeling as to what the result of such a discussion should be, but I have an even stronger feeling that clarity as to what G14 does and does not cover, arrived at by consensus, is much more important. Narky Blert (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Urbanology[edit]

Dictionary definitions suggest that this term is more related to sociology, so might Urban sociology be a more appropriate target? ComplexRational (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm certainly open to changing my mind if there's evidence to the contrary, but the OED, in a definition updated in 2011, defines it as "The branch of knowledge that deals with urban areas and urban life." That's just urban studies, and fits with what you'd expect from the etymology. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a study dealing with specialized problems of cities (such as planning, education, sociology, and politics)", so explicitly broader than sociology. Wiktionary's definition is a better fit for urban sociology, but we can't rely too much on that. Finally, if we're in doubt, we should prefer the broader term. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Third hand[edit]

Delete, in the absence of R Third Hand or a DAB page, I think it a stretch that someone searching for "Third hand" ends up at an article about a musical work. By comparison, First hand is a DAB (that doesn't actually list any article called "First hand") and Second hand is an R to Used good, the DAB being at Second hand (disambiguation).

For disclosure, I'm also proposing to move Firsthand (TV series) over Firsthand, and First Hand (album) over First Hand, but I think this is separate enough to list without conflict. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Could we do a soft redirect to wikt:third hand? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I understand the objection, but if we only have one use of a phrase, why not send readers there? If they're looking for something else, they'll be disappointed regardless. Deletion would cause harm with no clear benefit. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate for helping hand (tool) and autoblock (which both have "third hand" listed as an alternative name in their respective lead paragraphs) as well as the album. Drafted below the redirect. Move third hand (disambiguation) over the redirect. That page has existed since March 2019 and is linked from the current target, but the current target clearly is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Round-robin swap Third hand (disambiguation) and Third hand. No WP:PTOPIC or WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; the (disambiguation) redirect is required by WP:INTDAB. Narky Blert (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Swap as above, I am the nominator on a different IP address. The fact that I could not find this disambiguation page, even though I had done WP:BEFORE and so on, suggests to me that something was afoot. Putting the DAB there is the right thing to do. 178.164.248.220 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"davy steele"[edit]

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

Windows Janus[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

As I mentioned some time ago on Talk:Windows 3.1x#Janus, there is evidence from the Comes v. Microsoft trial that Windows 3.1 was never called Janus, contrary to popular belief, and is said to be a combined bundle of Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5.0. 93.91.252.108 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep If there is a public o=r widespread belief that thsi was a codename for Win 3.1, that ought to be mentioned in the article (if there are sources), and a redirect is in any case appropriate, even if the belief is incorrect. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rainfurrest[edit]

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

Bath toy[edit]

This term need not refer exclusively to rubber ducks, as there are many other types of bath toys as well. I don't know if there's a good target for this redirect; no broad-scope article seems to exist. ComplexRational (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Bath toys are not always rubber ducks. For example, there are toy boats, or, toy whales.The creeper2007 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • support seems to be a good article in the future --Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Exhibitionist (album)[edit]

The Exhibitionist was deleted following this RfD, so I'd like these to be deleted as well for the same reason. Vaporgaze (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons given in the linked RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete both per the linked discussion. They should have been properly included in the nomination. Glades12 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete both. They could have been speedy deleted per criterion G8 if they had targeted the correct target in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 5[edit]

Socialbox[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, I suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Socialbox" is ambiguous in real life (but no use I can find is associated with Facebook) and Enwiki has no information about any of the uses of the phrase (other than a minor mention at Peter Paduh#SocialBox.biz) which is not a suitable target for this general redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Starship orbital prototype[edit]

On the target article, there is only a summary of the orbital prototypes. Further explanations are found on the Starship development history#Starship and Super Heavy. I suggest to retarget the redirects to Starship development history#Starship and Super Heavy. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Second party[edit]

The target has no mention of this term. I boldly retargeted it to Party (law) but am having second thoughts, so reverted that to list here. Until April 2006 it was a disambiguation page, like First party and Third party, and it could be one again, but I'm not sure that adds much value. It has had on average less than 1 hit a day this year, and no article links to it. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right that the same applies to Second-party and I should have included that in the nomination.
But the current target (the DAB page) does not mention "second party" or "second-party". I think it a WP:SURPRISE to redirect to a page that does not mention the term. To be pedantic, Party (law) doesn't mention "second party" either, but at least it mentions "The party of the second part". The first, second and third parties are the first, second and third grammatical persons, but I don't think that's a good candidate for retargeting either. IP nominator, address changed94.21.10.204 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'd be surprised, and I think retargeting to the disambiguation page is better than a dedicated disambiguation page with only 2 entries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

First-party source[edit]

Although these are both categorised as {{R from alternate title}}, patently they are not alternate titles. We could categorise them more appropriately as {{R from related term}}, but the target doesn't mention the terms. We do have the articles primary source, secondary source and tertiary source, but "source" for "third-party source" means a supplier of goods or services, not one of information as those articles do, so they may not be suitable as retargets. Neither has links from other articles. Hits never exceed three per month. Weak delete both. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually "second-party source" is mentioned in the target, but "first-party source" isn't. I'll leave my !vote as it stands, for now. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If I we're looking up these terms, I'd expect a "first-party source" to be something like Original research, and a "second-party source" to be something like an Interview. So ... I'd imagine that there are retargeting options for these somewhere... Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If "second-party source" is an interview then a "first-party source" is a witness statement (or merely a witness). But the terms are not mentioned at those articles. I'm not sure any of these get much beyond a WP:DICDEF of what a "party (law)" is. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per nom. primary source + secondary source could be fine targets for {{R from related term}}, if folks try to figure out enwiki project terms in the article namespace. It won't help if they are actually looking for OEM. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

International language of love[edit]

Not mentioned in the article that French is the "International language of love". Also not a plausible search term for people searching for information about the french language. I'm not saying that French isn't called the language of love, but that this title is not useful for getting there, and could potentially be a WP:SURPRISE. Utopes (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. This phrase is not mentioned at the target, and might be ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep several websites use the phrase "[international] language of love" to refer the French language.[3][4]. Also, redirects like this are cheap N harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Redirects are costly, WP:RCOSTLY, Q. E. D.. Four editors now have taken their valuable time to do discuss it. WP:RCHEAP means readirects technically are cheap, do not worry about some poor server in Oshkoshbygosh having to empty its bitbucket. Redirects are costly if they send readers on false scent, or anywhere else they want to go.
Now who says that French is the International Language of Love? Do we have good sources? My trusty French-English dictionary does not list it. You have given two references to websites that, the first is a language learning sitewhich is {{subscription required}}, the second is a company "daytanslations.com" that translates stuff. I can also translate stuff, I speak two languages every day, and quite frequently I translate articles from WP:PNT. But they still must qualify for WP:RS and so on, end EN:WP's standards are higher than some others'. Even so, it still does not entitle me to add my own thoughts or desires into the translation. Either this is RS or not. I think it is not. Yes, redirects do not have to be RS, but quoting from language and translation sites is queering your pitch. 178.164.248.220 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Shock theorapy[edit]

Delete these malformed or misspelt redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing Template:Australian Senators/facn[edit]

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

Industrial truck[edit]

