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 or the pageviews tool 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 you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 23[edit]

Non-Muslim[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

An RFD discussion in July 2015 resulted in no consensus (and the target at that time was Kafir). The plural versions, Non-Muslims and Non-muslims were deleted in January 2016, but this one wasn't nominated for some reason. For these reasons, I think it's best to have a fresh discussion on the use of this term. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep or delete. I successfully nominated the plural versions because they redirected to a derogatory term and didn't nominate this one by oversight. Afterwards I retargeted this one to the antonym as a quicker option. I don't see a problem with the current redirect, but I'm not opposed to deleting it either. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Commment. We don't have Non-Christian, Non-Hindu or Non-Buddhist. We do have Non-Jewish, though that redirects to Gentile. So it's not clear-cut to me whether we should have the antonym; I can see the case for "Non-Jewish" since it doesn't redirect to the perhaps more-obvious Jews or Judaism. This has quite some history including being retargeted to Kafir and Islamic studies by author (non-Muslim or academic); this edit suggests it was listed at RfD on 22 June 2015, but actually it was then moved by User:Tavix to 23 June (without updating the RfD notice at the page) and then relisted on 30 June by User:Deryck Chan. But anyway, the history is preserved even if we delete it, so that's no reason to refrain from doing so. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's like redirect anti-communism to communism. We do have Anti-Islam and Infidel#Islamic, so maybe a retarget is at least ought to be considered, but I have no strong opinion on that option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would've opted for "keep" if the target was kafir given the past discussions and Non-Jewish → Gentile. But the fact that User:Eperoton retargeted it to Muslim on their own initiative with the comment Inappropriate redirect - Kafir is used as a pejorative term would suggest that we simply don't have a good target. Deryck C. 10:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Infidel#Islamic, which discusses non-Muslims. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per User:AngusWOOF. I had thought of that but rejected it, thinking perhaps that was out of the frying pan, into the fire. But it does discuss it quite well, there, including specifically the usage "non-Muslim" although that is not sourced (but then, we're not WP:NOTDIC for sourcing every single word we use). On balance, retarget it. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That section also mentions kafir and the other variants. So if people need a more technical term for non-Muslim, they have a place to look there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Not to be confused with a keffir, of course... we don't seem to have that, but in Seth Efricen English that is used by whites to mean non-whites: not specifically (but largely) blacks. Or at least was by the Seth Efrican whites I knew in England, who were ultimately of Dutch origin. Not sure how spelt in South African English or British English, I've only ever heard it, never seen it spelt. Kaffir, actually, is a DAB that informs me: listing both Kafir (first) and Kaffir (racial term) among others, so perhaps there is still some untangling to do here... but I am not sure what or how. Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I feel like what we have now isn't right at all. I'd rather that we just get rid of the redirect. I suppose, though, that I wouldn't object to going to Infidel#Islamic if the consensus viewpoint leans that way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. That seems like the best target and has relevant information. There is also a link to kafir early on, which readers can click through. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The old Internet[edit]

Not synonymous with the target. The title of the redirects could refer to older versions or usage of the Internet. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Most unlikely lookup but certainly not to the current redirect Mail, so retarget per previous suggestion. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Range Queries[edit]

Hot oil manicure[edit]

I'm in the process of creating a disambiguation page at hot oil and I came across this redirect, and I have no idea what to do with it. At first, I thought "hot oil manicure" was what was being described at Manicure#Paraffin wax treatments, but after doing research, I'm starting to doubt that. I've come across a couple step-by-step guides (eg: [1] and [2]) and they don't mention wax. That being said, I believe we have a case where the target article doesn't mention this concept. (A semi-related issue: when I Google "hot oil", the primary result seems to be a "hot oil hair treatment" and I can't find any where on Wikipedia that describes that.) -- Tavix (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tavix: I should have thought that if there is no obvious place for it to go then the default should be delete. If an intelligent but ignorant administrator cannot make head or tail of it, how can an intelligent but ignorant reader do better? Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
off topic discussion moved to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - as far as I can tell, a hot oil manicure is just any old manicure in which oil is used as a soak rather than water, so the redirect is correct enough. A paraffin wax manicure is one in which wax is used in place of water or oil, but a wax manicure is not an oil manicure. I'm not sure why there's a subsection on one and not the other, but it is how it is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Short rate cancellation[edit]

This section target of this redirect doesn't exist in the target article, and the article is unclear if the title of the redirect refers to anything currently in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Maybe refine target to Cancellation (insurance)#Cancellation methods? That section discusses cancellation methods that are apparently called "short Period Rate (old short rate)" and "short Period Rate (90% pro rata)." However, if "short rate cancellation" refers to forms of cancellation other than those used in insurance plans, then I think we should delete per WP:XY. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - It seems best to just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (either refine per NCFF or remove the section anchor altogether, no preference on which). The target describes two methods of "short rate cancellation", so we're good from that standpoint. As far as the term being vague, I haven't found evidence of that being the case with all of my results several pages back having to do with insurance. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Make America Hate Again[edit]

Term is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:MADEUP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.LM2000 (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely not made up, but a phrase that is widely used by reliable sources in connection with the protests. USA Today, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, New Statesman, Reuters, AP. The phrase is mentioned at Make America Great Again, so I would also support retargeting there, and using one of the above sources to add a link to the protests. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as Patar shows (unlike the above objectors who skimped on basic research) there is notable use of the phrase. We should only discuss the possible retargeting. The absence of a phrase on a page a redirect points to isn't evidence the redirect doesn't belong. It may be it was present and a vandal removed the source. I've seen this done before. Ranze (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Make America Great Again, I've struck my previous delete !vote per Patar knight's comments.LM2000 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Diane[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

WP:XY and WP:PTM. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP until there is ambiguity regarding this redirect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. More first and middle name usage that is supposed by the redirect creator rather than actual news sources or self-referencing. No regular usage of this as with Lisa Marie. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, her middle name is rarely used and I would see no practical reason to search this term. MB298 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Changing my stance to Keep after reading the previous discussion. MB298 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • How do you know that is what the reader is looking for, her common name is the name of the article, and I can't imagine why anyone will search for just this. Barack Hussein does not exist (my bad, nominated that one, didn't do WP:BEFORE). It is harmful in the way that it encourages creation of similar redirects such as Donald John etc. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PTM. Secretary Clinton is not known as "Hillary Diane". -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be setting a precedent for "first + middle names only", so I think we'd be wise to see more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep "Hillary Diane Clinton was born Hillary Diane Rodham" on biography.com as example we see this is the common element of both her birth and current names. Redirects are cheap and it is a waste of time to talk about deleting this as it enhances searching and does no harm. If we locate anyone else notable with the forename pairing we could expand it into a disambiguation. Ranze (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clarity in Policy Discussion[edit]

