Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut:
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should 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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "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.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is 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.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

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. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect is to a template that is currently in use, you will need to use {{rfd-t}} instead (see that template's documentation for instructions).
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]]
  • 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.

Contents

Current list[edit]

June 14[edit]

АА[edit]

Not two capital As, but two A (Cyrillic). Two Cyrillic As is not the same as two Latin As. The only page that links here is Scrabble letter distributions#Tuvan. It appears that the Tuvan language might use two Cyrillic As as a distinct letter from one. Recommend delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as likely to cause confusion. Basically 0 hits. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless It's my browser I literally see no difference between the 2 but anyway as noted above it'll only cause confusions, –Davey2010Talk 14:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to A (Cyrillic) This is one of those Digraph (orthography) double vowel/double letter cases. So the scrabble one should redirect both uses of A to A (Cyrillic) and add a note that in Tuvan language the A can be doubled as a digraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Adding the long vowel case and then adding disambiguation entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The other digraphs in the scrabble article ЭЭ, ОО, УУ, ЫЫ, ИИ, ӨӨ, ҮҮ are all redlinked at the moment. Should they redirect to the single letter or should the redlinks be removed as with Welsh and other languages? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing... redirects[edit]

These were all created in error. These should all probably be G6'ed, but I'm listing them here just in case. Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely synonyms. I'm also leaning to delete as housekeeping --Lenticel (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP:G6 per above. Unusual but obviously good faith errors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Agreed with housekeeping. None of these terms are editing related and were probably created when the editor realized they created that article and had to rename it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sesame Open[edit]

Per the edit history, this redirect targets its current because once upon a time, Open sesame did as well. Either way, this is an unlikely and unnotable transposition of the words. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

IPad (2nd generation)[edit]

The iPad 2 is not called the "2nd generation iPad", but rather "iPad 2". 63.251.215.25 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and vague. With naming schemes for products such as 6s for iphones, it is unclear that the number maps directly to which generation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually a plausible {{R from erroneous name}} search term, given that the target is the 2nd version of the iPad and the term falls in line with the way Apple names their iPod Touch product line. (See List of iOS devices#iPod touch for further information.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It depends on how it's been marketed in the press. If they've used xth generation product extensively then retain this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943. Apple has used a similar naming conventions for other product lines, so a plausible search term. PaleAqua (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ozzy Osbourne (religion)[edit]

I'm pretty sure Ozzy Osbourne is not a religion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not independently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, If Ozzy Osbourne's a religion then I'm Jesus himself. –Davey2010Talk 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Index of urban studies articles[edit]

Not sure why we have a soft redirect to a local page. The page should either be changed to a normal (hard) redirect or deleted. I don't see why someone would look for this category under this name in the article namespace, so deletion might be the best choice. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Revert to July 22, 2015 version. That's the last version of the page before it was turned into a redirect without discussion. - Eureka Lott 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • re-target (cross-namespace) or delete. I "turned it into a redirect" for a reason. It the reason is less than obvious to you, you are more than welcome to seek discussion. Ok, since you implicitly asked for such a discussion: we have the Wikipedia:Categorization system, which is dedicated to collecting articles on a specific topic and listing them alphabetically. Then we have the Wikipedia:Contents namespace, which is dedicated to giving structured information about Wikipedia content. There is no conceivable reason whatsoever why WP:MAINSPACE should be used to give an alphabetic list of articles on Wikipedia. If you structure the list, you might arguably go and maintain a Contents: namespace thing. If you aren't going to structure and maintain it, this is what we have the categorization system for. If you disagree with any of this, I would be genuinely interested in your rationale, because afaics all I am doing is recounting basic facts about how information is maintained in Wikipedia quite apart from any topical or content related concerns. --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pantywaist (slang)[edit]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so it doesn't seem useful to redirect to a dictionary either. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to bodysuit. Pantywaist (a woman's garment comprising a top or blouse with panties attached to the waistband) was originally a redirect to bodysuit, but some other user called Boleyn was convinced that the only definition was slang for an effeminate man, and deleted most of the other redirects.
FWIW, the redirect was created in April, which would explain the stats. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah missed that. Still not a likely search term though. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirects to Wiktionary should only be used for common search terms; redirects with disambiguators are not common search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not a dictionary. Here's a blog that connects the slang term in case someone feels like it would be notable enough for an article although that would be first for the general term and not the slang. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawyerdvrao[edit]

Unexpected typo. The only person who might look for the article under this title is probably the original author, but he has already found the new location as he has edited the page at that location. Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: R3 doesn't apply to redirects created as the result of a page move. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY#R3. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Amending vote to normal delete per Tavix's explanation above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note that the article that this redirects to is currently being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V. Rao. Also note that the user that originally created this article has been indeffed for several reasons, including sockpuppeting, disruptive editing, and blatant advertising. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Great bluedini[edit]

This seems to be a flavor of Kool-Aid. The redirect is not mentioned in the article. Since the flavor is seems not notable and seems to not be mentioned in the article, this subject seems only appropriate for a Kool-Aid-specific web site. So, delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(Comments struck out per Shoy's comment below.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there's no history behind the naming or notability of the flavors such as with Cherry Garcia and thus it fits a catalog scheme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Koolaidguy[edit]

Seems implausible, especially in absence of redirects like Kool-Aid Guy or Kool Aid Guy. --BDD (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as that is styled like a username. News articles use Kool-Aid guy though so I agree that redirect is more suitable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can show sources in the real world that style his name as "Koolaidguy." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Christo-[edit]

Unhelpful redirect to wiktionary. Previously pointed to Christo (disambiguation), equally unhelpful since it only lists people with this name. Suggest delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary will help readers here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Worst tornados[edit]

Not sure if the target is the best target for this redirect. For one, this redirect may be better redirecting towards Tornado records. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unhelpful given the ambiguity of "worst" and the misspelling of "tornadoes." -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Speciously[edit]

I don't really like wiktionary redirects as they are rarely useful. These are no exception. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't believe readers regularly search for "speciosity" as per {{wi}} and the hits that do show up are because they are looking for other terms and find it curious. There is an article for Specious present though. A search on news and books for speciosity refers mainly to a particular quote by Thomas Carlyle "Seek only deceitful Speciosity, money with gilt carriages, 'fame' with newspaper paragraphs, whatever name it bear, you will find only deceitful Speciosity; godlike Reality will be forever far from you.... " So it is not used in regular communications. But are you trying to frame it like Specious? If so, redirect all variants to that and add wiktionary lookups for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Renationalizing[edit]

A bunch of silly forms of nationalization, Neelix speedies declined. No version of re- form is mentioned in the article, and may not be a real word. Nationalizer doesn't seem legit either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Patar knight Except these redirects suggest that Wikipedia addresses renationalization as a topic distinct from nationalization, when we don't. No form of renationalization even appears in the article. Just because a word is used doesn't make it a helpful redirect, and in this case, it ain't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We can safely assume that people are familiar enough with the English language to know that the prefix "re-" usually means to do the following verb again. Re-make, Re-nominate, Re-consider, Re-nationalize. In this case though, not only it used as the central focus of reliable sources as I've shown above, it's also in the article (just with a dash): "A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called 'reverse privatization'. " ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The definition should be added up front as with Reunification if you want these variants to stay around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Abstract geometry[edit]

I don't think this is right. While there are certainly close relations, the concepts are distinct (we don't redirect "Japan" to "Asia".) Taku (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

Related redirects to Comparison of web server software[edit]

These redirects are not mentioned at their target article, so the connection between the terms and the redirects is unclear. (Note: Scrinchy and SimpleW were articles that were redirected here as a result of WP:AFD discussions: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrinchy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleW for details.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete they were probably removed for notability purposes and are not required to stay on the list for WP:LSC. Keeping the redirect would create false expectations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of lightweight web servers[edit]

The target article is unclear on the definition of a "lightweight" server or which servers listed in the target are considered "lightweight". Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: This redirect is a {{R from merge}}, meaning that it was formerly an article that was merged into the target article. The lists in the redirect's former history as an article were merged into the target, but it seems that what the use of the term "lightweight" means in relation to the subjects listed in the target article is currently not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like classifications are needed on that table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tiny web servers[edit]

Confusing since the definition of "tiny" in context of this redirect is not defined at the target, making it unclear which of the subjects listed at the target can be considered "tiny". Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I found a redlink for Tiny Java Web Server over at Web container, but that's about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Many forms of ramayana[edit]

The word "many" is subjective and indefinite. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom because of the "many". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If instead of being about the Ramayama, it was talking about the forms of a deity, that would be different, but this doesn't seem like a plausible search term. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking deity forms as well when I first read this. Does they refer to book versions as "forms"? There is also Forms of Ramayana as an existing redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think forms is fine, it's the "many" in this redirect that doesn't seem right. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Events by Month[edit]

Shouldn't this redirect to Template:Events by month? I see 2 possible targets here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Indian crime detective series[edit]

Delete overly specific target for vague title. "Series" could be a novel series or comics series as well as a TV series, and even just in TV there are other crime detective series like Suraag – The Clue. I can't find any overview article or category where this could be pointed. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Is the show even called that? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Business related redirects[edit]