The target is too narrow. According to Powered industrial truck, 'OSHA defines PITs as "forklifts, tractors, platform lift trucks, motorized hand trucks, and other specialized industrial trucks..."'. In the absence of a better target I say retarget there, weakly. I suppose a SIA is possible. Neither has any inlinks and monthly pageviews are in single figures. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Racing colour[edit]

Racing colors is a DAB page to which Racing colours redirects. We could retarget this, but "racing colour" doesn't make sense (and racing color does not exist: the term is "colo(u)rs" even if the apparel is monochrome. So Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No article inlinks, and averages a little over one hit a week. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hard and soft technique[edit]

The article describes both hard technique and soft technique, but this R is nonsense, as it implies that "hard and soft" is one technique. It would make sense to create the redirects for "hard" and "soft", but delete this. No inlinks, and has had just 3 pageviews after its creation in July 2019.94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. The article was moved here from Hard and soft (martial arts) as the result of the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard and soft. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, typical {{R from singular}}—in fact this exact phrase is used in the singular in the target's very first sentence. Feel free to create any other redirects you think make sense once you've created an account. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not an {{R from singular}}, because that implies that "hard and soft technique" is one technique, which is not what that category is meant for. It's not meant for any group of words that happens to be grammatically singular, nor for every redirect with a target that happens to be plural.
In the first sentence, it's elided as part of the phrase "the terms hard and soft technique": "terms" here makes clear that elision. In the second sentence, "hard technique and soft technique" is not elided.
It's not harmful, but just adds to clutter in the search space. Really, the problem is with the article title in the first place, per WP:AND, but I can think of no better. 94.21.38.148 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't imply anything other than the fact that "hard and soft technique" can be used as a singular form of "hard and soft techniques" in some contexts, and I have gave an example of such usage. I almost stated in my first comment that it sounds like your issue is with the article title, but wasn't quite sure enough to say so. It's nice to have that confirmation. So long as the article remains about "hard and soft techniques", a redirect from a singular form makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Graph edit operation[edit]

This is a bit WP:XY. The article "Graph operations" does not mention edit operations, but does describe and link to Graph edit distance. I think this is better retargeted there. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Charte blanque[edit]

Enwiki has no information about "Charte blanque". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not even a non-English language. The only thing a Google search turned up was someone called "E Charte Blanque" on FaceBook. Narky Blert (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Enragé[edit]

Not sure. WP:XY, Enrage redirects to Rage (emotion) which hatnotes "Enragé" to Folle blanche, where it is mentioned in passing. The singular term "Enragé"( from French, meaning 'enraged, angry') is not used at the current target. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep I think. If I had read Enragés and wanted to know more I might well look up the singular. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from singular}}. I can easily imagine reading "X was an enragé" in a source. Narky Blert (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Last friday[edit]

Another redirect with improper capitalization, has about 2 pageviews per day. CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Katy perry e.t.[edit]

Improperly capitalized redirect which hardly has any pageviews, seems completely useless. CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Edward Fortyhand[edit]

Delete. "Fortyhands" is a surname, albeit a fictional one: this is not a singular form of a plural word. Implausible search term, got 16 hits last year, no inlinks. My gsearch brings up only the username of an online gamer. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

German spelling reform[edit]

Several German spelling reform movements occurred before 1996. I suggest to retarget that redirect to Spelling_reform#German. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @LiliCharlie: Do you mean to rename the redirect we are discussing here? If so, that seems pointless. If you mean to rename the target article, that should definitely not happen, since it covers far more than just two German reforms. Glades12 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There was also a reform in 1901, so that is not a reason to oppose retargeting. Glades12 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    ^.^b Definitely, I only disputed the renaming suggested by LiliCharlie. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither the 1996 nor the 2006 changes to German spelling were officially called a reform; the official name was Änderung des Regelwerks (lit.: "amendment to the body of rules") in either case. However the 1996 revision was popularly called Rechtschreibreform ("spelling reform") or neue Rechtschreibung ("new spelling"), and the 2006 one Reform der Rechtschreibreform ("reform of the spelling reform") or simply Reform der Reform ("reform of the reform"), in order to distinguish between the two. For the term Reform applied to the major 2006 revision see for instance German Wiktionary, German Wikinews or the Zentrale für Unterrichtsmedien im Internet. — Apart from those two major revisions, German spelling underwent minor revisions in 2004, and in 2017 when the letter capital ẞ was officially introduced. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
2006 was the 3rd revision of the 1996 "Regelwerk" (reform), cf. dewiki, 2011 was a minor 4th revision of 1996. FWIW (=pending review) I added your capital ß info on Reform der deutschen Rechtschreibung von 1996. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Dunkin' Donut[edit]

Delete. Implausible search term for a brand name. No inlinks and gets half a hit a day, on average. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons given.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The (non-trivial) pageviews are probably there because Search lists Dunkin' Donut above Dunkin' Donuts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Keep. Tavix (below) is right. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Huh? Am I missing something? This seems plausible as a form of {{R from singular}}. An example used in a sentence is: "I'm going to go get a Dunkin' Donut." I also think it plausible to search this thinking the brand actually is singular (well, because it technically is). -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix, and since this is a very plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
For anyone searching it, "Dunkin' Donuts" will be the first search result anyway. For that matter, the company now trades as the simple "Dunkin'", but it seems a minor edit flurry has moved it back and forth. The number of hits suggests that people don't in fact search for it this way.
That being said, Dunkin' itself actually use it as an adjective or modifier, which is hard to argue against, and now the firm trades as "Dunkin'" then "a Dunkin' donut" would presumably be OK. So I think it's better just to keep it as an incorrect term. 94.21.38.148 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

HDMI_1.3a_Specifications[edit]

Delete this because this redirects to a mostly unrelated article's broken achor. It is also not helpful to create a redirect for every HDMI specification. Chris81w (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to HDMI#Version_1.3. We have info on the specific version, so it is helpful to have a targeted redirect to it. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Superior border (disambiguation)[edit]

Impossibly broad redirect, not serving a useful purpose. Propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. The target's proposed for deletion, but while it exists, this is standard for linking per WP:HOWTODAB. If the target is deleted, the R will go with it. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above IP address. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the redirect per WP:INTDAB. The target on the other hand might be a deletion candidate by WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It already is. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Borders of the lung[edit]

Overly broad redirect page. Not keeping any useful encyclopedic purpose. In my opinion, no need to keep. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, the result of a merge with significant history. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given above.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SWOSC[edit]

This does not appear to be a widely used initialism. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Recently created and seems to be an invention by the redirect creator; All uses of "SWOSC" online (first two pages of results) seem to refer to Steel Wires Oil-tempered Silicon Chromium alloy by Suzuki Garphyttan Corp.[5]; if the material or company had a Wikipedia article I would've recommended a retarget there but the only mentions are in the Swedish version of Garphyttan (sv:Garphyttan) and the Japanese & Swedish versions of the current owners Nippon Steel & Sumikin SG Wire (jp:Nippon Steel & Sumikin SG Wire / sv:Nippon Steel & Sumikin SG Wire). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Salvidrim!. If a Google search turns up 0 results for one initialism, and two full pages for another, the redirect should not be to the first. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but change into disambig if Steel Wires Oil-tempered Silicon Chromium article is made to point to. Olivia comet (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Olivia comet. It seems like a stretch to say this was "invented"—the letters are right there. I can't really see a benefit to deleting. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete if initials were well used they would be in lead at first use of entry name.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per MOS:DABABBREV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno[edit]