This redirect is an orphan, and the target is a subpage of the talk page regarding blocking policy. If someone is searching the redirect, they are probably not looking for this. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Graham87, I know what you mean, but Wikipedia kinda changes its own history every day, in a very Minitrue kind of way. Whenever we change a link, we disrupt the history of the page on what it used to link to, whenever we change a target, we change what it would have looked like at the time that link was created, and so on. The idea that we have a full history is really rather a pretence, in the absence of my proposed WikiWikiWayback machine, that would give you not just a historical version of the page, but links also to the pages as they were at the time for the version of the page you're looking at, recursively. I don't think this would add much cost to the software to do this, because it could look up the history of the links you clicked through on demand (by munging the link to e.g. MyArticleName#Section to be Special:WikiWikiWayback/MyArticleName#Section?before=1999 December 31 or whatever) and take the hit for looking through the history when you clicked through it. That would then give you a much more coherent idea of what a page looked like at that time, including what it linked to. You're right, it wouldn't deal well with deleted links (unless it had special privileges to trawl the history of them). So my stance really is as a non-admin editor, what is it that I can't see that an admin can? I thought that an admin could see everything, even seeing through "deletes" on pages to have the history before they were deleted. If that's not the case, my argument falls a little, but it's only a minor injury. I still think the WikiWikiWayback would be a good thing to have and can see a way of implementing it even client-side (like stats.grok.se does, for example) but it would be quicker to do it server-side. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Admins can see deleted edits of pages, yes. They can see everything besides suppressed edits and edits that were deleted a long time ago. Your WikiWikiWayback idea would stress the servers out quite a lot for reasons that are far beyond the scope of this discussion; for a start, the [[#ifexist function is stressful enough for *current* revisions, and the database tables simply don't have historical data in an easily accessible manner ... and there's the matter of skins. Graham87 11:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, or any transclusion... if transcluding a template, wich version should it get? Which version of the Main page should it get? i.e. basically dows one recurse just shallow or deep? But I think one can just do it shallow by repointing the links on the surface page, so do it on click-through, not render the whole deep tree at that point in history. Patently it is possible, and could be useful. Maybe I write one to do it client-side via the API, then. Never done that before but I think I could manage it... presumably this would not stress the servers too much because the would choke it (load balance) if necessary? I had assumed that doing it via the API would put more load on, that the data were easily accessible server-side, but if that's not the case perhaps it wopuld be better to do it client-side. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Guinea National Library and Archives[edit]

I've had it moved to National Archives of Guinea, as National Library of Guinea already existed. There is no primary redirect target. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - A redirect seems of dubious usefulness as it seems unlikely that many if anyone would search for this combined term. Preserving links is a non-issue since only one article currently links. Neither individual article seems to be a clear winner for a redirect, and the current target seems chosen more or less at random. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Question The usage here indicates that these two organizations are linked in some way. Perhaps the two articles could be merged under this title if this is the case? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • These are two separate entities, headed by two different people AFAIK. The Guinea entry in World Encyclopedia of Library and Information Services doesn't even mention the archives, while the article "Archival and Research Resources in Conakry, Guinea" discusses the library and archives separately. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
      • This citation is from 2014 though. Everything I found early seem to show that the two are seperate 1998 book, 2007 book, 2009 research guide. But as the research guide makes clear, the entire archival system is relatively disorganized, so it may have merged in the meantime. I have emailed the author of the 2014 book to see if he can provide any insight. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. This title has been around since early 2011, and it's linked from lots of places; here's one such page, which I found with two minutes of searching. Don't create linkrot unless it's absolutely necessary. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Your example is a bad one. Archives and libraries have their own separate lists. There aren't any current mainspace links to this title. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Whether or not it's the right list for including such a link is totally irrelevant to the fact that it does include this link; you're doing your best to create linkrot, regardless of the fact that pages still accessible online are linking to this title. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and make it a disambiguation page. It's not clear which would be the primary redirect target and deleting it would break links in current articles and old diffs. Yes, it may violate WP:TWODABS by only linking to two articles, but hey, WP:IAR, right? clpo13(talk) 17:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a true WP:XY situation, so I recommend deletion unless we can find a sensible place that discusses both the library and archives. I don't see any such place. Patar knight's query would merit some exploration, though. Compare to Library and Archives Canada, where the two institutions were merged. But I'm not finding any official website for either Guinean institution, and this is the only thing I could find in VIAF. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment There's an office for "Library and Archives" which encompasses both the National Library (Service of Papua New Guinea) [3] and the National Archives (and Public Records Services). [4] there's also the Guinea National Library and Archives Act. [5] Should the article cover that office? Otherwise, I agree it's an XY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge the two articles or delete the redirect. We've got an WP:XY problem here, and both of those solutions would fix it. If they are related in some way (I did some searching, but couldn't verify it either way), I'd prefer merging, if not, deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Donnie Trump[edit]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump has been referred to in some parodies as "Donnie Trump". He has also been referred to in other parodies as "The Trumpster", which also redirects to his page on Wikipedia. Captain Cornwall (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I oppose a retargeting there. That list isn't for common name variations like this one. It's for unique and creative nicknames such as "Father of the Constitution", "Old Hickory", and "Tippecanoe". -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - These are more likely, I think, to refer to Don Trump rather than said individual's father. As stated above, but then... well, I'm not sure. I'd rather we delete these terms given the WP:XY situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as valid nicknames [6] [7] or Retarget per AngusWOOF given the sources in this !vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Bushian[edit]

(pseudo-Neelix redirect) According to Oxford, this can refer also to the elder Bush [8], but I don't see this as a plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Several other options exist. There's dabs at George Bush and Presidency of George Bush, the latter would work better if the term is limited to their respective presidencies. Bush family is another target if it's been used by other family members, such as either First Lady, Jeb!, etc. Getting even more broad is the dab at Bush, but I think that's a bit too broad. Hmm... -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bush family, as probably the best redirect, since there are non-George Bush people this can apply to. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

En bee cee[edit]

Bizarre search term, this made me laugh, but delete nevertheless. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Giigke,cin[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Implausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per previous discussion. It's what you get on a QWERTY keyboard if your right hand is off by one key. I've made this typo many times. - Eureka Lott 16:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen On Repeat[edit]

Not mentioned in target, non-notable websites. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Damian Sanders-Baron[edit]

Not mentioned in target. Unsure if notable or BLP issue. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Browser[edit]

Ambiguous, it could refer to the default browser on Android, which is just called "Browser" but not sure if we have an article on that. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ytimg.com[edit]

These websites are not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google UK[edit]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 22#Google Spain - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Space[edit]

I doubt the actual existence of some of these, but they may be plausible and a target may be able to be found for them. If such products actually exist, that is, but redirecting to Google is certainly no help. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Glossary[edit]

Delete, may be too tempted to retarget to Glossary_of_Internet-related_terms but there is only a single mention of Google. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

GoogIe[edit]

Implausible to refer to Google. http://www.googie.com/ is a real estate company. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Plausible that people not very familiar with the internet may confuse I and l. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Why would anyone not familiar with the internet search Wikipedia, and I doubt anyone doesn't know how to spell Google, regardless of how much they know about the internet. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googie redirects to Googie architecture, which already has a hatnote pointing to Google. Putting an arbitrary capital letter in the middle of the word is needlessly confusing. - Eureka Lott 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. The I and l characters look very similar in some fonts. Pppery 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