Implausible redirects. There were more similar to these but they have already been deleted under G6 Neelix. One or two may be viable but ~10 isn't necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

These need to be bolded in the lead in the non-profit article. Is "non-business" a term or it is always associated with organization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Non-business entity is bolded so that set is okay to stay. I just have to question whether the term non-business is used like non-profit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete the lot I do not automatically make the jump from non-business to non-profit or for that matter from organization to corporation. Governmental agencies are non-business; so is the weekly bridge club. "Nonprofit organization" is a term-of-art, but "non-business organization" is hardly synonymous. THis is just another Neelix "trap every search whether it makes sense to or not" case. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

شرموطه[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. From what I can tell, none of the entries at this disambiguation have any affinity with Arabic. -- Tavix (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete This has really bizarre view statistics. It suddenly started getting hundreds of hits a day in July 2008 [2], then just as suddenly traffic fell off a cliff a year later [3] to around 1 hit/day and never recovered. In any case, barely anyone views it anymore, and we have no good target here or on sister projects: wikt:شرموطه doesn't exist, and ar:شرموطه redirects to their Prostitution article. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah I made the redirect because of it being listed here as having over 500 clicks per day, but it must have been during that period that it came on the list. I wonder why. Happy for it to be deleted if community believes it doesn't serve a valuable purpose. Calaka (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks like a clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and add Arabic to the languages column on the left to link to Arabic Wikipedia if such an entry is there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawp[edit]

I have no idea why this redirects here, but this has gotten less than 1 page view per day for the past 11 months. Crosswind kite power mentions "low-altitude wind power (LAWP)," so that could be a plausible (but obscure) retargeting option, but I think I'm leaning towards deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Deletep the all-caps version can deal with the wind power. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely typo. 2 hits in the last 90 days. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Chloé Middle East[edit]

Delete. Since the target article doesn't explicitly mention these regions, these redirects can be seen as misleading. Someone searching this will want specific information, of which we have none. -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete not a directory of their branch offices. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad energy[edit]

Odd situation here. "Bad energy" is not mentioned in the target article. In addition, the antonomous redirect Good energy targets Good Energy, an article about a company. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment sounds like Negative spiritual energy and Bad energy need those "redirects here" hatnotes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep, the esoteric sense is what "bad energy" means - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep the uses of "bad energy" that Google finds in Wikipedia lean predominantly towards this esoteric sense, though it's sometimes a bit of a stretch. There's also a possibility of "good" vs "bad" energy in the environmentalist concern about policies towards power generation and fuel use which may carry only a slight hint of this esoteric sense – but that usage will generally be clear in context. Is there something that can be added to the destination page that would make this better?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 19:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • keep The article talks about "negative energy", which is obviously what is meant. Mangoe (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Trillion dollar club[edit]

"Trillion dollar club" is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep term is used in news articles. [4] but it should get a mention in the article to explain its definition. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Slowest organisms[edit]

"Organisms" ≠ "Animals". Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - Unless we have a "slowest" and "fastest" article for non-animal organisms, which would make these redirects ambiguous (and thus still possibly useful as dab pages) these redirect targets are the most likely articles someone typing in "fastest organisms" or "slowest organisms" would be looking for. Rlendog (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we have fast plants? Maybe the walking onion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems sensible, although if someone wants to create fastest plants (or something) and dabify, I wouldn't oppose that either. shoy (reactions) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There's fastest-growing plants but no article yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Fastest growing plant, like bamboo, good point, maybe a hatnote would take care of it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reverse redirect or retitle as "List of fastest/slowest organisms". I see no reason to limit the list to just animals, especially since there aren't many non-animals that move. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete no clear target or interpretation of fast or slow. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as nearly every moving creature is an animal anyway. Similar enough in this particular case. Whether to rename the articles can be a separate discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Kai Gjesdal[edit]

Delete as an implausible [first + middle] name combination. I couldn't find evidence of him being referred to as "Kai Gjesdal" or "Kai Henning Gjesdal". -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Painful breast[edit]

extremely unlikely Neelix redirect DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely. Less than 1 hit per day. shoy (reactions) 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Bluish-slate[edit]

Future lorenz[edit]

Confusing and possibly misleading since the redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Future funk[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Also, this redirect formerly targeted Neurofunk which also doesn't have this redirect mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Although there's a Reddit that tries to define this term, it needs to be clarified in the article itself to be useful. Not much in news and book sources for notability of this genre. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete I'm also seeing that it tends to mean "anything with the word 'funk' which might be 'future'". And since George Clinton seems to be involved, wouldn't that make it the "once and future funk"? At any rate, if there is a definite genre, then this should be an article, not a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Future beats[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Thus, the connection between the two terms is unclear. Also, most searches on search engines for "future beats" seem to return results for Reddit boards and an unrelated company. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. A search under books show the term applied to a beat that is coming in the future, and not to a specific kind of music. [5] [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gladiators (2000)[edit]

I believe this is more confusing than it's worth. It's ambiguous between Gladiator (2000 film) and Gladiators 2000. 4 page views in the last 90 days shows that this is not getting any significant use, so it's best to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gabriela Cowperthwaite[edit]

Blackfish is not the only film that Gabriela Cowperthwaite has ever made. See imdb. The link Gabriela Cowperthwaite should be left as red link to encourage others to write an article about the subject. Quest for Truth (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RELINK and WP:XY: she has made or is making other notable films so it makes no sense to pigeon-hole our readers into just one of her works. She is mentioned at several other articles, so it would be more useful to give our readers search results and they can decide which article to read. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fastest orbit[edit]

It seems unclear how or why the target of the redirect is declared "fastest orbit". Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • According to the article, "the star [of the target article's system] is the fastest moving star ever seen in an X-ray binary system, which would seem to be the reason that this is the target. Although I suppose there could be other celestial bodies that have a fast orbit than this star. Rlendog (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand later to other orbits as a disambiguation page. We can have fastest orbit in our solar system, fastest cometary orbit, fastest exoplanet orbit, fastest human orbit, and fastest artificial satellite orbit. These are questions people typically ask Siri and Google Now and this where those AIs get their answers from. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I see sources using this term to refer both to satellite orbital speed and to atomic orbital speed. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment/Neutral Hmm, if this was an exoplanet article I would say retarget to list of exoplanet extremes but since it's a star-black hole system it somewhat baffles me on what should be done with this redirect. I don't think there is something like list of stellar extremes is there? Because maybe that would be an appropriate retarget... Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as I don't think there's a good target for this as RAN alludes to. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Greatest movie villains[edit]

This redirect seems to have WP:NPOV issues simply because it redirects to an article which it 1) is not the official name and 2) is based on only one entity's opinion: the American Film Institute. If this target was a list based in some sort of ranking system by several sources (such as an article with the name List of greatest movie villains by rankings), then this would be a bit of a different story since the target article wouldn't be reliant on one source. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Target article relies on one source, but as long as that article doesn't get deleted, and as long as there isn't an alternative list of greatest movie villains by some other source (or combination of sources), in which case this title should be converted to a dab page, or some other appropriate redirect target, this seems like the most likely article someone typing in "Greatest movie villains" would be looking for. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep seems spot on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and probably WP:WORLDVIEW. The American Film Institute's list does not constitute the greatest movie villians—simply their opinion up until 2003 (so great movie villians like Heath Ledger's Joker isn't on the list). Futhermore, the list is an American one, and doesn't include Bollywood, Tollywood, etc., which probably have some great movie villians as well. -- Tavix (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The smallest positive integer that does not have an entry on Wikipedia[edit]

The redirect doesn't seem like an official name for the redirect's target, and the redirect seems to contradict itself since it targets the subject on Wikipedia which it refers. So ... delete. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NAVELGAZING. Unlike the paradox described at the target article, there is an answer to this. Assuming "entry" means "article," the answer is (currently) 261. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the page, it was just a joke. --Peskoj (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Peskoj. I have placed a {{Db-g7}} tag on the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
...And since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now voted otherwise below, I have reverted my speedy deletion tag. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Interesting number paradox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. Not a useful redirect, nor is it a paradox, because redirects aren't articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. This phrasing is used by an independent source in interesting number paradox which Ivanvector pointed out, so it is not in fact self-referential. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SELFREF. shoy (reactions) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete circular? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Mr. Norton. Tricky one, though. Here's my logic: we keep redirects to notably significant information; the fact that there is a smallest positive integer without an entry on Wikipedia is noted with a source at the proposed target. The question is whether the source is reliable and/or confers notability on that factoid, and I think it does. Alex Bellos, the author of the source, is a noted mathematician and philospher, such that I think he can be considered a subject matter expert, and so the source can be considered authoritative. Therefore, the factoid falls under WP:PRESERVE, and the redirect to it is common sense. It is not WP:NAVELGAZING since although it's about Wikipedia, it was not originally published by Wikipedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Arizona League Diamondbacks[edit]