As identified by an IP editor who mistakenly nominated these redirects for PROD, these redirects are as likely to refer to the cities of Reno and Las Vegas as they are the university campuses. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete the city redirects I concur with the nominator (and the unregistered editor who kicked this off in the first place). ElKevbo (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rosguill: It's very bad form to add additional redirects to this nomination after editors have already commented. Please don't do that again. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: I agree, that wasn't me. Looks like an IP added those. I agree that those should be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. My apologies! ElKevbo (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would think this format to be implausible for the cities themselves. Personally, I don't think I've ever seen a city itself formatted in this way. On the other hand, while these specific universities may not be formatted this way, it is common for universities to have this formatting (eg: Wisconsin's system, Missouri's system, University of Nebraska–Lincoln). Strong keep the ones that add the nickname, they are unambiguous with the city. -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the 3 Rebels articles, as they are not likely to refer to anything but the target of the redirect. Delete the Nevada-Reno and Nevada-Las Vegas, as their is ambiguity about what they should point to.Onel5969 TT me 14:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Nevada-Reno" and "Nevada-Las Vegas", as those could refer to both the cities and the universities. Keep "Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels football", as it is clear to see where that points to. Retarget "Nevada-Las Vegas Hustlin' Rebels" to point to UNLV Rebels baseball and "Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels basketball" to point to UNLV Rebels basketball, as those are the far more logical targets for the redirects. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Revising my vote to add keep for Nevada-Las Vegas Rebels Basketball, as that points to the correct article as is. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno, strong keep the others. I understand the arguments against Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno at first blush, but the fact is US cities aren't referred to this way. No California-Sacramento, Washington-Seattle, or Arizona-Phoenix to be found. Conversely, Nevada-Las Vegas and Nevada-Reno are common shorthands for the schools. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

DK-King of Swing DS[edit]

DK Jungle Climber was not a King of Swing port, nor did King of Swing recieve it's own standalone port. — Searingjet (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment King of Swing mentions Jungle Climber as its sequel for the DS. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I don't know how likely a search term this is, but it should take readers where they want to go. I'll tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep. It was formerly known as "DK: King of Swing DS",[6][7] so the redirect would make sense, but we can't use the colon due to technical limitations. Replace the hyphen with a space and keep. czar 03:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    Czar, is that a "move without leaving a redirect" vote? If "DK King of Swing DS" is an acceptable redirect, which I'd agree with, the hyphen seems like a rather benign modification. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    @BDD, yep! czar 05:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in locations[edit]

I think that these redirects should be deleted to encourage article creation, as the current targets have relatively little to say about the locations in these various redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I think we can retarget Chinese Americans in Atlanta and Indians in Atlanta to Demographics of Atlanta, and African Americans in Washington, D.C. to Demographics of Washington, D.C.. - Eureka Lott 00:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recall that a few years back, I had participated in some discussions like this one, but I cannot recall what the redirects were named, so I cannot find the discussions. I do recall though that Tavix was involved in them, I believe. Maybe Tavix recalls the names of the redirects more than I do so that the consensus formed in the previous discussions can be known. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Are you thinking of the Hinduism redirects? That one was bunch of redirects from "Hinduism in location" to a target that did not explicitly discuss Hinduism in that location. The first discussion was a trainwreck, but smaller batches yielded consensus to delete unless a suitable target was found or content was added. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Tavix: Yep, that was it, and the consensus there seems to make sense for any "(person or person concept) in (geographic area)" redirect. I may not get around to sorting through these, but it seems that at the least, EurekaLott's comment falls in line with this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete History of Mexican Americans in California and History of African Americans in St. Louis at the least: These redirects seem to be slightly different than the rest of the redirects in the nomination, and are overly-precise to a point where I cannot foresee there being a proper target for them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry to make this an official trainwreck. I found decent places to retarget several of these. A few have acceptable locations to retarget:
I'm genuinely conflicted about the Memphis and New Orleans ones. Both are very significant centers of African-American culture and population, such that retargeting to the city articles could well serve readers. There's a WP:REDLINK case to be made, though it can be inherently difficult to write about what's historically a majority population (e.g., German Americans in Wisconsin).
To make things even more confusing, I still favor deleting the following, but there's just barely enough coverage that I think it's worth other editors doing a look-over:
I agree that the others should be deleted due to lack of substantive coverage anywhere. With respect to Eureka Lott, I don't think Demographics of Atlanta does the job for Chinese or Indian populations. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 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) 00:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Saffron Barker[edit]

She is only mentioned in passing, and re-target to AJ_Pritchard#Saffron_Barker or the Summer_in_the_City_(event)#2018 award is not obviously better. That redirect was the result of a recent AFD, and the main contributor before the AFD is blocked at the moment. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
With no ideas so far, how about {{R to section}} AJ Pritchard#Saffron Barker and leave a comment on Talk:Social in the City#Saffron Barker stating what to do in the 2018 awards section, wikilink Saffron Barker or keep her unlinked? –84.46.53.107 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems her main claim to notability is as a Strictly contestant, so I don't find anything wrong with the status quo. I'd say her mention at the other places is pretty passing too. I considered suggesting retargeting to List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants, but there are no redirects there. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable, and let Search operate unimpeded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    The AFD reason WP:BLP1E apparently missed the SitC 2017 and SitC 2018 awards, both unrelated to the BLP1E dancing. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Scooter (motorcycle)/Archive 2[edit]

These archives were text-merged into their target (by me) due to not having enough content to warrant separate archive pages. In the past, after text-merging archive pages, I've tagged the pages with either {{Db-g6}} or {{Db-subpage}} after the text-merge (usually {{Db-g6}} anymore after finding out that {{Db-subpage}} usually doesn't apply) and they have bee deleted. (For recent examples, please see User:Steel1943/CSD log/2 for some recent examples; there are probably over 100.) However, for some reason, the {{Db-g6}} tags I placed on these redirects were declined. (here and here.) So thus, I'm bringing these here for a couple of reasons: 1) These redirects existing breaks the utility of templates such as {{Automatic archive navigator}}, {{Archives}} and {{Talk header}} since such templates such return links for existent pages, including redirects, possibly making readers believe there is an archive page that has content, but it doesn't and 2) these redirects existing, as mentioned previously, make it seem that these pages contain content when they do not. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

January 4[edit]

Composers[edit]

Currently redirects to Lists of composers; it's more usual to redirect plurals to their singulars, so in this case to composer - as indeed this once did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Beauty of Becoming[edit]

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

Megastar Mammootty[edit]

Purely promotional redirect name. May apply WP:RFD#DELETE #4. Not linked anywhere and unlikely to be linked either. 137.97.14.106 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it ain't mentioned in the target (and it would need a WP:RS to justify putting it there), it ain't worth keeping. Narky Blert (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Twisted Ranch[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, I would suggest deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Twisted Ranch is a fairly new brand of ranch. They are sold in grocery stores. They come from the restaurant of the same name. Click here: [8]
--Noah Tall (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
If the target article doesn't mention this brand of Ranch dressing, then this redirect isn't of much use. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable condiment/restaurant. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete the Ranch dressing article does not mention this particular brand nor do I see any reason thst it should.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad ISO redirects for OMICS journals[edit]