GOOgle[edit]

Bizarre capitalization. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Gewgol[edit]

Not plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Keyboard[edit]

Topic not mentioned in the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Google[edit]

Never referred to by this name, it is not a name like "The Donald" or even "The Wikipedia". Disregarding my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_21#The_Truro_by-election.2C_1987. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Common enough silly slang, like "the interwebs" (cf.). --BDD (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

GooglE[edit]

Not a CamelCase redirect, implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hozho[edit]

Not related to whatever language this is. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The language is Navajo. As in the prayer Hózhǫ́ naashá (in beauty I walk). The best spelling is hózhǫ́ , but hózhó is very common because it's hard to write hózhǫ́ without a Navajo keyboard. I think the only reason I added hózhó was because it was better than either hozho or hozhó. So I don't care whether it is kept or deleted. —Stephen (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Office Corporation[edit]

Not a valid target, there are possible other companies by this name. But AFAIK this name is never used to refer to Microsoft. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Goooogle[edit]

Almost borderline promotion for the target. Not in any way plausible typos.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't know if Google does this anymore, but if I recall, in the past, Google used to put more O's in its name for certain searches, each "O" clickable and representing something different. And if I recall, sometimes, there would be a lot of extra O's. (It may have not been searches, but Google did use extra O's for something, so it may be notable.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    • There are 10 as of now at the bottom of the search results page and the "gle" goes to the next page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Champion: I assume you are viewing Google using its desktop version. I've been using a mobile for Internet access for a while; the "O" bar at the bottom of the page for searches doesn't appear on my mobile web page for Google. (But yeah, what you saw was probably what I was referring to.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @Steel1943: I don't remember what the mobile Google looked like with the mobile pages, but I remember many years ago, there were pop-ups reading "Ads by Goooooooooogle" (forgot how many there were. Ironically, http://www.goooooooooogle.com is a cybersquatting scam site, considering that they own domains like http://www.googlee.com. This just reminded me of something else, search "goggle.com" on Youtube and you'll see what I mean, but I don't think what was depicted in that video. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:NOTWIKIA (per my conversation with Champion above) since Wikipedia is not a Google Wikia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google.c[edit]

Obvious partial title match, this could refer to Google.com, Google.cn, Google.co.uk etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Dragon Fantasy: The Black Tome of Ice[edit]

WP:REDLINK. The title of the redirect isn't synonymous with its target: The redirect is actually the sequel to Dragon Fantasy. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Angika[edit]

I don't think there is such thing, a quick (target) for this shows only mirrors of Wikipedia. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Ads[edit]

Not sure if this is a notable subject, like AdSense (which Google Ads is a redirect to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Google English[edit]

This is the English Wikipedia, so would they expect a foreign language article if they just typed "Google"? Makes zero sense. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete "Google English" doesn't seem like a likely search term. Feinoha Talk 01:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Gogole[edit]

Unsure if this is either a plausible typo for the current target or Googol. Probably WP:XY due to the ambiguity. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Animated Google[edit]

Unsure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment "Animated Google" may be a reference to Google Doodles. No idea on whether we should keep the redirect or not though. Feinoha Talk 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

ئیسلام[edit]

  • Weak delete.We already have الإسلام} and إسلام as {{R from other language|ar}}, to which undoubtedly there is affinity. I'm not sure this spelling is OK, though: Gtrans detects this as Persian but can be persuaded that it's Arabic, but doesn't translate it exactly as "Islam" but "Isalam" or "Yysalam". It's not at the target and not rcatted. A Gsearch shows widespread use, I'm just wondering if it's OK for English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)→
  • Keep. Wiktionary says that it's a Sorani translation of the word Islam ("religion"), and that Sorani is the "Kurdish dialect spoken by the majority of Kurds in Iran and Iraq." — Gorthian (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I guess it has more than enough affinity to be keep. (withdrawn), even without being at the target. Will rcat as {{R from other language}}. SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It makes sense to have redirects for the name of a religion in the religion's sacred language (Classical Arabic), or possibly in a handful of "big" literary languages (on the assumption that the term in that particular language would have seen some use in English-language texts that have to do with the culture associated with that language). However, I don't think it makes sense to have redirects for the hundreds of languages that are spoken by Muslim communities across the world. – Uanfala (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The same user also created موحەممەد → Muhammad and قورئان → Quran.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – All words are written in Central Kurdish (Sorani). They redirected to right articles and don't have any problems. - Serchia (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Black Barbies[edit]

Black Barbies is too generic of an article title when you consider that Barbie is a registered trademark and black Barbies exist. If the song becomes notable enough to require a page, it should be titled more along the lines of "Black Barbies (Nicki Minaj song)" Kellymoat (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm, maybe we can do a redirect for "Black Barbies (Nicki Minaj song)" as well. Love on the Brain (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly dabify/hatnote to create redlink for possible single. [9] or Retarget to Black Beatles which is the song that Minaj is basing it on. There is also "Black Barbie" which is a single and EP by Jahcoozi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Black Beatles, considering Black Barbies is a remix for that song. Regarding it being too vague, I don't agree; lots of song names claim dominance over the names themselves. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 𐍄𐌀ℓК 13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The first lady of the world[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_15#First_Lady_of_the_World. I am not sure that the addition of "The" means that this should go to a different target from First Lady of the World. But I really don't know what we should do with it. We don't have The First Lady of the World capped like that, so it's just that the search engine will automatically take you to Isabella if you type it that way, because it is case-insensitive. Si Trew (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hatcher Pass, Alaska[edit]

This redirect's title follows the naming convention for populated places. It appears that it was created because Jim Colver gives his residence as "Hatcher Pass, Alaska". To the best of my knowledge, Hatcher Pass itself contains little or no full-time resident population at present, as the road over the pass is not maintained in winter (see here). Most folks, including Colver, who claim to live in "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" live in the Fishhook census-designated place, which extends north to include the pass. However, those people actually live mostly around Fishhook Junction and Edgerton Parks Road several miles to the south, which is different from the pass (CDP map). I would think a retargeting and hatnotes would solve this, but it may not be so obvious to others. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be to retarget the redirect to the appropriate page, if it's indeed Fishhook, Alaska, rather than to delete it outright, just to minimize any potential confusion from people who come here and look up "Hatcher Pass, Alaska". -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, because "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" is really just a {{R from long name}} (and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and we shouldn't point it elsewhere, which would suggest that Hatcher Pass is about some place that is not in Alaska. I think the best thing would be just to add explanatory content to the article along the lines RadioKAOS has written above. Perhaps a hatnote would serve, but we maybe can't make the explanation consise enough for that. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, neither rcat is correct in this case, because there are multiple uses of "Hatcher Pass" referring to things which are closely, but not precisely, related. "Hatcher Pass" and the article of that name refers to a mountain pass. "Hatcher Pass, Alaska" ostensibly refers to a populated place several miles away, as mentioned in the first sentence of the above rationale, which is really more a colloquialism than an actual recognized community. I commented at a current AFD where the keep votes policy-shopped WP:GEOLAND and specifically the reference to "populated, legally recognized places", which enables a glut of geostubs sourced solely to GNIS to proliferate. The only GNIS entry for "Hatcher Pass" is about the pass, whereas entries for "Fishhook" exist for both the CDP and Fishhook Junction, although the latter refers to a different road junction based on an outdated historical definition, when Palmer and not Wasilla was the activity and population center of the Mat-Su Valley. There is also a long-proposed Hatcher Pass ski area, likewise not located at the pass itself but a lot closer to the vicinity of the road junctions mentioned towards the end of the above rationale. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - hatnote and/or in-article explanation are the correect way to go per User:Si Trew. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