The Arizona League consists of fourteen teams; thirteen have their own articles, but the Diamondbacks are redirected to the parent league. Delete to encourage creation of an article, since it's rather silly to have one of the fourteen a redirect and the other thirteen articles. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

True world group[edit]

Not listed in the list. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • keep It wasn't listed because an IP in NJ (where TWG is based) deleted the listing. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Four Seasons Hotel Bangkok[edit]

Similar to a previous RFD, these individual properties are not mentioned at all at the target article. A WP:REDLINK could show that there isn't any information on these properties so someone won't end up confused or disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Condilicious[edit]

Delete, this does not appear to be a noteworthy nickname. -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Deleticious per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mars Won[edit]

This is misleading, nothing on this page could be called "Mars Won." Has Mars ever won anything? -- Tavix (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as confusing/WP:NONSENSE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep; "one" and "won" are homonyms, and someone hearing /ˈmɑɹz wʌn/ or /ˈmɑ:z wʌn/ could conceivably not know how to spell it. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The difference in spelling equates to a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though they're homonymous, the word won and one do not mean the same thing even in the slightest. WP:SURPRISE. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. I thought Mars won an invasion or something --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete list of colors and shades[edit]

This seems like an implausible search term, and there's nothing to suggest that Wikipedia's lists of colors is incomplete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It would have to be incomplete, since people (especially in marketing, décor, and other such fields) come up with new color names all the time. The issue is that most lists on WP are incomplete, and we don't need to label them as such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, but what I'm saying is that the Wikipedia list isn't labeled as incomplete (eg: with the {{expand list}} template). -- Tavix (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per this being an unlikely search phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No one is going to type this in the search box. shoy (reactions) 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maliciously[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

(Neelix) These have been nominated before, but the question was one of which target would work best, not whether or not they were actually useful. I think they should be deleted as uncommon word forms, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:SNOWBALL keep the last time this came up. Nothing has changed in the interim, so this is not a case of WP:CCC but just rehash/shopping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, a lot has changed since last time this came up. Redirects from uncommon word forms have since been regularly deleted in recent months at RFD, so it's actually quite plausible that consensus can change this time around (and I'm one of those people who !voted keep last time, BTW). -- Tavix (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per the first decision. Evidence was presented that these redirects were useful, and that's all we need for redirects. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Maliciously per Black's Law Dictionary and maliciousness but Delete the "un" versions as they are antonyms like redirecting "not guilty" to "guilty" without explaining it at the article. News searches do not show the antonym in use, preferring "without malice" or "no malice". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Jumpy castle[edit]

Also nominating: Joy Jump → Inflatable

Again never heard anyone say "Jumpy castle" or "Joy jump" Pointless redirects –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Having read the comments I've realized my rationale should've been worded much better than what it is and so I apologize for that, It was never my intention to come across as "I've never heard of it so delete it", I just assumed no one actually used them so hence assumed they were useless, If people do indeed use them then I have no objections to keeping, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep pending actual evidence these terms are not in use. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The question is whether these terms show up in any RS; it is correct that we don't need redirects for every childish turn of phrase that exists.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete joy jump. I'm finding essentially nothing relevant on Google: lots of entirely false positives (e.g. I gotta let the whole world know Jump for joy Jump for joy, plus Hexes & Willy Joy's "Jump" remix), irrelevant things (a video by this title, women who would appear in the phone book as "Jump, Joy"), and only one thing that sounds at all relevant, an Australian company named "Joy Jump" that operates bouncy castles. No reason to keep a title merely because it's used by a comparatively small company in New South Wales. If this is Australian slang, keeping would be in order, but you'd need to provide solid evidence of that. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget jumpy castle to Inflatable castle. Google searches find lots of results, beginning on the first page, in which the term is used to refer to bouncy castles. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Joy Jump, keep Jumpy castle. I've heard many people say jumpy castle, but this isn't about that; it's a common term. As for Joy Jump, I can't find anything that uses it except the Australian company that Nyttend mentioned. As for it being Australian slang, it isn't. I'm using google.com.au and nothing else is coming up. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Joy Jump, Retarget jumpy castle to Inflatable_castle. I've heard that term used often to refer to them. PaleAqua (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Joy Jump, sounds like a particular brand, and it gets confused with Jump For Joy which is a dab page full of album and song titles. Jumpy castle search on News goes to a bunch of articles that use the term "bouncy castle". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Single Player[edit]

A related RM is open at Talk:Multiplayer game#Requested move 13 June 2016

Follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Singleplayer games. These aren't created by Neelix, but the rationale remains the same: a single-player game is not necessarily a single-player video game (eg: solitaire card games, pinball, puzzles). -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, the nomination is to delete them all, not redirect them elsewhere, judging by the previous nomination of similar redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can see the rationale, but simply deleting these without cleanup will create a large number of undesirable redlinks, and would not deal with similar redirects like Multiplayer to Multiplayer video game. The most sensible solution is to renamed Multiplayer game to Multi- and single-player games, and massage the text there a little to better encompass the new title, then send all of these redirects there. We do not need to account for the silly case of "single-player instrument" since that describes nearly all musical instruments, and neither readers nor editors use the bare phrase "single-player" or "multi-player" (hyphenated or not) to refer to musical instruments, only to games (and sports, which are a subset of games). But, yes, it does not apply solely to video games by any means. At any rate, I think this should be resolved with WP:RM, not (or not entirely) RfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

    This RM is now open, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here's a count of the incoming mainspace links to these redirects, almost all from video game articles. I expect this is primarily due to Single-player being one of the two accepted values in Template:Infobox video game's mode field:
Single Player – 193
Single player – 3392
Single-player – 4547
Single-player game – 32
Single-player games – 1
Singleplayer – 52
--The1337gamer (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Single player, Single-player and Single-player game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Anarchyte: I don't understand your !vote, as it does not actually solve the issue at hand. Why would you keep some and delete the others? ~Mable (chat) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Maplestrip: I voted keep for those ones because they have a high number of wikilinks, and removal of a link in over 3000 articles wouldn't be that beneficial. I'd be willing to vote delete all if they were all unlinked or relinked to single-player video game, but I'm not sure if that's possible as I've never seen it done before. (there may be a bot that exists somewhere that I'm not familar with). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    I personally don't think "it's too much effort to delete those" is a very good argument for keeping them. Either the page they redirect to isn't logical and expected, or it is. ~Mable (chat) 12:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking at the "What links here" for the redirects, the majority come from video-game related articles. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    Pointing out that cleanup work has to be done isn't necessarily an objection to making a change, but it does indicate that work actually has to be done to make the deletion practical. As I suggested above, there is a better solution, anyway, which is to rename the article on multi- vs. single-player games (generally, not just video games), and redirect all such terms to that page. This produces no problems of any kind; in fact, even video games articles linking there will be fine, since it will still explain the difference between single- and multi-player games well enough that its applicability to the videogaming context will be entirely clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘::Changed to wait for result of RM. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I wonder if "single-player" is ever even really used in non-video game context. I know "multiplayer" is a word almost always refers to video games, and as far as I know the term even originated from video game culture. In the case of single-player... Aren't board games for one person referred to as "one-player games" or something of that ilk? I would vastly prefer to keep these redirects (and even recreate the deleted ones), as single-player video game seems to be the expected target for these terms. We don't even have an article for one-player game! (<that redirect is much weirder than the ones we are discussing here) ~Mable (chat) 11:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    There's "singles player" for racquet sports, but that doesn't redirect anywhere. And "solo player" has plenty of non-video game context. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yes, it's used. There are various single-player billiards games, card games, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Single Player and Singleplayer. Add redirects here / hatnote for Single-player game for the solitaire games. What I don't get is why the bold term is "single-player video of game" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • RM notice: A related RM has been opened at Talk:Multiplayer game#Requested move 13 June 2016.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait and see how the move pans out. All of these pages can redirect to "multi- and singleplayer game" if such an article comes into existence, with a hatnote present for people looking for the video game articles. ~Mable (chat) 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Blizzard of '01[edit]

Delete, this blizzard is not mentioned in the target article, and it's not a good candidate for retargeting due to its ambiguity. This could refer to a blizzard in 2001, 1901, 1801, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Can't find an XX01 blizzard in the Blizzard article either --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This probably refers to the Blizzard of 2001 in Buffalo NY which I believe dropped 7 ft or so of snow. PaleAqua (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the history, you would be correct. -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and because it could also refer to any blizzard on such a date anywhere, not just Buffalo, NY. Its particularly confusing, because the "'01" date style is almost always used to refer to 1901, and most users will not think it refers to 2001.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Clear liquids[edit]

WP:SURPRISE! Clear liquids would not be a liquid diet. There is a section called "clear liquid diet," but redirecting clear liquid or its variants there would be a WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a confusing PTM case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, WP:SURPRISE all the way. Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Tabun is "a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid with a faint fruity odor" but you really don't want it as part of your diet. We don't seem to have any optics articles specifically devoted to transparency in liquids. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - too confusing. –Davey2010Talk 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Childbed[edit]