Delete as misleading redirects (created by mistake by bot from my own request). The OMICS journal abbreviation are JBR J. Interdiscip. Med. Dent. Sci. and JBR J. Clin. Diagn. Res. not these. The above refer to either non-existent journals, or different journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per request from bot owner task requester. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Not quite bot owner, but rather guy who told the bot owner what needed to be created, and the bot owner obliged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Oops - thanks - my comment edited. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Copte[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. No affinity for French, and only mentioned in the title of one French-language reference. No incoming links, and averages about six hits a month. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hierarchy and order[edit]

Delete per WP:AND, WP:XY. There is a DAB page at Order, where Hierarchy is one of the entries. The two topics are orthogonal, really. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

D tuning[edit]

Delete. After 12 years of a long unsourced list, we have come to a realization that the list is completely useless and unnecessary, and we put its main section at the main guitar tuning page, so I believe it is time for the D tuning page to be deleted for good.SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. This a plausible search term, and even if it wasn't, the page needs to be preserved per WP:CWW. I tagged the redirect as a {{r from merge}} and {{r to section}}. - Eureka Lott 16:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Page views (over 500 in the last month) and {{R from history}} are enough to merit a keep alone, but this is actually a pretty common alternative tuning that one might search for. ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation.SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Software mirror[edit]

Weak delete per WP:XY. Beyond the hatnote, the target doesn't mention this term at all. It could go to the DAB at Mirror (computing), since "software" is functioning as a disambiguating phrase here. But none of the entries mentions the term specifically.

It's only used in the article Automatic Storage Management, which is closely aligned with Disk mirroring. On average, it gets about one hit every five days. My gsearch tends to indicate an even split between disk mirroring and screen mirroring, but Screen Mirroring redirects to Projection screen, which doesn't mention software. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per nom. I can't find anything using this term exactly and consistently. One other possible retarget is Offline reader#Website-mirroring software, but seeing as that reverses the word order and makes this redirect seem more like a search term, it's probably not any better than the current target. ComplexRational (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Created by LFaraone on 1 November 2008‎ as a redirect to Mirror (computing), which was an article when the redirect was created, but is now a redirect with history. The last article version was the edit of 24 November 2013; on 25 November 2013 Ringbang "converted problematic, redundant article to redirect" to Disk mirroring, and a double-redirect-fixing bot followed suit. On 18 August 2014, K7L converted the redirect to a disambiguation, but of course double-redirect-fixing bots don't notice this sort of change. A smarter bot might have noticed that the original target, Mirror (computing), now redirects to Mirror (disambiguation) § Computing, and retargeted to that. The term is indeed ambiguous; it could refer either to a mirror implemented by software or software stored on a mirror. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Article Deleted, Administrator plese delete[edit]

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

January 3[edit]

Angiosperma[edit]

No affinity for Portuguese/Spanish Plantdrew (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep this as the singular of New Latin Angiospermae, which redirects there. But the singular doesn't seem to exist in English, understandably enough as the seeds are many, not the plant. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per IP. Seems a reasonable typo or misnomer in English. I'm not at all taking the Portuguese/Spanish into account, since that would indeed be a pretty straightforward WP:RFOREIGN if it didn't look so close to the English form. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

2021 in heavy metal music[edit]

Not sure why this would be a useful redirect. I could see this as an appropriate redirect to 2020s in heavy metal music, but this ain't that. signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think redirects should be deleted until we are absolutely sure they are useless. Sometime later this year, the 2021 in heavy metal music will be created with actual use, so deleting it would be kind of pointless. But there is one article that is useless now and should be deleted. New section on next day's log....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
One that wishes to make an article can just delete the redirect and add the information. Deleting is unnecessary because it will still be created again by someone. ~SML • TP —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that in the meantime, readers could be confused by typing in "2021 in heavy metal music" and ending up at an article that is about 2020 in heavy metal music. If they're not reading the title carefully, they may not even realize their error and could end up misinformed. signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect is misleading because 2021 is not under the scope of the target. -- Tavix (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Close Assault Weapon System[edit]

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

Yellow sae[edit]

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

Joyce Santana[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wider North[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. An internet search would suggest that "Wider North" term is not synonymous with Arctic, but merely refers to a geopolitical concept associated with the Arctic. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation, unless a DUE and sourced mention of the term can be added to the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree on how it should end up....as an article, although it should probably albeit mostly about the 'term. But what is the easiest way to end up[p there. if this gets deleted, could someone just freely create the article without any extra hurdles created by it having been deleted? North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the reasoning behind WP:R#DELETE criterion 10 is that deleting the redirect creates a redlink on article pages that want to link to the concept, which in turn encourages creation because people see the redlink and know that there's an article to be created. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Mexicanx[edit]

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate target for this redirect. Better targets, in my opinion, would include Latinx for an article about the use of the gender-neutral -x suffix in Spanish and Spanish-origin words, or Mexicans for an article about Mexicans (ie mexicanxs). Given the lack of a clear best choice, deletion may also be appropriate per WP:XY. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment this really depends on whether Mexicanx is used more for gender-neutral neologisms or for Mexicans in general. The one usage that stands out from immediate searches is for John Picacio in his "Mexicanx Initiative" for Worldcon 76 in which he defines Mexicanx as "You must be Mexicanx — that is, of Mexican ancestry, whether a citizen of Mexico, Mexican American, Mexican Canadian, etc." https://johnpicacio.com/onthefront/2018/01/28/the-mexicanx-initiative/ If the usage is more towards gender-neutral neologisms, then retarget to Latinx in the appropriate section that discusses Chicanx and Xicanx. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about "Mexicanx" and the current target doesn't help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Transall С.160[edit]

The "С" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic Alphabet which makes this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to apply for a German/French plane and also uses a period between C and 160 instead of a dash, of which the stylization is mentioned nowhere in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ComplexRational (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

UN/LOCODE:FIOLU[edit]

This UN/LOCODE does not exist. The correct code for Oulu is FIOUL Kq-hit (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Popiel І[edit]

The second "І" in the title of this redirect is from the Cyrillic Alphabet which makes this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Canada РТ6А-67R[edit]

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

А1 and А2[edit]

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

Women's А Basketball League of Serbia[edit]

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

MWCA[edit]

There's a fair amount of less-than-notable (or at least article-less) subjects that use this initialism that are mentioned here or there on Wikipedia. The one notable subject which uses this initialism is Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana); it's not actually clear that the current target uses it because its English title is longer (presumably a proper initialism would be MWCAS or MWCASS). Thus, I would suggest redirecting to Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (Ghana). signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom to the only article with a notable mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FC2103[edit]