Split Decision (2013 film)[edit]

It doesn't look like this film was ever made. It's not mentioned at the target article or the subject's IMDB page. BDD (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comandante generale[edit]

From what I can gather this a translation error. I presume the title is in Italian if so it is not commander in chief of a nation which is the subject of the page to which it points but the commander in chief of a particular corps as per this article. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_generale. The Italian page for commander in chief is titled https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_in_capo Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm concerned that the redirect is misleading for the reasons stated above. As well, the topic has no direct affinity to Italy per se. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSDG[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General. Follows suit with WP:CSDA, WP:CSDR, etc. Only ~25 links currently exist to this title. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:F1[edit]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F1. Redundant takes precedence over WP:WikiProject Formula 1. This should be retargeted there, because it is the only criteria that breaks from the expected pattern (i.e. X1, X2, X3...). However, there are quite a few existing links to this title (less then 500). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong keep well-established, highly used shortcut, retargeting will surely break links. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Don't make one speedy criterion redirect nonstandard. Pppery 01:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore this revision and work from there. The revision is a disambiguation page. Yes, this is the only applicable "letter-number" shortcut which doesn't target its applicable CSD criterion (per nom and Pppery), but it's targeted its current target for a total amount of time of almost 10 years (per Champion). So yes, best just make it a dab. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    • This is preferable to keeping it as is.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) If that revision is restored, the See also:Help:Contents should probably be dropped. However, I still oppose the dab page as an unnecessary inconsistency. Pppery 14:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom and hatnote back to old target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Takashi Kawamura (fiction)[edit]

Renamed this redirect recently to the work he appears in. (fiction) is not a useful disambiguator. He's a fictional character, not fiction in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To attempt to clarify, Takashi Kawamura is a DAB. This R nomination is blocking a double redirect resolve, because the target as nominated is itself an R, to List_of_The_Prince_of_Tennis_characters#Takashi_Kawamura. That states to be the result of a merge, and is marked thus as {{R from merge}}. User:AngusWOOF moved it on 15 Nov 2016 leaving this vestige as the result of the move, but I don't know where the merge discussion is or was. I think thas can safely be deleted as WP:G6 housekeeping. I'll try that on AngusWOOF's behalf. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to new section. The (fiction) disambiguator doesn't imply that something is fiction in general, and even if it did, according to our DAB page the new target would be the best one as the only fictional Takashi Kawamura. This redirect gets two page views a day and deleting it only harms our readers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Zou're right, User:Patar knight, in that the disambiguator merely needs to be the minimum to disambiguate, and the DABs at Takashi Kawamura andKawamura don't suggest there is any other notable fictional character. Probably "standard form" would be to have "(fictional character)" but it's no big deal for that. Yet, once the RfD tag is removed they will all fall through to go via Takashi Kawamura (The Prince of Tennis) → List of The Prince of Tennis characters#Takashi Kawamura so we need to fixup anyway. I've done most of it in the articles that would be double redirects once this is closed (whichever way it is closed). We've a surname DAB at Kawamura that IW'd frenziedly to JA;WP so I've changed the IW links to plain {{lang|ja-Hani}} per WP:DABLINK. I've not checked whether we have it in the Hiragani or Katakana yet, User:Siuenti is usually the expert on those ones if we do. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've done all the double redirects. A bot should have fixed them, but the Rfd notice blocked that, I imagine, since then they're not redirects. The only links remaining are in editor space, not reader space. User:Patar knight declined my CSD with the comment "let RfD handle it". Fair enough, I still say delete as this is just housekeeping, now. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If there's a way to rename it to (fictional character) instead of (fiction) that would be great too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think an admin can do a move without leaving a redirect, User:AngusWOOF. Is that right, User:Patar knight? Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. In addition, editors who have the WP:Page mover permission can also do a move without redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I still feel that given this is the only thing by this name "in fiction", the redirect is OK. Removing any links to this don't solve the problem of possibly breaking external links, which is high given this is a character from a popular anime. I fully support moving it to have (fictional character) disambiguator, but think having both redirects is better, given pageviews. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wind.ca[edit]

Redirect doesn't translate into more page views for target article (https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Freedom_Mobile). Daylen (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - The organization's proper website is freedommobile.ca, anyways, and I don't see a good reason for retaining this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a plausible redirect. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until very recently (a few days ago), this company was known as Wind Mobile, and this was its domain name. It's Canada's fourth largest mobile provider, so the previous domain name was quite well known. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Globalive Wireless[edit]

Redirect does not get pageviews (https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Freedom_Mobile). Daylen (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dream Theater Train of Thought[edit]

Delete the redirect. It serves no cause, it is completely useless and none of their other album pages have such redirects. Antti29 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not one of the cases where the album title can include the name of the artist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Music of Ghost in the Shell[edit]

Original Ghost in the Shell (1995) has own music, OST and composer. 1st redirect can/must be deleted or re-redirected to Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)#Sound and music; 2nd one can/must be deleted or re-redirected to Ghost in the Shell (1995 film)#Related media; 3rd one can be deleted - redirect use strange mix of lower/upper case letters (1st letter in Shell must be lowercased or 1st letter ghost must be uppercased). Alex Spade (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, too vague. Redirecting to the original film would have the same issue, especially with the live-action film being another potential target. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

November 21[edit]

Republican (politician)[edit]

Ambiguous, there are Republican Parties everywhere, retargeting there may be an option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Republican OParty (United States)[edit]

Implausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Fahrenheit[edit]

No indication why this points here - "Fahrenheit" not mentioned in text. Mr. Fahrenheit needs to be a redlink, eventually an article, for a beauty pageant - see Lei Ponce. PamD 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Struck out my "delete" comment per PamD's withdrawal statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination and convert to dab page, now that there are 3 uses - done. But the Freddie Mercury link is not a valid dab page entry, so perhaps a Queen expert (@Steel1943:,@AngusWOOF:) could add a mention of "Mr. Fahrenheit" to one of the above-mentioned pages and change the dab page link to point there. Thanks. PamD 00:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Truro by-election, 1987[edit]

pointless redirect Domdeparis (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. RA0808 talkcontribs 01:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep there are many similar redirects such as these, not entirely implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The number of articles on wikipedia that do not start with the definite article "the" is astronomical. As per WP:THE this should be avoided in the title of articles and IMHO in redirects --Domdeparis (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from, I feel like we need a discussion on all those "The X" redirects including the ones I linked above, but I really don't feel like nominating them. I've said enough because I don't want to change the subject of discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Peschiera[edit]