(Neelix) I'm afraid this is confusing since it's not mentioned at the target article. Most search results I get are for either an infant bed or Puerperal infections (via "childbed fever"). -- Tavix (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Infant bed. "Childbed" is just a sloppy way to spell "child bed", and that's the article we have on the topic, though it could be broadened to include post-infancy beds for children, and renamed to Child bed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The statement above is not true. The closing admin should ignore it. Gorobay (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have you never heard the term "woman/women in childbed"? Examples of use; it refers to the condition of a woman who is heavily pregnant and has been put on bed rest, with the term sometimes extending to a woman who's in labor. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
No, and readers searching for the term won't be able to figure out what it means either since there isn't a mention at the target, hence the potential for confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Abortion alternatives[edit]

This is obviously not a good target; pregnancy isn't an alternative to abortion and I usually hear adoption being the main "alternative." I'm wondering if there is a good target that discusses this. If not, delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is simply a missing article, and one we should have, so a redlink will help encourage its creation. The topic is not covered at Abortion debate, Right to life, or anything else I see in Category:Abortion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Crisis pregnancy center, an article that's related to this concept, unless people agree with SMcCandlish's idea that we need to encourage creation of an article. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Pregnancy is, in point of fact, the usual and obvious alternative to an abortion. But I'll let y'all figure this out on your own, God willing. :) -- Kendrick7talk 18:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

With squirrel[edit]

This phrase seems to be a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. There is no mention of squirrels at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

June 10[edit]

Some redirects starting with "Unnamed"[edit]

List of several redirects which their targets have a name and the redirect seems to not be an alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Check the history for each of the links to see original intent. Those albums that are now named or abandoned can be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ආයුබෝවන්[edit]

Unnamed 1968 Raleigh Carolina League baseball team[edit]

Per the target article, the team had a name in 1968: The Raleigh-Durham Mets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Every team and band is unnamed at some point in their existence. That this occurred in 1968 makes it an unlikely search term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed Kingdom Hearts Project[edit]

This redirect is ambiguous since it does not refer to what unnamed project this redirect refers to. This redirect was created as an article back in 2007, but at some point, was redirected to the series article as shown here. Disclaimer: As someone who knows a bit about the series, the series has had several "unnamed" or "untitled" projects during the last decade, probably to build buyer excitement (or disappointment) for the still unreleased Kingdom Hearts III. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Given that it's a franchise now, this is vague. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Grand Collar[edit]

Multiple issues - term doesn't appear in target article, nor does it appear to be actually used as a term per either the article or per Google; "Grand Cross" seems to be much more common, so I can't imagine it being a valid search term. MSJapan (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, Grand Collar is used multiple times in the article...I counted 11 times. The fact that "Grand Cross" is more common is irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sliding doors[edit]

Odd scenario here, so here's a discussion. Should this term refer to the plural of Sliding door or an alternative capitalization of Sliding Doors? This redirect gets about 15–20 views a day, whereas the film article Sliding Doors gets about 1000 views a day. So, most likely if a reader is looking up "sliding doors" with a lowercase "d", they are not trying to locate the film. But, then again, is there a WP:DIFFCAPS issue with the film article's title Sliding Doors? (There's a lot going on here, and it all seems to originate from the confusion presented by the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. "What links here" shows the term being used for the plural and none for the film so the dab page would suffice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Three items, is that enough for the dab? Other PTMs can be added at the bottom including Sliding glass door and Sliding door operator AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: My ultimate question with this nomination is "Does a disambiguation page need to be created over the redirect because the two subjects Sliding door and Sliding Doors could be confused for one another per WP:DIFFCAPS?" Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Still WP:PLURALPT. Even if there was a disambiguation page, it would be at the "Foo (disambiguation)" title, and the lowercase plural would continue to point to the kind of door. bd2412 T 00:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Trumpian[edit]

While wikt:Trumpian exists, readers will find no information about this term at the current target, as it is not currently mentioned there. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hilary with extended titles[edit]

The name variant and extended topic phrasing of these titles makes them improbable to occur with this misspelling during searches which leads to implausibility. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. Precedents don't have a formal role in most of the project (though note that WP:RFDO could easily be added to that page). But almost anything can start a precedent. For this, or anything, to start one, an editor would only need to cite it in a related argument. So it's not true that if we do X, we're automatically setting a precedent, but neither is it true that we can do X and insist that it never will be one. That said, I did just assert the latter the other day. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Isab[edit]

I think this redirect should be deleted. It replaced an article trying coin or popularize the abbreviation "isab" to mean "I smiled a bit." I can find no evidence on Google that anyone actually uses this abbreviation. The initial article should have been deleted. People may be searching Wikipedia for "ISAB" due to recent news articles about the International Security Advisory Board and confusingly winding up at "Internet slang." That's how I found it. -driver8 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Isab is not mentioned at the target. We have an article about one thing whose lede says it's called ISAB (Ionospheric absorption), but ISAB is red and doesn't redirect there (and personally I don't think it should, roughly per WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB). Search results are the best thing we can offer readers at this point until we get more articles created. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bouncy kastle[edit]

I don't think I've ever known anyone to spell "Castle" as "Kastle", I appreciate some may not be able to spell but the moment you search "Bouncy" - "Bouncy castle" then appears, And I'd imagine most people in the world would (or atleast should) know how to spell "Castle", so all in all I fail to see how this is of any use, As always I'm always happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The greatest american superhero[edit]

The redirect doesn't seem to be an alternate or likely make for the target article. (If search engines return a connection between the redirect and the target article, it is most likely because of Wikipedia mirrors saving the connection since the redirect has existed since 2004.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. This seems like a plausible typo. -- Beland (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The most Baptist state in the world[edit]

Per the redirect's target article, it seems that the target subject has been known as "...the only predominantly Baptist state in the world..." as cited by a reference, but I'm not sure if that warrants the nominated WP:NPOV-violating redirect (unless this is an official term for the target article's subject.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep. This doesn't seem like a POV redirect; it concerns a objective demographic attribute, which is correct and referenced. -- Beland (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Unless repeatedly sourced, I object to any redirect using "the most X in the world" or "the most X ever". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep clearly defined and referenced in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete: is "most baptist" necessarily the same as "highest proportion of baptists"? I'm not sure that that's at all obvious, and if we are going by absolute population then Texas has approximately ten times as many Baptists as Nagaland. I'm also not at all sure that someone looking for the most baptist state in the world would obviously be interested in subnational states rather than nation-states. For both of these reasons, the redirect is potentially confusing. It's not POV, but nor is it helpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep is used by reliables sources to refer to Nagaland and not just in the "it's pretty Baptist" sense but as an alternative name (see: [8], [9], [10]). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. Reliably sourced, even if it is subjective. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reich Ministry of Economics[edit]

In Special:Diff/723132940, K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) blanked the redirect with the edit summary Redirect not useful, and the user later moved the redirect to the draft namespace. We don't blank inappropriate redirects or move them to another namespace, so I reverted these actions. However, if the allegation that the redirect isn't useful is correct, then the redirect should be retargeted[where?] or deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The history section, pertaining to Reichswirtschaftsministerium contains only: "The historical predecessor of the current Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy was the Reichswirtschaftsamt (Reich Economic Office), founded in 1917. In 1919, this became the Reichswirtschaftsministerium (Reich Ministry of Economy), which existed until 1945." The de.wiki article option is superior in this regard (please see my comment below). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: the reason that I made the edit that lead to this discussion was that I was trying to use the template {{illm|Reich Ministry of Economics|de|Reichswirtschaftsministerium}}, to direct the readers to Reichswirtschaftsministerium on the German wiki, and instead was getting a redirect to the subsequent, 1949+, agency on the English wiki. I think it would be more helpful to readers to see the de.wiki article (one can always use Google translate), vs the current solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We don't redirect users to other language editions of Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
      • My suggestion is to delete the existing redirect (i.e. no article by this name), so that the inter-language template can be used as needed, and encourage editors to create an article. Same suggestion applies to the Reich Economics Ministry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Teachings[edit]

Would it make more sense for this to target knowledge? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Oz rock[edit]

Implausible redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. The redirect is mentioned in the first sentence of the article as a bolded alternative term, and the article hasn't been edited in about two weeks. Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful short name used in news articles and books [11]. [12] [13] There is a festival in 2016 went under that name in Busselton but it was canceled for 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created the redirect because 'Oz rock' was a term used by friends in Australia but which I could not find on Wikipedia. To me it makes sense to include a term that is used commonly but which is already described under another page. Richard Stephens (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 9[edit]

Purgatively[edit]

Originally targeted laxative. Speedy declined and retargeted to Purge disambiguation. This word does not mean purge, in any possible sense of the word. While purgative does mean laxative, this means that purgatively basically means laxatively, which makes no sense at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete pointless redirect from an adverb. PamD 08:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Patar knight's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea, but Delete, can't see readers going through this redirect. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Intimating[edit]