"FC2103" is not mentioned at the target, and searching online I see many unrelated products that appear to use the same code as a designation. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The Metadata box of photos on Commons automatically links to FC2103 for Mavic Air, like for example here: c:File:Kuulukainen.jpg Joneikifi (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure metadata links are not a reason to keep a redirect to a target that has no information about the topic. Actually, that same metadata box also links to DJI which is ambiguous (and ought to be DJI (company)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment. There are already redirects to DJI at least for FC1102, L1D-20c, FC300X, PHANTOM VISION FC200, FC300C, FC300S, FC300X, FC300XW, FC330, and FC6310. Clearly other people found it useful to have the metadata links point to something meaningful instead of having to do a web search after landing on a missing article. Perhaps it would be more proper to have a way to handle that directly in Commons instead of linking to Wikipedia, but that is above my pay grade. Also, an official reason for not deleting a redirect: "Someone finds them useful." Joneikifi (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Joneikifi: But it isn't useful: there's nothing about "FC2103" at the target. I'd agree with you if the metadata links did point to something meaningful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Roman and Byzantine Greece[edit]

WP:XY, considering that Roman Greece is a redirect to a different target than the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, seeing as users should be able to find both potential targets by typing either "Roman Greece" (a redirect to the article, which has a better title) or "Byzantine Greece". Nobody's likely to assume that one article covers both, and presumably both articles contain links to each other—or they will shortly. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Greece in the Roman era (where "Roman Greece" redirects). The scope of the article is defined as "when Ancient Greece was dominated by the Roman Republic (509 – 27 BC), the Roman Empire (27 BC – AD 395), and the Byzantine Empire (AD 395 – 1453)." Keep in mind that the Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans, not "Byzantines"—that term wasn't coined until the 16th century, over a hundred years after the fall of Constantinople. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

MS Mardi Gras[edit]

I'm not seeing any indication that MS is used as a designation for this ship. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Slight usage mostly in non RS foreign language sources. However more usage for the first Mardi Gras which is covered in our article on RMS Empress of Canada (1960). Once the naming of the new Madi Gras is either confirmed at launch or by christening ceremony then we should have a ship index page which this redirect should go to. Ambivalent about where the redirect should go to at present, on one hand anyone typing it into search box is probably looking for the new Mardi Gras, on the other the Empress of Canada is the right article. Suppose the best answer is to create the SI page now and redirect there Lyndaship (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should have a ship index now. @Lyndaship: could you oblige by converting Mardi-Gras (ship)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok its created but under the name Mardi Gras (ship), none of the ships have a hyphen in their names, MS Mardi Gras redirect still needs to be pointed to the SI page Lyndaship (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus to point to the new set index article? Should the hyphenated Mardi-Gras (ship) still point to RMS Empress of Canada (1960)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • BDD, no objection to that suggestion on my part. signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to (ship) set index, even if it's not an accurate name. The 1972 one is RMS Mardi Gras, so that's pretty close. I see an MS Mardi Gras in a research book excerpt https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-17115-6_5 however, I suspect it is a fictional case study as it is not tied to any real ships with the name, and it isn't the 1972 version because of its destinations in the text not matching the ones in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mardi Gras (ship), with thanks to @Lyndaship:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127Н[edit]

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

Bоtir Qоraev[edit]

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

Tiffany (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Learjet Bombardier[edit]

    • Learjet is now owned by Bombardier. The logo (and common sense) says "Bombardier Learjet".
    • No inlinks
    • Handful of pageviews
    • Created by banned sock/disruptive user
    • No evidence of usage in gHits – only occurrences look like "... blah blah Learjet. Bombardier Learjet foo ..."

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • keep (vote withdrawn) google shows this exact phrase is occasionally used, hence it is a plausible redirect.Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment – @Staszek Lem: can you provide an example? The gHits I looked at were of the form I mentioned above, where it matched because "Learjet" was at the end of a sentence, and "Bombardier Learjet" started the next sentence, or separated by a comma or other punctuation because they are part of separate clauses (e.g., "The soft-selling Learjet, Bombardier's smallest business aircraft, is now trailing ..." and "... stated David Coleal, vice-president and general manager, Learjet, Bombardier Business Aircraft."), or clear mistakes (e.g., this, where it's used correctly in several places except an extra "Learjet" got into the copy in one place, again like the pattern above – Learjet Bombardier Learjet).
      There's also:
      • "Bombardier Learjet" (575 hits) vs.
      • "Learjet Bombardier" (5 hits; 3 of which are of the above "separate clause" type and I can't see the other 2)
        at AviationWeek to demonstrate "correct" usage.
        I don't know if it's a valid policy reason, but I worry that having a redirect from the words in the wrong order allows people to write it that way, linked, in articles, and not see a redlink, so they don't notice they have it backwards.
        I contend the most likely search term would still be "Learjet" alone, and even if you searched Learjet Bombardier, you'd still get the near hit (and/or see the suggestion) for the "Learjet" redirect article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      Your search if only from one, professional, domain. My search was all internets. We have redirects even from typos, and this doesnt mean we are teaching people bad english. But in this case you may be right. The usage is very infrequent and we can dismiss it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
      Thanks. Just to clarify, the first paragraph describes a google search of all sites; the two bullet point linked searches (575 v 5 hits) were limited to Aviation Week to demonstrate the professional industry usage. Bad structure/formatting on my part. I made another minor correction (redirect → article). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Order of а modulation[edit]

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

First А Women's Basketball League of Montenegro[edit]

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

KIPPERS[edit]

There is no indication in the article as to why this term redirects here, and there is similarly no explanation at Boomerang Generation. I suggest delete because of ambiguity with other entries at Kipper (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not retarget to the Kipper (disambiguation) page? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I support delete. Looking at the history of the KIPPERS article, it sounds like the term is not used much anymore (if ever) and shouldn't redirect to Affordable Housing anyhow.---Avatar317(talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2009-10 Women's А Basketball League of Serbia[edit]

The first "А" from these redirects is from the Cyrillic alphabet so these redirects are implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mуspace[edit]

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

Sсоffin, Williаm (1654/5-1732)[edit]

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

I Dare You to Love[edit]

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

Pаleszuk[edit]

The second letter of this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet so it is an implausible redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

delete per nom. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment In such situations you have to make sure that correctly spelled redirect exists. I created it for you. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
"Paleszuk" is not mentioned at the target. There's a brief mention on the talk page. It would appear to be WP:FORRED, so there is no need for it. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rationale has been provided. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Only a Man's World[edit]

Delete. The correct song title is Only in a Man's World, and there is already a redirect in place for it. This redirect appears to have been created based on a typo on the target article. It is not an alternate title. Ss112 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mаin Page[edit]

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

Kaa (Oriya fim)[edit]

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

Dragon Quest Heroes 1 & 2[edit]

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

January 2[edit]

Template:Sco[edit]

Unused template redirect for a page in the process of being deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Admistrative Posts of East Timor[edit]

Unnecessary category redirect from a typo (left behind from when page moved but should have been deleted). No incoming links. Unlikely aid search. Senator2029 “Talk” 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (old)[edit]

Delete Redirect with the "(old)" qualifier is not needed. No substantive history. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Triproton[edit]

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

BEAUZ (DJ)[edit]