Delete as misnomer: the target (Peschiera del Garda) does not contain any information on the 1796 battle. A red link would be more useful, espescially associated through {{illm}} to actual Wikipedia articles over the battle in other languages (fr). Reasons to delete #5 and #10, at least, apply. A PROD under WP:R3 (misnomer) was declined because the criterion "only applies to recently created redirects". Place Clichy (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Socials[edit]

Not a sensible re-direct. Had message at OTRS about people searching for socials and not expecting the page they got.. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Social (disambiguation). That page isn't just about parties. Pikachu RP25 17:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @RedPanda25 and Pikachu RP25: How does that address the concerns listed above that nothing else on the disambiguation page other than party can be referred as "socials" in its plural form? Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Steel1943: It is still a plausible typo, so it needs to go to the disambig page. RedPanda25 —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think that a 'social' is the same as a 'party'; the terms can't be seen as identical synonyms. A public social event can be a solemn, unhappy affair as much as a pleasant occasion, to start with. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dialect groups[edit]

This term isn't exclusive to the Chinese language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copied text[edit]

I'm thinking this should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. (This redirect was created about a week ago, so WP:BOLDly retargeting it would be controversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominator comment: For the record, I oppose deletion. This title was obviously helpful enough that the redirect's creator thought it useful to create, and I agree with that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not opposing this request, but it seems ill thought out and pointless, frankly. It would seem better to point it somewhere more useful, and that seems to be User:Steel1943's thinking too, rather than deletion. I created it intending to use it myself, but other priorities intervened and I see no incoming links at all. So no great impact to me if it's deleted, I can use longhand if and when I get back to the project of which it's part. But I see no harm in it as is, and would suggest that someone might instead mildly trout nom and suggest that next time, they might look at the history and then discuss with the creator. That seems only polite to me, and would avoid wasting time here. In view of the lack of links I would quite happily and boldly delete it myself if it really worries nom... but they first need to work out what if anything they really want done. Happy to help with that too! Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andrewa: After making this nomination, I realized that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia may also be a possible target for this redirect. Maybe convert this redirect to a disambiguation page? Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, FWIW, I disagree that this nomination was a "trout"-able offense. I brought this nomination here so that the redirect could have community discussion, since well, Wikipedia is a community. Maybe I'm wrong in the community's eyes, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong. We really wouldn't know until community input is provided. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree that community discussion is good. Two points.
        • This is not the right forum for this discussion. Nobody seems to be proposing deletion. Not even you. While redirecting somewhere else is a possible outcome of RfD, the purpose of this page is to discuss potential deletion, and in particular to trigger any necessary admin action. There was never any suggestion that admin action would be needed here.
        • Even if you did want deletion, it would be far better, for a page that has only one contributor, to first raise it on their user talk page. As I said, I would have been quite happy to boldly delete it if you'd only asked (or we could have invoked WP:CSD G7), and saved the time of everyone else who will now read this entry. This is a bit of a hot button for me, as there are several chronic backlogs requiring admin action at present. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Hi Andrewa. I just wanted to correct one of your points. You seem to be confusing Redirects for Discussion with Redirects for Deletion. This is in fact the correct forum to have a discussion of this nature. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
            • I admit some surprise at this claim, as I remember the discussion of the page name from some years ago, and did recheck what WP:RfD currently says before commenting above, as I don't normally lurk here. So, you interpret it as meaning that, if you want discussion as to the correct target for a redirect, with no suggestion of deletion, this is the place to raise it? I would have thought that should be the article talk page (well, it's not an article, but it's in the article namespace so its talk page is in the article talk namespace). The intro to RfD talks mainly about deletion, but doesn't seem to spell it out either way. I still think this nom was a waste of time, but if those who do lurk here think it constructive, I stand corrected. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
              • The problem becomes which article's talk page do you want to have the discussion on, the current target or the article you want to retarget to? You can't have the discussion on the redirect's talk page, no one ever checks there. So redirects for discussion becomes that central place where those who care about redirects can come together and figure out the best place for a redirect to target. Of course, this isn't the only place to do so, a relevant WikiProject talk page usually works if the Project is active or the creator's talk page also works if you just have a quick question and/or don't need third party input. But RfD has typically proven fruitful. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
                • Either the redir talk page or the (current) target talk page would do, with a heads-up on the other. and I would suggest the redir. As to whether anyone ever checks, the heads-up would handle that. But in this case I think my user talk page is the obvious place to start, as I said. But I note you disagree, and as nobody else has expressed any interest I'm happy to regard that as consensus among the regulars here. Best.
                • User:Steel1943, apologies for the suggested trouting. It appears that you are more in touch with the process here than I am. I stand corrected. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do notice that I'm the only one to yet have expressed any opinion on the topic under discussion... what to do with the redir I created at wp:copied text. I must take the blame for this, having apparently misunderstood the process here. See wt:copied text if interested, or of course contribute here, and I will link from there to any relevant postings here. Andrewa (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andrewa: I had previously mentioned the idea of creating a disambiguation page at this title. To illustrate this possibility, I have drafted a disambiguation page under the redirect. (There may be more examples that could be added ... and the page may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Copying text given its current contents ... but what's there is all I can think of at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of having a DAB in the project namespace, and the DAB policy is explicitly about articles and article titles, not pages and page names in general. It might be more of a project page equivalent of a BCA... but that's most often exactly what a help page is. Interesting... Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @Andrewa: Yeah, I didn't think there was precedence for disambiguation pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace either a few months ago. At some point, I ran across a page that was tagged with {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} (the linked template I put at the bottom of the disambiguation page draft) and thus noticed that there seems to be precedence to create disambiguation pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace in certain situations. In fact, see Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages for other such pages. Also, I have never seen a WP:BCA in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, so I'm not sure if there is precedence for that, but even if there was, due to how the "Wikipedia:" namespace works, I'd fear that such a page may further confuse readers who arrive at the page since the concept of "broad concept" may not work so well in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
          • And a template too I see. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Serampore Battala[edit]

Retarget-Serampore Battala is a fringe sub-locality in the city.We don't need useless redirects.Otherwise we have to go on creating infinite number of redirects of every prominent landmark in the area to the locality! Retarget to Battala.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Battala: article was created in October, and should be discussed with AFD first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Travis McHenry[edit]

Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary).[edit]

Unnecessary redirect hanging around after a possible mistake during a page move. The period at the end is not useful for any plausible search term. We already have Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary) and Fairfield Methodist Secondary School and this extra redirect doesn't serve a purpose. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CHICKEN WINGS[edit]

Unlikely capitalization. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Şuncă[edit]

Not related to Romanian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thumbprint cookie[edit]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment If it is a notable classification of cookie, it needs a decent definition as with Pancake#Varieties_of_American_and_Canadian_pancakes for silver dollar pancakes. It could also go into List of cookies as an entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, and mention in the article (they are a real type of cookie). Pikachu RP25 17:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it would be most correct to say these are a class of cookie, as opposed to a type, since there are many variations. I think most are drop cookies with a central depression usually created with a thumb or small spoon before baking. I've added this to the cookie article, though I have no reference for it. Mindmatrix 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Elite One Championship 2007-2208[edit]