Neelix speedies, all declined, as forms of intimate. All of these are verb forms. Intimate, as a verb, means to imply or state. Nothing at the disambiguation page has this meaning, so none of these are logical terms for any of them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom - all exist as words, yes, but as parts of the verb - nothing relevant on target dab page. PamD 08:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Patar knight's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, for those actually used, delete the rest, per Patar Knight above. -- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Patar knight for the ones that are used; delete the others. PaleAqua (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect 3, delete 2 per Patar knight. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages[edit]

Page was originally created as a template. It's been moved to the mainspace, and this redirect has essentially become implausible. Can't imagine anything going through this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete the talk page of the template redirect as well, please. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Some more context: User:KAIG007 made Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages containing article content, which I moved to Aït Bouaddou Villages, then to Aït Bouaddou villages, before discovering that the user also made Villages of Aït Bouaddou. So I redirected these targets to that article. I then found that the user forked Aït Bouaddou from Aït Bouadou, which, according to some of the refs on the page, look to be misspellings, and the version with 2 ds looks correct. In any case, I believe the cleanup is done, and this redirect in discussion should simply be deleted. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The version that I nominated for TfD is Special:Permalink/718538774 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete I often request speedy deletion of redirects from moves out of template space as CSD G6 (uncontroversial) or G7 {{db-author}}. I don't know of any reason to keep these, unless they have active links that need the Template: prefix for some reason. (I've seen this once or twice, but they were eventually deleted, anyway.) —PC-XT+ 21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks, yeah I thought that this needed a bit more elaboration than a G6 with rationale, so I went this route. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

List of games considered the best[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Procedural re-nomination. This redirect was recently closed as Delete in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#List of games considered the best, but, with the permission of the closer, I've re-opened it due to the original nomination not including certain information. I feel this redirect should be kept.

  1. "List of games considered the best" was the former and original title of the article (not mentioned in previous nom). Per #4 of WP:RFD#KEEP, "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason". External sites who linked to this article in 2014 & before used the old name, so deleting this redirect breaks those links.
  2. This redirect sees substantial use: [14] shows ~40-80 hits a day, which is considerable!
  3. The talk page of the target article was not notified. (Also, either the RFD tag wasn't added to the redirect, or I plain missed it on my watchlist.)
  4. The redirect is harmless and useful, WP:RFD#KEEP #5. This is more a "re-litigate the previous RFD" comment, and I believe the above 2 reasons are the most important ones, but the nominator's concern about confusion is unfounded. I don't think an article ranking sports is likely to ever exist (find out which of Baseball, Cricket, & Rugby is the best!), same with many other types of games, and if such an article ever IS created ("List of board games considered the best", perhaps), then the redirect can be changed into a disambiguation page harmlessly. There are tons and tons and tons of redirects from phrases that don't quite exactly match the topic; that's okay, though! SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per my previous nomination of this redirect. In addition, page views of a redirect do not prove that the readers are arriving at their intended target, but rather that they are just searching the term. In a case like this, there is a possibility that this redirect is viewed because it might auto-populate in the search field when typing a similar string of words, and then click on this because it appeared first. (This part is just speculation, but it may add to the lack of ability to prove that this redirect leads to the correct target by page views alone.) The best option for this redirect would be for it to be deleted so that the search function of Special:Search can provide the reader with search results rather than force them to immediately be forwarded to the redirect's current target. (By the way, thank you SnowFire for informing me of this discussion, even though you knew beforehand that I had an opposing viewpoint. That proves a very fair character on your part!) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Given the comments below, I may also support disambiguation if it can be proven workable. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between this and List of Game of the Year awards (which should be moved) and List of Game of the Year awards (board games). Readers would then be able to see which lists we have, which is more than a search can provide. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Peter James and nom, as I think such a page would be more useful than deletion in cases of old links while also providing some help in navigating after search-completion entices people here, making it pretty harmless, I hope. —PC-XT+ 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force[edit]

Unlikely search term. "Present-day" will be inaccurate in a couple of seconds, "force" is nowhere in the target article and the use of the word "proponents" seems unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I am a Present-day proponent of subordinating bad redirects by deletion. Bizarre. Cannot imagine this redirect being of use to anyone. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unlikely search term. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. This just isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Current frigates[edit]

The use of the word "current" in this case is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Super arts[edit]

The phrase is not mentioned in the target article. The only connection I could find to this phrase has to do with this apparently being the name for special moves in the Street Fighter video game series. And Super Art Fight exists, but the redirect seems to not be an official nickname for that subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Super adapter (Mega Man)[edit]

The term of the redirect is not mentioned at the target. Per the redirect's history, it was previously an article that was merged into the target article, but it seems that the content of the redirect is no longer present in the target article. Also, the redirect's history as an article seems to fail WP:NOTWIKIA as an encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Super admin[edit]

The use of how a "super" admin is signed is not at the target, rendering the redirect confusing and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete the page was created by a sockpuppet to point to a page that was almost immediately deleted. I changed the target, but never really felt it was the best place to redirect. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely a term used to refer to a class of administrator in systems where there are tiers of administrator privileges (e.g. [15]). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly retarget directly to Superuser rather than the DAB page. Silly as it sounds, this is actually a legit term. SnowFire (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard it used for administrators that have the ability of granting superuser privilege for individual accounts on specific machines, also I've heard it used to describe root account vs accounts that have sudo-like access. I'd also support retargeting but could see both superuser and system administrator being valid targets as one describes the permissions and the other the role, so leaning towards DAB page as target. PaleAqua (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Also potentially consider retargeting to sudo, but the current redirect seems fine) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to Zork[edit]

The connection between the redirects and the target is unclear. These terms also seem to have notability as standalone concepts used in other forms of media (for example, a "jeweled scarab" may make some think of The Mummy (1999 film).) These phrases seem to not be in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: The aforementioned comment was made when the only redirect listed in this nomination was Huge diamond.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Xezbeth: Good call. I've gone ahead and added all of those redirects to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That, and it turns out that there are more then ten more that should probably be added here. I may get to that soon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it turns out that there were only 4 more that met the same criteria as the other grouped redirects. They have been added in the same edit as this comment. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The others can probably just be deleted unless they are frequently and uniquely associated with Zork, which does not seem to be the case (especially for "Crystal Trident", which seems to be better associated with [16], though that's a weak basis for a redirect). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • These all seem like plausible options ... with the exception of the retargeting option for Ivory torch. That seems like a bit of a WP:SURPRISE since the reference seems to be about "torching ivory" to destroy it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Super-Grammaticam[edit]

WP:TRIVIA, and doesn't appear in the article. It was indeed a title applied to the subject, but it is based on one source here, is based on one event, and appears to be nothing but Carlyle being facetious. MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. It does appear in the article, just in the footnotes and without the dash. I've now included it in the body. Verifiable, lasting apocryphal stories of academic interest are generally fine. WP:TRIVIA does not apply in this case as this does not deal with a "trivia" section in anyway, but sourced, verifiable information in the body of the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Super-[edit]

Delete as ambiguous/implausible - as it stands now, it redirs to a dab page for Super. However, the hyphen denotes a prefix form, and there's nothing on the dab that refers to the redir as such. So, if I'm going to look for "super", I don't need to type "super-", and if I'm looking for "super-", I'm not going to find it. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as with sub-, hyper-, under-. Might as well try pre- too. Exceptions would be made if there are actual articles that include a dash like Anti- (record label) and of course any articles that discuss it as a prefix like meta- AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rechargeable CMOS battery[edit]

The Asus Eee PC may have a Rechargeable CMOS battery, but that doesn't mean that all Rechargeable CMOS batteries are Eee PCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElianDoran (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Small accident[edit]

The word "small" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the term "small accident" undefined, leaving readers who arrive at the target article trying to figure out what specific set of circumstances make an accident a "small accident". Also, the word "small" is subjective and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

List of rivers of Saudi Arabia[edit]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rivers of Palestine, a wadi is not a river and anyone too ignorance or lazy to search for wadis separately from rivers can't expect to find them Siuenti (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as the term creates false expectation like List of people living on the Moon. I disagree that wadi is a common term though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep OR Retarget to Geography of Saudi Arabia. While wadis are not rivers in the proper sense of the word, reliable sources do describe them as "seasonal rivers" (e.g. [17]), and it looks like the current target is the best we have. If this is not good enough, we should retarget to Geography of Saudi Arabia where it talks about the hydrography of KSA in depth. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, the reason this redirect exists is to prevent List of rivers of Saudi Arabia from being a dead link in the lists of rivers template - lists of wadis seems the next best place to send someone looking for info on rivers in a country where they don't exist. Punishing someone for not knowing what a wadi is seems counterproductive. Kmusser (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight and Kmusser's sound analysis. Cavarrone 08:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Big state[edit]

The term "big state" is not in the target article. Also, "state" doesn't always mean "government". Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete unless anyone has any better suggestions. Now-banned user Falongen (and his various socks/anon edits) went nuts creating all these weird redirects/edits/redirect changes and caused no end of disruption, so I don't think anyone will miss this one.... Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of google books hits for this sense. Siuenti (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Big tit[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