BEAUZ was mentioned at the target in a "Notable alumni" section. However, they shouldn't be included there unless we have an article about them, so we should delete this redirect signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Beauz[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a nickname for the subject. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Rudlof Hitler[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be an alternative name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ruflof is not a German given name; and Rudolf (which is) and Adolf are distinct given names. A search turned up several misspellings of Rudolf Hess (most or all in English-language sources), at one time Hitler's deputy, but no examples of "Rudlof Hitler" other than this redirect. A search for "Rudolf Hitler" only turned up some non-RS unfunny material combining Hitler and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. (FWIW, Hitler's father and half-brother both had the given name Alois.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment People in my locality frequently misspelled "Adolf Hitler" as "Rudlof Hitler". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless. buidhe 09:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Valueless.Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rudolf and Rudloff are real names, and this isn't a correct spelling of either, let alone of the target's name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

∑∏Τ∑R SΗΦΚΔRΦ[edit]

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

Kostolac culture[edit]

Kostolac and Vucedol Cultures are not the same, and as of now this page links to Vucedol. If I had the info I would just add Kostolac but I dont - speednat (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Kostolac culture should be a seperate thing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep and retarget to another article. I see no point in deletion. It seems to be linked to Coțofeni culture where it is mentioned, so perhaps changing the redirect to that article is more useful, or it may be redirected to Kostolac, adding a {{R with possibilities}} template indicating that it may be expanded into its own article. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

МHC Spartak[edit]

The first letter of this redirect has been replaced by a Cyrillic letter. Redirects like this are considered to be implausible as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Mixed-script redirects. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

СGA[edit]

Just like my previous nomination, this redirect also has its first letter from the Cyrillic Alphabet and is an implausible redirect so it should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

АUF[edit]

Unlikely search term as first letter is from the Cyrillic alphabet and the number of pageviews are only five for January to November 2019. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

YASD[edit]

The term is not mentioned at the target page, making this redirect confusing for readers who don't already know what the term means. Not a very active user (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

YAAD[edit]

The term is not mentioned at the target page, making this redirect confusing for readers who don't already know what the term means. Not a very active user (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany (South Korean singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#Tiffany (South Korean singer)

Nethack-el[edit]

This seems to be the name of a non-notable NetHack variant which is not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

List of actual Parliamentary Secretaries of Canada[edit]

Delete Unnecessary precision makes this a very unlikely search term. (note, there seem to be no Fictional Parliamentary Secretaries of Canada) UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Angel Munos[edit]

Delete Unlikely misspelling of the founders name. (we already have Angel Munoz (CPL) redrecting here) UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Munos is a very common mispelling of Munoz.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete since Angel Muñoz also exists, and is not a name disambiguation page, so thus this redirect is ambiguous as a misspelling. (If there was a name disambiguation page for "Angel Muñoz/Munoz", is recommend redirecting there.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Disambiguation pages (discussion)[edit]

Unlikely search terms for disambiguation pages due to non-standard titles, more unlikely search terms for those with targets that are not disambiguation pages. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 25#Foo disambiguation -> Foo and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Tiers disambiguation. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Originally posted in Special:Diff/933642506, overwritten in edit conflict, comment was regarding only O disambiguation --DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose For anyone who cannot type the Ø character on their keyboard, it is a likely term, and as I've been told many times, redirects are cheap. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per consensus from many previous similar discussions (and several, like the ones with only one parenthesis, qualify for speedy deletion). UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all signed, Rosguill talk 07:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep O disambiguation as plausible given the unusual name even though other similar redirects exist to the album it still seems useful per WP:CHEAP. Delete others per WP:RDAB and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 12#More superfluous brackets. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all except O disambiguation, given the quirky album title: have now expanded the hatnote on the album page to help any reader looking for the dab page for the letter "O" who happens to follow this nonstandard redirect. PamD 10:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all except O disambiguation, which is helpful for content reasons. —Kusma (t·c) 11:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Pro-life (disambiguation) not an unlikely seach term. Maybe unwanted, but still a valid term. The Banner talk 12:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    @The Banner: We should certainly keep Pro-life (disambiguation). Do we also need the redirect Pro-life disambiguation? Certes (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was pinged re Fladda above. Thanks for doing so and I am content with that proposal. Ben MacDui 13:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding the disambig page for Joseph Leonard, when I was working on that earlier this year, I must have mis-keyed my intended Joseph Leonard (disambiguation) and omitted the closing parenthesis. As long as the standard Joseph Leonard and Joseph Leonard (disambiguation) are retained, I have no issue with deleting the disambig link with the missing parenthesis. KConWiki (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "Popilius, disambiguation". Unnecessary variation of redirect with comma; "Popilius (disambiguation)" already exists. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Malformed names. The ones that don't redirect to a DAB page are confusing. If any of the ones that redirect to a DAB page are linked, User:DPL bot will report a WP:INTDAB error. If a reader is searching, the title with the correctly-formed (disambiguation) page will pop up in the box. Narky Blert (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep O disambiguation since the target is not a disambiguation page and the redirect exists as an alternative, incorrect spelling of its target article. Delete the rest per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep O disambiguation; delete the rest. per above. As mentioned by others, it leads to Ø (Disambiguation) which clearly isn't playing by the same rules as the others. I'll also throw in the fact that the title would read to some as "0 disambiguation" who may pronounce it as "OH-disambiguation" leading to it as a possible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • N.b., St Peter's Square (disambiguation has been deleted by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: WP:R3 only applies to recently created redirects and there is an exception for page moves as well. Please be more careful in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all except O disambiguation for goodness sake - non-standard formats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep O disambiguation; delete the rest. per above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Choccie[edit]

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

Kuknalim[edit]

Not mentioned at target. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

January 1[edit]

List of lists that actually exist[edit]

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

House of Roman[edit]

While there is an etymological connection, I don't think this is a likely search term for the current target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, as a Google search does not seem to show any connection to the House of Romanov.

Nilotic peoples, origins and scholarly anthropology of[edit]

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

Myth of Stolen Legacy[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Boschera bianca,[edit]

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

Template:Ü[edit]

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

The Marlowe Papers[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close, converted to article

Rotten eggs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Rotten eggs

December 31[edit]

Topics related to Cornwall, List of[edit]

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

Yaviah[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It does mention Yaviah in the Playero 37, Playero 38 Articles. It could redirect there.~SML • TP —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Furioso (horse)[edit]

Where should this target: Furioso-North Star, also known as Furioso, a horse breed from an 1836 horse called Furioso; Furioso, a 1939 horse; or Furioso (disambiguation)? I don't think "Furioso-North Star" can be considered the primary topic for "Furioso (horse)" when there's an article about a horse called "Furioso" at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest making it a dab page, as I have already once done. The horse breed is probably the primary topic, but uses an alternative title instead of disambiguation. I didn't know that, so when I linked to it at the expected title and found a redlink, I created a redirect. It's a mess. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarify: I meant above that the horse breed is probably the primary topic for Furioso (horse). The primary topic for (il or the) Furioso is without a shadow of a doubt the protagonist of the epic poem by Ariosto, followed probably by the musical tempo – on which we appear not to have a page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Little house of loreto[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#Little house of loreto

Sacred Heat School‚ Sitamarhi[edit]

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

Wowsmith123456@posteo.net[edit]

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

Majoritarian socialism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#Majoritarian socialism

Battle of Vega Real[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#Battle of Vega Real

Online video distributor[edit]