Shoulder (band)[edit]

This redirect was orginally delete and recreated as a redirect per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoulder (band) in 2008. However, the subject itself is only mentioned in passing as the former band of some of the band's (the subject of the target article) members. Since this is the only time the subject of the redirect is mentioned in the article (and also named as an "associated act" in the infobox) without identifying the subject further, readers trying to find information about the subject of the redirect will not find enough information about the subject itself since it is not identified as a whole in the target article, nor is it an alternative name for the subject of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks to me like an everyday {{redr|to related topic}}. What's the problem? The band is mentioned in the target article. It's not like this redirect is going to confuse anyone. Narky Blert (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's mentioned as the band where two of the five members came from. But the band itself is not notable. The article doesn't give information as to how Shoulder has a strong impact on the songs of the current group, nor is it a working name for the band. It could be a garage band for all we know. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bryan Webb. There's not really much information on this former band anywhere, but redirecting to the more notable band makes it seem as though Shoulder became Constantines, and that is not quite the truth. The article on the other member of Constantines who was also a member of Shoulder was an entirely unsourced BLP and I've redirected it to the band's article, so redirecting this band to its one notable performer should be fairly uncontroversial. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd support that retargeting to Bryan Webb, especially given the garage band aspect [10] [11] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support retarget per Ivanvector and AngusWOOF. Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Loveliest[edit]

More Neelx redirects since X1 was abandoned, are these really plausible search terms? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep – Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but people often try to use it that way, so I don't see the problem with redirecting real words to related articles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Champion: WP:X1 was never deprecated. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, all are valid variations of the word. Pikachu RP25 17:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

God Hates Fag Enablers (etc.)[edit]

Dozens of redirects to Westboro Baptist Church from bigoted slogans. I concede that a few of the slogans I found are well known, having been mentioned extensively in mainstream sources. In such cases the redirect is likely reasonable and I will refrain from nominating any that I think are sufficiently well known to be kept. But most of these are obscure and the redirects are at best gratuitous. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform/advertising redirect for or by fringe groups. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • There are a lot. This will take a bit. When I am done I will combine any that are not already grouped. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks I was just about to post the combine. You beat me to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note A couple of these are just too generic for a redirect to the Westboro Baptists as they are likely used by many other groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:TNT and WP:NOTCATALOG. Retain only the ones that have notably been discussed in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It should be restricted to ones explicitly outlined in the article, ones that could technically be trademarked or catchphrased to the group. Anyone could make up a sign and have it appear on the news so I wouldn't go by just the picture unless there's a large group of people who are carrying the same sign. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all or as they used to say in the cold war, nuke 'em till they glow then shoot 'em in the dark. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all - if you're offended by these slogans then congratulations, you're a human being, but Wikipedia is not censored: we don't remove things just because they're offensive These are slogans used by Westboro and if someone were to see that slogan somewhere (like at one of Westboro's funeral pickets) and type it into the search engine here, they should get to the organization's article. Several of these are specifically described in the article, albeit in an image: Thank God for 9-11, Thank God for IEDs, Fag Troops, God: USA's Terrorist. For those that are linked to the organization but not specifically mentioned in the article, these aid searches. Without Fags Die God Laughs, a search for that term turns up pages like Mussolini: His Part in My Downfall, Lovecraftian horror, and John Lennon; hardly useful results for this phrase. Also of note: many more of these are mentioned specifically with citations in our article The Most Hated Family in America, which is a documentary about this organization, but I still think the phrases better suit readers if they target Westboro's main article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record I deliberately left alone several redirects that have gotten widespread mention in RS sources. GOD HATES FAGS, Thank God for Dead Soldiers, Thank God for IEDs. But most of these are just bigoted rants with no well known connection to the WBC. Some are probably used by other fringe groups. I don't think we should be used as a promotional platform by the WBC (see WP:PROFRINGE) and I don't think we should allow them to co-opt ownership of every bigoted phrase. And then there is the problem of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I'd argue that at least God Hates the World is a special case as well, "Westboro picketed the funeral of recording artist Michael Jackson after his death on June 25, 2009. Members of Westboro have also recorded a song titled 'God Hates the World', an adaptation of Jackson's charity single 'We Are the World'.", fifth paragraph of Westboro Baptist Church#Funeral pickets.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Westoboro Baptist is a tiny bunch of fringe bigots with negligibel following, and there's no need to immortalise every one of their obscene slogans with a redirect. Anyone looking for these terms almost certainly knows where they come from. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for things made up on a placard one day. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Oooh I've not seen that one. Bookmarking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Reasonably covered verifiable terms don't fit the "made up one day" mold.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Possibly make a list of them in the article.Pikachu RP25 17:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all, listcruft in redirect form. Max Semenik (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not know-your-meme or a slogan directory. The issue is nothing to do with being offended or censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all as borderline unnotable WP:PROMOs for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms and various goofy sayings. I'd like to point out that this isn't a matter of censorship: we don't have 'So, Where The Bloody Hell Are You?' or 'You'll Wonder Where The Yellow Went' either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Asia Wall Street Journal[edit]

Not mentioned in target (I doubt there is such a thing). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Moldavian Singles Chart[edit]

Unreasonable redirect. XXN, 20:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per WP:RFD#K5. Unlikely but reasonable, second sentence of target says "Kiss FM Romania also has a branch in Chișinău, the capital of Moldova, that broadcasts a mix between Kiss FM in Bucharest and local radio programmes." It is a slight stretch to pushing it to it broadcasting a singles chart, but not that far. We have also Kiss FM (Moldova) to the same target, so perhaps we don't need both. My watershed would be whether Kiss FM in Romania or Moldova calls it "singles chart" in English, they could well do but I'd need to research that by listening to it. (Hungarian radio stations often drop English into it to be "cool", and of course a lot of the songs are in English.) In the meantime it is a weak signal for keep. Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Not only Kiss FM Romania has a branch in Moldova, but other Romanian radio stations as well (Pro FM, Radio 21 etc.) And probably each of them has it's own songs chart, but no one of these can be named "Moldavian Singles Chart". MediaForest Moldova [12][13] ran such a chart for some time, but currently it is discontinued, I think. In any case, before creating such a redirect, user should mention this in the target article citing realiable sources. As sources are missing (moreover, even can't exist), this bad redirect must be deleted. --XXN, 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Newyork[edit]

No idea why this should go to the disambiguation page instead of the primary topic, but is it really likely? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Revolution Radio (single (single)[edit]

Redundant, incomplete disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times (New York)[edit]

Unnecessary, we do not need such a marker in the title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - it was in use in the article Wedding Band but piped to the proper text, I'm not sure why but possibly something to do with a newbie not correctly formatting italics, or an accursed VisualEditor artifact. I've corrected that link now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • It was added last year by a logged-out editor, who presumably would have been using the 2010 wikitext editor rather than the visual editor. (If s/he'd been using the visual editor, then the link tool would have labeled it as a redirect and suggested linking directly to the article instead.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The disambiguation is redundant here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep because WP:Redirects are cheap, because none of the items in WP:RFC#DELETE apply, because multiple criteria in WP:RFC#KEEP do apply (especially #4), and because the second item (of two) in WP:RFD#HARMFUL applies. The argument given by the nom is probably a valid argument against creating such a redirect (reasonable people could debate the validity of that advice), but it is not a valid argument against deleting a six-year-old redirect that is known to be used in old revisions of multiple articles (that's why I created it, although it's no longer used in that article, either) and may be used in an unknown number of incoming links from external websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New York Times/Associated Press[edit]

WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. These were likely created from website citations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No clear redirect target here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. This just serves to generate confusion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Classic XY.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

USA Today Available Around The World[edit]

All are unlikely search terms, these are also on the boundary of violating WP:SOAPBOX for it is almost promotion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all - a mix of implausible search terms, inconsistent-caps titles, blatant promotion, and possibly valid redirects on which there is no information at the target. Pitch the lot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Some of these are covered by the section= of cite news. Having slogans in the article redirect don't make any sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If they're used by {{cite news}} won't deleting them break links? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Only if they grouped the entire part of the citation in work= and not section= None of these section names are notable like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all I don't see a plausible use for these redirects. Citations are generally supposed to contain a link to the main work and any subsection/page no is supposed to be mentioned in a different parameter. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The plausible use case is making the links work if anyone copies and pastes the information off their website and into our citations. It might be ideal to add the section information in a different parameter (if you're using {{cite news}}, which the editor might not be), but AFAICT there's no actual rule against assuming that the website is giving you an accurate name and putting down whatever they've got in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep USA Today NEWS/ONLINE/INTERNATIONAL/SPORT. "USA Today News" and "USA Today Online" uses a nomenclature shared by many media organizations (e.g. BBC News, BBC Online). "USA Today International" is a seperate edition that they publish for international readers and is mentioned in the article. The article also already mentions a "USA Today Sports" publication, for which "USA Today Sport" would be a valid redirect. Leaning delete on the rest. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm amenable to keeping those subcategories mentioned if they are renamed without the all-caps stylizations, for example, Keep USA Today Sport, but delete USA Today SPORT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    That means creating a whole new stack of redirects, which any editor is welcome to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep at least USA Today NEWS, which has a surprising number of page views (averaging two visitors every three days) for something that nobody would ever have a reason to search for or otherwise visit. USA Today LIFE maxed out at five page views on the same day a little while ago. The "YOUR NEWS - WHEN YOU WANT IT" variant similarly had nine page views on a single day, but that was after it was listed, so perhaps voters clicked on it. Overall, I'm leaning keep for all of them. The basic arguments for deletion are that they're unnecessary for the voters (which is not a valid argument for deleting them) and that the use of caps offends our sense of aesthetics (which is also not a valid argument for deletion). These are 8-year-old redirects. They're not used in an articles at the moment, but we don't know how many old article revisions or external links they were used in. I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

/New York Post[edit]

Unlikely search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unlikely search term. We don't want five million redirects covering /AnyArticleTitle. Alsee (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought titles starting with a slash were blacklisted for technical reasons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This isn't worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lua/Modules[edit]

Not all lua modules are high-risk. Pppery 04:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep for historical links per the redirect's creator. This was previously an active page prior to it being deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lua/Modules. Also, redirect in the "Wikipedia:" namespace are not always required to be useful search terms of the redirect has a specific historical benefit, such as this one does. (Other related examples are redirects left over from page moves if the leftover redirect was the former, longstanding name of the page; this redirect somewhat falls under that classification.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm in two minds about this. It's absolutely true that not all Lua modules are high-risk, but that's not the reason that I created the redirect. The reason was that between April 2013 and May 2014 the "High-risk Lua modules" option in the protection reasons drop-down that admins see in the page-protection dialog was linked to Wikipedia:Lua/Modules, so all the edit summaries log entries for modules protected between those dates (i.e. most of them) linked to that page, and they can't be changed (at least not easily). The redirect was intended to give people clicking on those links a handy explanation of what "high-risk" means in relation to modules. The protection log entry appears both in the log pages and at the top of protected modules when you try to edit them, so it is fairly high-profile.

    Deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find information about high-risk modules, so I'm not in favour of that. However, I agree that the redirect isn't an obvious one, so just keeping it isn't ideal either. Perhaps we could make it into some kind of disambiguation page linking to both WP:Lua and WP:High-risk templates? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page given the multifaceted issues here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump 45[edit]

Not a likely search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Obama 44, Bush 43, Clinton 42, Bush 41 and Reagan 40 exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I think they are probably not plausible either for the same reason. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I at least disagree with that statement for Bush 43 and Bush 41. Right now, I'm neutral on the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I accepted the redirect request on the basis that we had the pages for prior presidents. I am indifferent as to whether or not the redirect remains. -- Dane2007 talk 01:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Like Dane2007, I accepted Reagan 40 pursuant to a request at WP:AFC/R given the others. I don't have any opinion about whether we should keep it or delete it. /wiae /tlk 11:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Bush 41 and Bush 43, not plausible search terms. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Trump 45 - If we see significant evidence of this being in use, then we can re-create it. Otherwise, deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm more neutral on the other ones, which have received sporadic coverage by reliable sources. I'd prefer deletion over retention for all, I suppose, if I must choose. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete sounds like a bunch of football calls or athletic jerseys. No notable usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to include all related redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all: Bush 41 and Bush 43 are clearly in parlance, and having the others does no harm. (FWIW, I created Clinton 42 in expectation that Clinton 45 would be a thing) pbp 03:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As a reader and occasional editor, I just came across Bush 43. These redirects may be less commonly used than the name of their article destinations, but they're terms that are certainly in use. One who's not familiar with exactly what "Trump 45" might mean may search that exact phrase. Whether or not the search feature could get them to the same place is another thing, of course, but these redirects will serve their purpose in getting people to the article they're looking for. 50.32.213.47 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Bush 41, 43, delete others. I say this as the creator of Obama 44 in my youthful optimism of 2008, but I don't see much the point today. Those kinds of redirects do make sense though when the number disambiguates which president, such as in the Bush cases. In common parlance, I do use the term "Bush 41", but not "Obama 44" so much; I do appreciate that there's a redirect in place. Clinton 42 and Clinton 45 should have been allowed only at the moment it was clear we would have another Clinton president. – Bert Macklin (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all George W. Bush isn't Bush the 43rd, which is the standard meaning of a name followed by a number. Diddo for the others. Pppery 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Referring to presidents by their ordinal number is a valid way to refer to people, but especially for the Bushes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need these any more than we need Gretzky 99 or Robinson 42. These are not search terms with merit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Bush 41 and Bush 43 as their usage in mainstream sources isn't uncommon (e.g. Bush 41 says he will vote for Clinton). Neutral on the others, though they are unambiguous, a costly argument could be made.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lukita Maxwell[edit]

Serves no purpose. The show article has no information on the actress. JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

List of facts[edit]

Wikipedia:Chemical compounds[edit]