The words "big" and "tit" are both ambiguous. Also, Tit, a disambiguation page, is an inappropriate target since no subjects in that page are not referred to specifically as "big tit". Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The way I'm reading this comment's rationale, this seems more like a reason to delete these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers determine what subject they are looking for without being forced to go to a specific page due to an existing redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Oh jeez. Just more of Neelix's titty obsession. Completely and utterly inappropriate. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep/retarget all to tit. This follows our general policy of creating valid redirects even for vulgar terms, with the delightful side effect of helping all the people searching for "big tits" to learn more about the members of the family Paridae while at the same time not preventing them from reading aaaaaaaalll the way down the page to find their intended target in the unlikely event of this being a prurient search -- something, of course that I'm shocked, shocked to even consider might ever happen. Consider, for example, the magnificent disambig page wiener, which has much the same effect. -- The Anome (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tit is a disambiguation page. Redirecting a term which does not describe a valid alternative name for all of the subjects on the page, is not an exact title match with the disambiguation page's title and/or isn't a title with capitalization, punctuation and/or differences with the use of the word "the" is misleading and inaccurate. I'm pretty sure that none of the subjects at Tit#People are referred to as "big tit" or "big tits". Also, the argument trying to compare Wiener having a similar situation regarding "big" redirects is not true since the only incoming redirects to Wiener are Wieners and Wiener (disambiguation); Big wiener, Big wieners, Big-wiener and Big-wieners do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed they don't. But if they did, "big wieners" etc. should all redirect to the "wiener" disambig page, as we don't know which kind of wiener might be intended. The analogy with "tit" here is perfect. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Big penis redirects to to an article specifically about human penis size (not endorsing that, just stating the fact).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to breast, which is the only subject on tit which is commonly referred to with the "big" modifier. It's extremely unlikely someone who comes here (or anywhere on the internet) and types "big tit" is going to be looking for a bearded reedling (bearded tit) of above-average size. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The statement that the phrase "big tit" may only refer to breast may not be the case. Thinking I had heard the word "tit" used otherwise in the past, I recalled that I once heard the word "tit" used as an insult. Sure enough, wikt:tit and third party sources confirm this. Apparently, the word "tit" is sometimes used as an insult in British English. Like most insults that are a single-word noun, the word "big" can be placed behind it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point, but I don't think that usage is present on the disambiguation page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    These pages might have future retargets by other editors. This RfD might sync them for now, but I have a feeling it won't last. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Breast size redirects to bra size. Nipple#Changes in size gives an average size, but isn't really a good target, as it doesn't describe what is "big". Oppose retarget to tit because the overwhelming usage of this term is to refer to the size a specific part of the female human body.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Big ldea[edit]

Big killer[edit]

These redirects' target, List of causes of death by rate, is about death in humans. "Killers" or a target of a "kill" is not exclusive to humans, and the word "big" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Note: The edit history of a redirect targeting these redirects' target, List of causes of human deaths by rate, has the term "big killer" to describe the topic of the list, but the term as used in that article was not referenced. Also, I was unable to find any connection between "big killer" and any specific term either through search engines. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeopardisers[edit]

Should Jeopardy and related forms really point to endangerment? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bootable USB[edit]

A bootable USB is not necessarily a live USB. A live USB contains a full OS, rather than, for example, the Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 setup files to install the OS from the USB. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Windows 10 (for PCs and tablets)[edit]

We don't begin parenthetical disambiguators with prepositions, in contrast with Windows 10 for PCs and tablets, which has a natural disambiguator; and Windows 10 (PCs and tablets), which has a parenthetical disambiguator that doesn't begin with a preposition. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 8)[edit]

I am taking this to RfD since another editor has twice attempted, incorrectly, to speedy delete this redirect. I will inform that editor of this RfD. At the moment, I am neutral with respect to deletion. Safiel (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Keyword: possible. It has not been confirmed and hence the page should not exist. Those are all speculation sources. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL clearly says that it only applies to "unverifiable speculation", that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced," and that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The fact that there has been open speculation by the people in charge of the show about needing an eighth season is verifiable to reliable sources. Unless you're asserting that the creators/showrunners of Game of Thrones and the president of HBO programming are not "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in [the] field" for noted HBO show Game of Thrones, I fail to see how this should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"We need a season 8" doesn't sound like "We're going to produce season 8" just like CEOs of sports teams wanting to re-sign their players going into free agency. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
In that scenario though, if the coach and the GM both openly say in reliable sources that they're in discussions with the player and that the current plan was to sign them, then it would be fine to include that per WP:CRYSTAL, since it is verifiable speculation about the future. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, but that does not mean to put the player on the roster. But that redirect may have to do for now to funnel traffic as with Star Wars 9 which has been in discussion since the 1980s with things making it more a certainty from 2015. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And now back on topic. Game of Thrones does not related to sports or Star Wars. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested by Patar. The redirect's topic is in an article and properly sourced, so a redirect makes sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested above. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL to do this because the subject has been covered by reliable sources. The fact that those sources are still largely speculating at this stage is not a problem, as WP:CRYSTAL allows us to report speculation by reliable sources as well as discussion about the likelihood that future events will happen. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss Emma[edit]

These Neelix redirect fails WP:WINAD because it is slang. Nominated them for speedy delete, but some were declined. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe you'd better put all the others here too. I don't see how a redirect can constitute a dictionary entry; they're meant to aid navigation. That's just what these redirects do. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WINAD also applies to slang. All of these are slang for morphine. There's also Morfa (drug) and Morphy (drug) but wasn't sure to nominate them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call a redirect a guide though. If the term refers to something (which these do) I wouldn't be surprised to see a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The redirects guideline states that "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Thus, delete all. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Many of these are listed as informal names for morphine in reliable sources such as this one [20] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all not in target article Morphine#Slang terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Most of them are now, with sourcing from here: [21]. White Nurse and White Merchandise are not there, but I saw some reliable sources using the latter when I declined the speedy. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This still fails WP:WINAD. An alias is not needed for every street name for a drug, which the book attempts to collect. Only the ones that are used prominently in news sources and most likely to be linked from other articles should be referenced. Just as with track listings and singles names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep most as sourced, though I disambiguated "happy powder" and "joy powder" since the sources I found that led me to decline indicated that they could refer to several drugs. Those two should stay that way, and some of the other redirects may also need to be turned into DAB pages. "God's medicine" was redirected to Kenneth E. Hagin because he wrote a book of that name. If there's sources to link it to morphine or some other drug, that'll be worth a hatnote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Jimmyjohns[edit]

Would this Neelix redirect be more suitable to redirect to Jimmy John's? A carboy is a typed a demijohn, and a demijohn is known as a jimmyjohn in the U.S. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Caused Riots[edit]

June 8[edit]

Beaded[edit]

Seems to be a bit of an WP:XY situation between Bead and Beadwork. Either delete or retarget to Wiktionary (wikt:beaded). Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It's a coin toss. Beadwork involves more stitching and sewing, while there's beaded curtains, which are just curtains made of strings of beads. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Although it appears to be the situation in WP:XY, that essay is misleading as usually disambiguation pages or hatnotes are used (if the title can refer to any of multiple topics), or the redirect is pointed at one of the possible targets (where the topics are closely related and easily accessible from each other, as is the case here), only being deleted when multiple topics are mentioned in the title of the redirect (as in all of the examples). This redirect is more likely to be used by people looking for the adjective rather than the verb, so bead is a better redirect, but it may be better to disambiguate with bead and bead (woodworking) as the primary topic is less certain (either a separate disambiguation page or redirect to the existing one). Beadwork could be added, but I don't know how likely it is; it hasn't been added to the bead (disambiguation) page. Peter James (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Big happens here[edit]

Seems to be a tag line for some sort to discontinued promotion for either tourism or incentive to move to New York. Either way, the phrase is not mentioned in the target article and the phrase would not necessarily represent its current target given the aforementioned information. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's a bit of trivia, nothing more, so why keep it? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. I think "Big" is something more associated with Texas --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Big elvis[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Not finding any references of the redirect and the target having any citable connection. Unavoidable WP:SURPRISE because ... Elvis. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I was about to essentially withdraw this discussion with the "retarget" suggestion above, but then I remembered a concern I found while looking up the term "Big Elvis" on search engines. Of course, almost all results were about Elvis, so I wonder if this retarget would still cause a WP:SURPRISE issue. Either way, I now support the retarget to Pete Vallee option slightly over deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It could always be hatnoted to Elvis Presley since of course he's bigger than any Big Elvises. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Big Damn Heroes[edit]

"Big damn heroes" seems to be part of a quote used in an episode of Firefly. Also, this isn't the complete quote: The complete quote seems to be "Big damn heroes, sir." Also, it seems that the "Big damn heroes" phrase eventually became the subject of a meme deriving from this series, so the phrase may be notable enough that these redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, especially considering that the redirects are not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think it needs to be more of a catchphrase like Beam me up Scotty with secondary source commentary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Found it used in The Honourable Schoolboy by John Le Carre 1977 [23] No idea if that's what inspired the Firefly version. It's used in of course the Firefly critical analysis books. But it should be mentioned in the target somewhere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Big-headed[edit]