The specific wording in these redirects is not exclusive to its target, or any target for that matter. For example, someone could look up these terms expecting to find Streaming media or Internet video. It's probably best to just delete these redirects and allow Wikipedia's search function to assist readers in finding the subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose This also involves the OVD disambiguation page. What would we put there? I must have seen the term somewhere if I added the entry or created the redirects. When I have access to where I believe I saw the term, probably Wednesday, I can be more specific. Unfortunately, there is likely a subscription required for the source I used.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Looking at the OVD page, the only connection I see is the line that reads "Online video distributor, also known as over-the-top media services". I would say that line is probably incorrect and should be removed unless there is some sort of reference added into the Over-the-top media service article proving that these redirects are an alternative name for their target. Without such a notable connection, these redirects are no more than unreferenced WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, I need to see the source I was looking at when I created the redirect. That will be possible on Wednesday.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, here's the first source.
Eggerton, John., "FCC Rethinks Over-the-Top Decision, Broadcasting & Cable: New York: Vol. 143, Iss. 11, (Mar 18, 2013): 18.
However, it uses the term "over-the-top video distributor". I could change the disambiguation page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Bingo!
Eggerton, John, "For FCC, These Are Defining Times for MVPDs, Broadcasting & Cable: New York: Vol. 142, Iss. 26, (Jun 25, 2012): 26.
If I may be permitted to quote, "OVDs (online video distributors) are not like MVPDs because they do not control the transmission path for the programming they deliver." However, the article lists ivi inc., FilmOn and Aereo TV, which offer "online transmission of TV station signals". That's not streaming or over-the-top. (Wait, what I do with WNAM radio is called "streaming".) It's possible that since this article was written, the definitions have changed. Even the article above has changed OVD to "over-the-top". Perhaps the term "online video distributor" is outdated because that model didn't work. However, another source from 2017 says "OVD services provided by Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Hulu".
Eggerton, John, "Pai Tees Up Fresh Look at Competition, Broadcasting & Cable: New York: Vol. 147, Iss. 20, (Sep 4-Sep 11, 2017): 26.
Doesn't look like the redirect has a real meaning now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back.
Eggerton, John, "Reading Between Lines On Comcast/NBCU," Broadcasting & Cable; New York: Vol. 141, Iss. 5, (Jan 31, 2011): 20.
No definition but OVD is said to stand for "online video distribution". This is a service that has "just begun" according to an FCC order.
Here's another one.
"Place Your Bets,", Broadcasting & Cable: New York: Vol. 141, Iss. 7, (Feb 14, 2011): 24.
The FCC had certain requirements when Comcast and Universal made a deal. "[T]he new acronym - as if we needed yet another one" was OVD, for "online video distributor".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Vchimpanzee, I'm having trouble understanding your comments, as a potential closer. You're showing uses of the phrase, but you've also said, "Doesn't look like the redirect has a real meaning now." Are you still opposed to deletion? --BDD (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point, it's not clear. The one meaning that I think led me to create the redirect is one that doesn't seem to be in current use. But there are other meanings. It's just not clear whether the meaning has evolved. This was just one set of sources, and I needed to go there when I had the opportunity. I want to look at some other sources and see what they say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What do you want to do? I want to look at some more sources before we do anything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a 2014 definition from a telecommunications law firm which supports keeping the redirect.
Here is an FCC document. I can't easily get to page 59 because there are too many windows open on this computer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment: Even with the above comments, I still stand by my "delete" stance since my concern has yet to be adequately resolved per the string of comments. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ExtremeFFS[edit]

ExtremeFFS used to redirect to Flash translation layer#ExtremeFFS. Flash translation layer has now been turned into a redirect to Flash memory controller#Flash Translation Layer (FTL) and Mapping (diff), see Talk:Flash translation layer#Merge for context. No content was merged, and ExtremeFFS is not mentioned at the redirect target at all. Tea2min (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There's some discussion from 2014 and 2018 about splitting content off Flash file system into a separate article Flash translation layer at Talk:Flash file system#Separate page for Flash Translation Layer (FTL). Apparently, content describing ExtremeFFS was then moved from Flash file system to Flash translation layer (diff, diff). Tea2min (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WABC New York[edit]

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

You Banbury cheese![edit]

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

WRN (AM)[edit]

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

Noo Yawk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Noo Yawk

High Heeled Shoes (album)[edit]

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

December 30[edit]

Latinos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Latinos

Solapur road[edit]

While these roads do pass each of the relevant cities, it's not clear that the roads are actually known by these names, and given that Solapur, Mumbai, and Satara are fairly large cities, they're hardly the only road that these redirects could refer to. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually in Pune city, these roads are actually known by these names for eg Solapur road, but officially these are known as for eg Pune-Solapur Road. Thats the reason I created these above, so that they could be used as redirects. But now I "support deletion" for above (as well as below), due to simple reason that these names refer to different roads causing confusion. For eg in addition to Pune-Solapur road simply called Solapur road in Pune, the roads, Sangli-Solapur, Ahmednagar-Solapur are also called simply as Solapur road in Sangli and Ahmednagar respectively. "In addition to above, some more redirects below need to be deleted". All these road names are also common names in other cities and villages. They are:
Vatsmaxed (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Vatsmaxed I see that some of those additional redirects have extensive article histories which were merged; those should be kept unless the likelihood of misleading readers is very high. NDA road, Sus Road, and Paud Road do not have significant histories and can thus be added to this discussion uncontroversially. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill Agreed with three deletions you suggested above. In my opinion, other redirects should also be deleted, since names like "Shivaji", "Laxmi", "Law College" and "Karve" are fairly common road names across Maharashtra, some (for eg "Laxmi" and "Law College") even across entire country of India. But if deletion is not possible for these redirects according to WP policy, I would suggest these redirects to be moved to say for eg "Laxmi road, Pune", deleting the old redirects. Vatsmaxed (talk)
Added one more redirect "Nagar". Vatsmaxed (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Federated Electric[edit]

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

88100[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#88100

Orcan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Orcan

Clone Pilot[edit]

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

Jet Trooper[edit]

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

Mandalorian clone[edit]

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

Galactic Marine[edit]

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

Clone assassin[edit]

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

Hork[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Other than that, the word seems to have multiple meanings, so having readers redirect to only one subject seems misleading for a word with multiple meanings. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Won't that make a decent Wiktionary redirect? It receives about one view per day or two, so it will presumably be useful to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BiglyBT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#BiglyBT

Hulled corn[edit]

While hulled corn is an ingredient in hominy, it is also an ingredient in samp. Samp identifies hulled corn as groats, which ironically is an article that mentions neither hominy nor samp nor corn, although it does mention hulling.

