The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. There was no consensus for or against the suggested rename, discussion can continue on the talk page without prejudice either way from this discussion if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. Route 97 in Alaska → U.S. Route 97 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is no U.S. Route 97 in Alaska and there never was. According to the target article there was a plan for it at some point, When that plan was and how widely known it was is not indicated. Redirect has no incoming article links, not surprising since the item it describes never existed. This seems like a pretty unlikely search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - US 97 was once planned in the state, so the search term is valid. Dough4872 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Certainly a bad topic for an article, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete the redirect. A retarget to Alaska Highway might also make sense.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but retarget per above. We have plenty of similar redirects for proposed/former highways. --Rschen7754 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Operæn (Copenhagen) → Copenhagen Opera House (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Courtesy nomination. Tagged for speedy deletion by an IP with the rationale: "Malformed variant, extremely unlikely typo to make, as this spelling is impossible in the relevant language (Danish). The original Danish spelling is "Operaen", which exists as a correctly formed redirect. This redirect is a mistake." Created in 2011 (and slightly too technical for admin discretion) thus uneligible for speedy. - filelakeshoe 13:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I google this, with the æ glyph, and got a lot of results that had the glyph and clearly referred to Copenhagen. A very plausible misspelling, and no reason to delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ego White Tray. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Move the current dab page to Imperial Capital (disambiguation) and retarget the redirect under discussion to Imperial Capital per the long standing tradition that pages different only in capitalization go to the same target. However the better way may be to rename Imperial Capital to something different and move the dab page to that name and then retarget Imperial capital to it. Ruslik_Zero 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Imperial capital → Rio de Janeiro (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Original page consisted solely of "Imperial capital was a designation given to Rio de Janeiro." thus page was changed into a Redirect. Given the fact quite a number of pages now wikilink to the page, almost all of which have no connection to Rio de Janeiro, and given the fact that "Imperial capital" really has a much broader meaning I propose that either a) someone expand "Imperial capital" into an article on the notion that empires have capitals (although I'm not entirely sure we really need such and article) or b) we simply delete the redirect Travelbird (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the concept of an imperial capital is not worth an article, it should be retargetted to Imperial Capital. Capital city doesn't have anything specifically relating to empires. I believe most of the links come from Template:Terms for types of country subdivisions, to which imperial capital was added yesterday. Okay, I found an article without that template, but the link was added yesterday. TimBentley (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, I've WP:BOLDly added disambiguation -- 70.24.245.172 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the disambiguation. In fact, I'd delete the reference to Rio de Janiero entirely. The Rio de Janiero article does not even contain the phrase "imperial capital"; if this were in fact a commonly-used term for the city, one would expect to find it in the article, with reference to some reliable source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I give my full support to Travelbird. --Lecen (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate in terms of the Rio entry, a Google books search for "imperial capital" returns references to the specific cities London, New Delhi, Beijing, Kyoto, Pasargadae, Tenochtitlan, Tokyo, Ravenna, Rome, Yanjing, St. Petersburg, Constantinople, Calcutta, Babylon, Qaraqorum, Vienna, Xī'ān, Istanbul, Antioch, Nagaoka-kyo and Hué (in that order, omitting duplicates and results that are unclear) on the first 10 pages. Including "Rio de Janeiro" in the search term does find reliable sources, but I say these finds suggest that it shouldn't be included on the dab page. It would be included on a List of imperial capitals article, if one were created though (I have no opinion on whether one is desirable or not). There is probably scope for the concept of an Imperial City in the various Chinese dynasties, and that might have a shot at being a primary topic, but until it's written the dab page should definitely have prominence. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as disambiguation page, its current state. PamD 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Imperial Capital, hatnote there for Imperial Capital Bank. Alternatively, move disambiguation page to Imperial Capital (disambiguation) and hatnote there from Imperial Capital. (Or add information on the "imperial capital designation" to Rio de Janeiro.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. The disambiguation page is better than either deleting it or making it a redirect again. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The ambiguous entries on the page are both "Imperial Capital", so Imperial capital is the wrong title for the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't address that; I meant that typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/imperial_capital should take you to a disambiguation page. I don't care whether we have the disambiguation page at imperial capital, Imperial Capital, or Imperial Capital (disambiguation). Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, although opinion is split the majority believe this to be implausible and the sole commenter claiming its plausibility offered no reasoning for this to counter the rationale given for the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt → Bitcoin (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Redirects already exist for Bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt individually (both to Bitcoin), so searching for both of them with a backslash is an implausible search term. MSJapan (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, implausible. - filelakeshoe 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Despite appearances this is not an {{R from subpage}}, it was created in 2012. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausible search term, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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