Redirects to List of pornographic subgenres[edit]

A group of redirects that have the same target which the redirects themselves are ambiguous, and also do not have non-hyphenated variants existing on Wikipedia (Big bust, Big breast, Big boob, Boy girl). For one, Big boobs (currently nominated for WP:RFD itself) targets Breast and the term "boy girl" is ambiguous as a term that could have other meanings. Having these terms redirect to a list of pornographic genres is probably WP:ASTONISHing and would best be served as red links so that the search function on Wikipedia can help readers find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Yan[edit]

WP:XY; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli Joeykai (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Big ass table[edit]

The only reference that I found that connects the term of the redirect with the target is this YouTube video. It seems that this term is a parody of sorts, but is not mentioned in the article and is not an official alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete not a notable nickname. Anything could be "big ass". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sporting Club Toulon[edit]

For the 2016–17 football season, Sporting Toulon Var and SC Toulon-Le Las are to merge to form a new club, called Sporting Club Toulon. This redirect, therefore, needs to be a (stub) page in it's own right rather than a redirect to one of the constituent teams in the merger. Suggest the Redirect is Deleted to allow creation of the page. [24] Gricehead (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If the merge discussion has already been done, then request technical deletion WP:G6. But I don't see the discussion anywhere? Should the new club have its own article? Sporting Toulon Var has been around since 1944 and SC Toulon-Le Las since 1965. Are they starting over completely with the merge? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three month VfD policy[edit]

Delete because it might cause confusion. The redirect was created in 2005, seemingly as part of a different policy discussion, WP:GNAA votes for deletion policy (marked inactive) which is the only incoming link to this redirect. The current target does not discuss the matter. Relevant pages, WP:Guide to deletion#Can I recreate an article that was deleted in the past?, WP:CSD#G5 and WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages, do not discuss three months and the latter is "failed" anyway. Sometimes a three-month waiting period is suggested (for example at DRV) but this is only on an ad hoc basis. Thincat (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rumbly[edit]

(Neelix) Has this place ever been called simply Rumbly? If not, it's a WP:PTM, and there's a few other articles that use Rumbly in the title. -- Tavix (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I imagine this town was formed as a result of two towns named Rumbly and Frenchtown merging together. However, that does not seem to be supported by any source I can find. MelanieLamont (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Etre[edit]

This discussion established that it's not a good idea to redirect a french verb to an article on its conjugation. This originally targeted Romance copula, is that a better target or is it best to delete it? -- Tavix (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Note - they both actually target the section in French conjugation where this verb is conjugated. Also note the discussion link seems to be broken, I'm guessing because of all the collapses on the page. If you click through and end up on the bottom of the page, scroll up a bit to the discussion on redirects from various verb conjugations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that discussion establised that it's not a good idea to redirect from the conjugated verb to an article on its conjugation, but these are both infinitive forms and match the section header at the article (French conjugation#Être). I think that makes them okay. I also think we could hatnote to the essay from the section in the conjugation article, as see-also or related reading. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The infinitives were also deleted: Vouloir, Avoir, Ouvrir, and Pouvoir. (Parler, Partir, and Avenir have other meanings). -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Stewart Parnell[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what to do with this one. This was created a redirect to Peanut Corporation of America, as it is the name of one of the company's executives. A year and a half later, an IP retargeted it to its current target. There's absolutely no doubt that the Irish leader is primary topic over the peanut executive. But I don't think he was ever referred to solely by his middle and last names. A quick look at "stewart parnell" suggests the peanut executive might be sufficiently notable for a standalone article. For now, I would say retarget to the original article, Peanut Corporation of America, or delete. BDD (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Charles Stewart Parnell is undoubtedly the primary topic here and his name is well known. I looked at Google and saw quite a few results about the peanut executive, but unless someone creates an article on the executive then I think it should stay as it is. If someone does create an article, then maybe a disambig page would be more appropriate. st170etalk 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Does he go by Stewart though? That determines whether it should be the primary topic. If he doesn't, then the peanut guy should get the redirect and then hatnote to Charles AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've had a look through Google because I was convinced that some history books referred to him as Stewart Parnell, but in all the sources I've found on the news, Charles Stewart Parnell is always given his full name. Stewart Parnell has quite a lot of extensive coverage, albeit for all the wrong reasons so I think therefore that a retarget to Peanut Corporation of America is plausible with a hatnote to CSP. st170etalk 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Magic Jug[edit]

I came across this redirect by navigating Template:Outdoor sculptures in Belfast. 'Magic Jug' is a cancelled public art sculpture in Belfast. I think the name is a bit generic and I don't think it's worthy for a redirect on Wikipedia. There are various sources online about the sculpture, but redirecting it to a government department is silly. The redirect should be deleted. st170etalk 02:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of television network template redirects[edit]

Below is a list of television network templates (those listed at {{U.S. network show templates}}), and their redirects. The parent templates are bolded, and their redirects are listed in dot point notation below them. I've gone through with AWB and replaced the redirect templates with their parent templates, meaning that the redirects are no longer in use and are no longer necessary. I propose that they be deleted. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates
Template:U.S. network show templates (talk · links · edit)
Template:The CW programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:Univision programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:Adult Swim original programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:Disney Channel Original Series (talk · links · edit)
Template:Disney XD Original Series (talk · links · edit)
Template:Freeform (talk · links · edit)
Template:FX network programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:HBONetwork Shows (talk · links · edit)
Template:History shows (talk · links · edit)
Template:MSNBC programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:MTV Network programs (talk · links · edit)
Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons (talk · links · edit)
Template:Oprah Winfrey Network programs (talk · links · edit)
Template:Showtime Network programming (talk · links · edit)
Template:Starz Shows (talk · links · edit)
Template:Syfy Shows (talk · links · edit)
Template:Amazon Video original series (talk · links · edit)
Template:Hulu (talk · links · edit)
  • Keep all per WP:CHEAP and since they serve as useful search terms for those trying to find their target templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 June 2016‎ (UTC)
Yes, redirects are cheap, but they serve no purpose and are not used anywhere on the site. (Also, signing your post would be mighty handy.) Alex|The|Whovian? 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
(Correcting that with {{Unsigned}} is pretty handy as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, they're no longer used anywhere on the site because, at your own admission, you bypassed all of the existing redirects. I know at WP:TFD, orphaning or replacing a template in the same manner to prove it unused is considered "bad form" by some of its participants. (Granted, I'm not a fan of transclusions to incoming redirects to templates either, but replacing them then considering unhelpful due to them "...not [being] used anywhere on the site..." is misleading at best.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's misleading, please point me to where they are currently being used. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you bypassed the redirects, you created a circular argument that can no longer be answered. Steel1943 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - While I find the replacement of all the redirect templates with their parent templates without consensus disagreeable, I don't necessarily think these should be retained.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So, you believe that they should be deleted? Not sure why a consensus is needed to replace old deprecated templates. Obviously they were moved to the now-parent templates after their own individual discussions and consensuses. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 7[edit]

Big bum[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Also, "big" is subjective and "bum" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Big bug movie[edit]

Big booty[edit]

Since the target is a disambiguation page, the redirect is misleading since there are no subjects known specifically as "big booty" listed on the disambiguation page. (Note: the redirect has previous history as an article.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no notable media uses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect over to Cash_Out#Singles which is, I think, where "Big Booty" goes to since we have a semi-popular (apparently well enough to track the R&B 100 chart) song by exactly this name. For the curious, listen to it here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Booty (song) as a working title for the song. SSTflyer 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Nah, CWM's proposal makes more sense, plus I have already added a hatnote there. SSTflyer 13:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Big boobs[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Probably retarget to Hypertrophy of breast or delete. I have no opinion either way, but the current target is misleading for several reasons including ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • In a case like this, I'm not sure if page views prove usefulness for any specific target. It just proves that readers are looking up the term, not that they are arriving at the subject they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Big bonus culture[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bonus culture is mentioned, just not the big part. That's like wanting to redirect "big salary" or "modest salary" to salary when there is no definition of what is big. Not the same as Big business which has an actual article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Big Bayram[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a more of a vernacular name for the holiday that is employed in some places that inherited the name from the Ottoman Empire. It occurred to me originally as a translation of Bosnian "Veliki Bajram", but I see now at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22big+bayram%22 that a few books actually mention it in that vein from elsewhere in the Balkans. (There's also the form "Great Bayram") In the current Eid al-Adha article, the more proper Turkish term "Kurban Bayram" is mentioned, Bosnian isn't mentioned at all, and Albanian is mentioned with an unreferenced sentence, so something about this could be added as well. It is possible that I actually mixed them up, I'm not sure. The article Eid al-Fitr carries the converse term "Mali Bajram" (meaning Small Bayram, cf. [29]), and it has a big section with all the names nicely tallied, unlike this article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as convincingly demonstrated by Joy [shallot]. Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Big+Ten+Channel[edit]

Big foundation[edit]

Redirects to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry[edit]