I think that the redirect should either be converted to a disambiguation page, or deleted to encourage article creation signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hulled corn" and "hominy" are actually synonymous; whereas "samp" (as used in North America, not in Africa) is hominy that has been ground (or ground corn prepared similar to hominy), hominy is simply hulled corn. A number of historical recipes called for "hulled corn"; what they are asking for is what we would now call "hominy". Hulled corn/hominy might in fact be a kind of groats, though I don't really think anyone would call it that. If you believe the redirect is inappropriate, perhaps you can explain how hominy differs from hulled corn prepared using an alkaline solution? The Jade Knight (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't corn hulled through a process other than using an alkaline solution be different? signed, Rosguill talk 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Spoo (food)[edit]

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

Minecraft zombie pigman[edit]

The term "zombie pigman" is not explained in the target page, and appears only in the "References" section. Not a very active user (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete; useless and redundant.  Nixinova   T   C   23:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Minecraft#Gameplay; is part of the game (cf. [9]) and that is a more specific place for it to target. While this is a less likely search term there's nothing gained from deleting it as it can't mean anything else. 11 pageviews a month shows that it is useful. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Zombie pigman[edit]

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

Launch mount landing pad[edit]

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

Rio rojo[edit]

No entrants in the dab page are called "rio rojo". Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's one entry for a river in Spain (presumably called Rio Sojo in Spanish), and one or two entries for places in the southern United States (whose original names are likely to have been in Spanish). – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any examples in Spain (did you confuse Grenada with Granada? Additonally, the specific southwest US articles don't appear to have been named Rio Rojo in Spanish (at least one of them has a link to an esWiki article where it's called "Red River (Nuevo Mexico). signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Oops, yes, I did get Grenada and Granada mixed up! So that river's off the table (no Spanish in Grenada), but we still have at least one river in the American Southwest with a potential Spanish history: Red River of the South (corresponding to es:Río Rojo (Misisipi)). – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Apni Apni Love Story[edit]

Misleading redirect. This is a "television project" that redirects to an actress that was associated with it. While it makes sense in the case where an actress who only notable for one project is redirected to the project, I can't see a reason why this project should be redirected to the actress. This redirect laid dormant in WP:AFC/R for quite some time, in all fairness. Utopes (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the present time, the redirect's title is not mentioned at List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital, and participation in this discussion has not enforced that being the potential resolution. Relisting in hopes of more participation to help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional retarget to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital if a good source can be found (it should also state that ARY Digital has or will broadcast this program); otherwise neutral. Glades12 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC) For convenience, the draft is at Draft:Apni Apni Love Story. 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

SATCM[edit]

This initialism doesn't appear to be used by any reliable sources. I would suggest retargeting to National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which is also known as the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine]] (see [10] and [11] for uses of the initialism) signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think because there are more than one possible abbreviations, it would be better to make the page into a disambiguation page.TwinTurbo (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@TwinTurbo: Can you name any other uses mentioned on Wikipedia? Glades12 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Glades12: SATCM is also used to refer to the Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, held by the Antarctic Treaty System.TwinTurbo (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That phrase isn't mentioned in that article (and seems like a minor enough subtopic that it's unlikely that it should be mentioned), so I'm fine with ignoring that use and retargeting to the Chinese Medicine article. I had actually come across this use-case before filing the nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since consensus at the present time isn't incredibly strong due to the "disambiguation" option presented in the discussion and low participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Udhay[edit]

At a minimum, we have another biography on Wikipedia that this could refer to, Udhaya (actor), and many more people with variants of this name mentioned in article body text. I would suggest deletion for now, although it's likely that sources could be found to write an article about this name in abstract. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: "Udhay" is a diminutive of Udhayanidhi, and the man's official Twitter account itself gives his names as Udhay Stalin. When more articles on men named Udhay will come, this may be converted into a DAB page. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Kailash29792 Is Udhay not also a diminutive for Udhaya? signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is, and if “Udhay” is not deleted, it may be converted into a DAB page for people named Udhay, Udhaya, Udhayan, Udhayanidhi, etc. who I cannot find here. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Well I linked to Udhaya (actor) in the nomination statement. I'd be ok with doing a hatnote disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate the redirect cause the above-mentioned problems and ambiguities. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this the same name as Uday? --BDD (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and I don't think we know for sure that it's is a diminutive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold(ship)[edit]

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

Illegal medical practice[edit]

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

Lana and Lilly Wachowski[edit]

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

Railways of Slovak Republic[edit]

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

Organisation Schmelt[edit]

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

Mar Morto (sea)[edit]

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

Border poll[edit]

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

New Year's[edit]

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

December 27[edit]

Ambush at Ithilien[edit]

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

Isy Allon[edit]

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

UL 93[edit]

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

List of Latin trap artist[edit]

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

MWCA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#MWCA

FC2103[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#FC2103

Independence Bowl (bowl game)[edit]

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

Independence Bowl (game)[edit]

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

Template:AthleticsAt1984WorldChampionships[edit]

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

Twisted Ranch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 4#Twisted Ranch

Priyanka Reddy Rape Case[edit]

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

Tombstone[edit]

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

The Gordon Infantry Brigade[edit]

Not mentioned in target article PamD 17:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Gordon Highlanders or, alternatively, keep as it seems to be a semi-common colloquial nickname for the 153rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), possibly with a hatnote to Gordon Highlanders. In either case, it may be appropriate to add clarity (via a hatnote or in the Lede) as to this nickname.--Doug Mehus T·C 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The only use of the phrase on Wikipedia is at Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet. From the context, I think Gordon Highlanders is the more likely usage, but the phrase isn't linked, and it's hard to tell. I was leaning weak delete on this basis, but I bet someone from MILHIST could clear this up. I'll notify them. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Err do we have any sources using the term Gordon Infantry Brigade?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Article doesn't have to mention the exact name, if we can confirm this name was a colloquial term for a particular brigade or regiment. Thanks for checking, BDD. Doug Mehus T·C 16:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No, but at least one RS does, otherwise why is anyone going to look for it? In fact the more I think about it the more this becomes a delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven I hope you don't mean WP:RSP, which is just a guideline, not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. This link seems to suggest Gordon Highlanders is correct. - Doug Mehus T·C 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Note the British Library hosts and maintains the above site, so they would've at least reviewed it to a certain extent. We can trust that source. Doug Mehus T·C 20:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Also see this book link. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes that is the sort of thing, I think a redirect to The 153rd Infantry Brigade is in order, as that is the formation it was the nick name for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unless or until the nickname gets a general discussion somewhere. From reading this discussion, I'm thoroughly confused where the best place to do that would be, so I can't imagine this redirect being helpful in the interim. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. I'm still confused here. The search results will give some access to both units (assuming they are separate units?), and as things stand, I don't think we can do much better for readers. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gordon Highlanders. There's a fair amount of confusion here, but having read over this multiple times it looks like we have an RS establishing a link between this redirect title and Gordon Highlanders, and have failed to find evidence that it's used as a name for the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 00:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes that consensus becomes clearer, especially considering that at the least, consensus seems to currently be against keeping the redirect as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, while there's virtually no evidence of any widespread use of this rather vague term to describe the current target, the single dubious source to support pointing it at Gordon Highlanders is hardly compelling either; it seems to vaguely imply that the Gordon Highlanders (a regiment, not a brigade) may have in some way been part of the "Gordon Infantry Brigade" without any further info. Equally, that Wikipedia article also doesn't mention the term. This redirect does not, to me, seem to help any hypothetical reader. ~ mazca talk 02:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Television app[edit]

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

The Tribe (2008 film)[edit]

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

She who lives[edit]

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

Saffron Barker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Saffron Barker

Dolphins (2018 film)[edit]

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

LilyPad[edit]

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

Lee Joon-Hoo[edit]

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

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.[edit]

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

Disappearing[edit]

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

Hudukula[edit]

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

Digland[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200102185713/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

Leave a Reply