Cross-namespace instead of to the article, also "account" has various meanings and this only applies to one in certain circumstances. These don't exist in the Wikipedia namespace so could be moved there as an alternative to deletion. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all - Outside of the context of Wikipedia, a fellow having multiple accounts with some online organization is a perfectly normal thing that doesn't necessarily denote "sock-puppetry" in any sense. Think about how someone, say, can have a mutual fund investment account, a renter's insurance account, a car insurance account, and a checking account all with the same banking conglomerate that are superficially separate while related (which is actually true for me, personally). As well, even in the case of true sock-puppetry, this is a practice that exists in various different contexts online (especially in other wiki-based platforms) rather than something only existing on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • These don't exist in the Wikipedia namespace so could be moved there as an alternative to deletion - Wikipedia:Multiple accounts exists (created in 2008) and points to Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts rather than straight to sockpuppetry (as even in Wikipedia not every use of multiple accounts is for sockpuppetry). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. If they wanted the Wikipedia stance, they would add "Wikipedia:" to the front of it. But those terms aren't topics in themselves. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Cross-namespace redirects out of article space, unlikely reader-space search terms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Probably should retarget to a new DAB that covers Sockpuppet (Internet), Alternate character (i.e. multibox ), as well as switchable profiles and sub accounts ( not sure which articles would cover those. ) PaleAqua (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Make DAB page per PaleAqua. Seems reasonable to have it direct users to articles about multiple accounts in the real world. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    I started a DAB at Multiple accounts (disambiguation). PaleAqua (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Crappy 1980s Live Action Network[edit]

듬뿍[edit]

Autowikibrowser[edit]

Not a useful WP:XNR, like AutoWikiBrowser. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Although these have been deleted before, consensus has changed more than once since then so not eligible for speedy deletion. However, AutoWikiBrowser is used for editing and not particularly relevant for readers; people looking for it probably know about namespaces. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Grace Shepard[edit]

Hongyundaodao Station[edit]

just a spelling wrong Suchichi02 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) 08:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - {{R from misspelling}}, stats suggest marginal use. I have no idea why it suddenly got 80 hits yesterday. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. It's just a typo. It only seems like a plausible misspelling for someone who doesn't know the language, which is why these transliterations are an issue. Again, consider the search mechanic - by the time you get to the error, you'll have found the target. MSJapan (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lee Chae rim[edit]

Largest market square[edit]

Large landing craft[edit]

The redirect's target is unclear on what defines a "large" landing craft. Otherwise, the term "large" is a subjective and ambiguous adjective. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is used in several articles and should be described somewhere. Unless this is likely to be made into a separate article it should be kept as a redirect. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If all of the incoming links are replaced with a link to Landing craft, the issue will be resolved. The fact that the nominated redirect has incoming links seems like a case of someone thinking that the term was encyclopedic and linking it rather than linking "Landing craft". Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - If sources differentiate between "Landing Craft" and "Large Landing Craft", amongst many other types of landing craft, then the redirect is a valid one. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No sources of the such seem to currently be present in the target article, nor is there a definition present in the target article about how a "large" landing craft is determined. Yes, the term "large landing craft" is mentioned in the target article at least twice, but in their context, the word "large" is used just as an adjective for the term "landing craft" and not as a distinct defined term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Large local reaction[edit]

Large orchestra[edit]

Unclear what makes an orchestra a "large orchestra". The term "large orchestra" is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as a WP:SURPRISE not at the target. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wasn't that a synonym for symphonic orchestra? Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2016‎
  • Delete per nom. No defintion of what is large. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Large" in this context is just a vague qualifier without a solid meaning. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Large orchestra" can of course refer to an orchestra that is large (and that's the kind of vague meaning we don't make redirects for), but it can also refer to a "symphonic orchestra" (in opposition to a "chamber orchestra"), so it is something of a technical term and as such appears in the titles of compositions. Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Retarget per Schweiwikist below. Uanfala (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest Edit to the redirect, namely: Orchestra#Late_Romantic_orchestra. Here’s how often the term crops up, not necessarily as jargon: (link to search result) Uanfala is correct in noting that the term does appear in titles of works — in German, fur Grosses Orchester, for instance. A google image search for the german spelling returns the title pages of Brahms’ symphonies, as well as several Richard Strauss compositions, that happen to require more than eight wind parts plus full horns and brass. So the articles that include the phrase “for large orchestra” referring to a published title page’s terminology could link to the corresponding section of the orchestra article. Otherwise as when the text is simply “a large orchestra” or some other, only the word ‘orchestra’ would simply link to the top of the article. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Schweiwikist. Makes sense to link there if it's a phrase commonly used in the time period that section covers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Large view[edit]

Large foundation[edit]

Large integer[edit]

By looking at the redirect's history as an article as well as the target article and its one passing mention of the term as stated in the redirect (which seems to prove that the redirect is not synonymous with the subject of the article), the redirect seems misleading due to the subject of the redirect not being defined in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Malthusian Blues[edit]

I think this Neelix redirect should be redirected to the band's page Claw Hammer instead of the music label that released the single. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - slightly preferring keeping as-is over deletion since the single is listed at the label's article, but there is no information about the single at all at the band's page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it a notable single? Or is the label acting too much as a catalog? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Can't tell if it's notable, it doesn't appear to meet the standards for an article at least. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Farsi[edit]

(neelix) I am pretty sure take this to Al-Fasi where Al-Fasi (disambiguation) Salman the Persian was not the only Persian called Farsi for fairly obvious reasons (because he was Farsi). I think this is kinda "blocking" my search, there may be other variants but the search engine kinda "blocks" my finding them while this is in the way (by eliminating what it believes are redundant results). Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as he looks like the only one likely to be named just al-Farsi. I'd create a surname article listing the other few people who have that as a surname, and link to that from a hatnote. SimonTrew, al-Fasi is a different name. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Uanfala is it a diffferent surname or just a different transliteration? That was my nagging doubt. I have seen Al-Farsi far more often than Al-Fasi but I wasn't sure hence RfD. Certainly we should hatnote the two articles if we make a surname DAB I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To a British ear, SiTrew, they might sound like diffferent transliterations, but to almost anyone else they aren't. Minding our r's as much as the p's and q's. But a See also entry on the page of one, pointing to the other, goes without saying. Uanfala (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete "Al Farsi" in arabic means "The persian" which is too generic to redirect to a single article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
But this is the English-language wikipedia. Only a small portion of Arabic-language referents of "al-Fārsī" can be referred to like that in English. Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Set-index-ify, as there seems to be a few others with the surname. Salman is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC though, so it might be best to leave it alone and create Al-Farsi (surname). -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Set-index-ify per Tavix. It seems that there's a lot of people with "Al-Farsi" as their surname within the wiki --Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: I've created the set index at Al-Farsi (surname). I still think Salman is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but if not, all the closer would need to do is move the index over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Set-index-ify per Tavix. The index page he created looks good. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Backcrest[edit]

This has been bugging me (Neelix) and we also have neckcrest and back-crest and neck-crest and as you can imagine lots of other variants. Are these valid terms? I would think it was more likely a typo for backrest, neckrest (headrest) and so on, User:Plantdrew or User:Peter coxhead may know I could see in ornithology/anatomy a grebe for example could be described as having a backcrest but do they actually describe them that way? Those kind of things are not at the target, a DAB. A horse's mane is not really a backcrest because it's on its neck not its back (which yes technically is part of the spine, I know). My Collins Concise doesn't have it, dictionary.com doesn't have it. I don't have the OED to hand and only a pocket Collins Gem for identifying birds so I am a bit stumped on this one. Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC).

There are loads of hypenated variants but I kinda need a sanity check as a test case before I take them all to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've seen some of them used in ornithological articles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Okie doke Speedily withdrawn by nominator as keep. Thanks to User:FunkMonk for the sanity check. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait - The "backcrest" and "neckcrest" redirects go to different places, see backcrest and neckcrest. Is this sensible? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case someone has an answer to Ivanvector's query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging Plantdrew and Peter coxhead for input, otherwise my concern shouldn't hold up closing this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete since I was pinged, but animal anatomy is not my area of expertise. Seems to be an XY situation here, with sail (anatomy) as another possible target. I'm really not finding any relevant usage of the un-spaced "backcrest". With a space, and searching for "back crest"+hair, "back crest"+feather or "back crest"+scale I get the most relevant results with scale. "Back-crest" is a term in lizard anatomy. And I see 4 relevant pages from Google for "back crest"+Rhodesian (i.e. Rhodesian Ridgeback), but none for the unspaced term+Rhodesian. Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Millerette[edit]

Large car[edit]

Large bills[edit]

귤즙[edit]

Four-in-a-row[edit]

I want to make Set index articles. Score Four and 3-D Tic-Tac-Toe, Kaplansky's 4-in-a-line are also called Four-in-a-row or Four-in-a-line. --CxHy (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Dabify - I think there's a range of articles that a reader could be looking for using these queries, I would create a disambig page for this concept. shoy (reactions) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as primary topic but if you need to dab, go for it. Score Four is the 3D connect four so that is covered by a "See also". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=725165073"