This should probably redirect to a guideline about use of chemical compounds in articles, etc, but I cannot find such a guideline at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-target if you want. Either the MOS or the WikiProject Chemicals page are reasonable targets; the MOS page might be slightly more helpful. The page actually began life as a place to discuss languishing stubs about chemicals, so its merge to the collaboration page makes more sense than it looks like now. There's no advantage to deleting this. Also, there's content in the old revisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Polish mythology redirects[edit]

Once upon a time, these were standalone articles about various myths and legends in Polish folklore. In approximately 2006, they were all turned into redirects, but the current target says nothing about them. One option would be to delete these redirects to encourage potential article creation and to avoid the potential for WP:SURPRISE when readers are directed to the current target. My preference is to retarget them all to Polish mythology, which includes a list of these terms (but no explanation of their meaning or significance), though I figured its best to open a discussion about these at this forum. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the idea of retargeting the lot to Polish mythology, where they are mentioned. Plausible search terms. If some editor knows enough to turn any of them into articles - great! Narky Blert (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the (moreover, messy and unsourced) article "Polish mythology" should be deleted, or at least radically changed/written anew. There is not such a thing like "Polish mythology". This notion may be used metaphorically, or in some (for example, neopagan) circles, but it is not a real scientific term. The current article "Polish mythology" is a stange mix of the (real, but porly known) Slavic mythology, medieval legends, folk customs and believes, and espescially medieval and modern forgeries. Henryk Tannhäuser (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Then take it, dear Henryk, dear Henryk, dear Henryk, then take it, dear Henryk to WP:AFD. In the meantime, we're discussing the redirects. I'll list at AfD with your comments. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_mythology#Polish_mythology with cut 'n' paste comments from above. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete until sections or articles can be written for individual notable fables. Spoiling, Divination, and Crossroads is rather vague. Is that a common topic among Polish mythology? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish mythology time to resolve
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Washingtontimes[edit]

Unlikely search term (IDK why Twinkle "failed to find a target", so I had to manually nominate this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A space between isn't hard to type on a search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Update added a couple more, same rationale. I have no idea how many of these there are altogether. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Entirely harmless and unambiguous. There's affinity with this stylization due to their websites (e.g.: washingtonpost.com). -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but would they be looking for the website rather than the paper itself?. We have Theguardian.com and Nytimes.com is a redirect to a section on the website, note that "Newyorktimes" is not the correct website. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • These redirects don't necessarily refer to the websites though. I just don't understand the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the websites per Tavix.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Circa 1998-2004[edit]

Implausible typo, not recently created. Thexperimentalist (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Państwowa Fabryka Wagonów[edit]

Banaan[edit]

Implausible typo. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN No affinity to German. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Nitpick: It's Dutch (German: Banane), but the argument stays the same. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I stand corrected. :) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pears[edit]

Should this go to pear instead? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Moose Tracks Ice Cream[edit]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Les Indes[edit]

No affinity for French, anyway note that fr:Les Indes is red. I have no idea whether this is a valid term or not. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: The French did have a colony in India, French India - Should it redirect here? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
French India was called "Établissements français dans l'Inde" in French according to the article. India in French is "Inde" (or "L'Inde" if we want to include the definite article; see fr:Inde). -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
From the little I've seen (my French is dismal), les Indes refers to the (East) Indies. – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Online calculator[edit]

WP:NOT linkfarm, this will mislead the reader. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. A notable term/type of a calculator. --Eleassar my talk 08:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Eleassar: This is a harmful redirect obviously. People searching for this would probably be looking for info on the specific type of calculator and our article does not provide any information, do you think readers will be helped? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • This should be fixed by adding content to the article, not by deleting the redirect. --Eleassar my talk 08:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eleassar. If a reader is looking for information on online calculators, I doubt they would be particularly disappointed with an article on calculators in general. Content can probably be added. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a topic that deserves it's own article, and a redlink would encourage the formation of such an article. I also agree with Champion's analysis. Someone searching this is going to want something more specific than calculators in general, and it's something that we don't have currently. -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention at target. What is an online version anyway? One that is on the Internet? The ones that appear as apps on phones or on laptops aren't really online. The only types I know about are online mortgage calculators, and those are mentioned in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Wheel calculator shows one such example. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Kalkulator[edit]

No affinity for Serbian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Riken[edit]

November 18[edit]

Removing admin powers[edit]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:CNSR.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both - What administrative users can and can't do is a general topic throughout a bunch of different websites, and this is far from something only related to Wikipedia. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrateurs[edit]

Inappropriate foriegn language redirect, didn't know we had these in project space. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - no need for foreign language redirects in project space. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Desop[edit]

AIAV[edit]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect, there doesn't seem to be a notable subject which this is an acronym for. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment this has NOT been speedy deleted at the time I am writing this comment. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry! I ended up putting the closing tags on the wrong section since a new section was being added to the page at the same time. But I should've noticed the change. The item in the discussion above this was speedily deleted, not this one. --BDD (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sysop rights[edit]

Is Wikipedia:Administrators a more plausible target? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils[edit]

I don't know what the origin of this is, but doesn't seem to have been used much. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for admin[edit]

Recently created, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Even if we were to keep this, it seems more likely to indicate a desire to contact an admin for help, rather than for RfA. And if you want to be an admin and start out searching "Request for admin", I think the answer is a respectful but emphatic WP:NOTNOW. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Upazila Parishad[edit]

Upazila Parishad is elected governing body of an Upazila, there are 490 Upazila's in Bangladesh. I belive that the Parishads are independently notable and should have articles on them. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Putinland[edit]

  • Just to note, I'm going to take the article back to AfD. Regardless of what else Russavia did (and I don't know what else he did), I think he was right in his assessment of this article. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Putin 2.0[edit]

This doesn't seem like a likely way of referring to a politician's second administration, or for Putin himself. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete original name, obscure synonym (WP:R#DELETE 8). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete just casual mentions by random bloggers who would put 2.0 on any second administration or event. It hasn't stuck like Obamacare. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - If/when this receives significant coverage by reliable sources, then we can consider having such a redirect. For right now, "Putin 2.0" appears to be an empty buzzword. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Putey Pute[edit]

Putler[edit]

Political Strongman of Russia[edit]

Disney XD International[edit]

There is no entity with this name, no inbound links. Redirect was created from an undone page move. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was going to say to retarget to Disney XD, but then I realized that by the time you finished typing the first two words, you'd be shown the article anyway, which makes it implausible as a search term. Plus it gets very little use. — Gorthian (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete There's Disney Online International, but not Disney XD International. [15] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Azzura Birleanu[edit]

Originally tagged for CSD as A7 and G11 but was declined in favour of a redirect. The child is not mentioned in any sources and has a passing mention in the father's article that is not backed up by reliable sources. I think this redirect could only serve to confuse the average Wikipedia reader and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Child is mentioned in his website biography along with Eva Sofia Birleanu. [16] but neither of whom have reached any sort of notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Indian Annexation Law of Kashmir[edit]

Trump caterpillar[edit]

visual similarity of hair style of Trump is below tone / encyclopaedic values of site, and disparaging against policy WP:BLP (term not covered in article, so is unsourced, despite being mildly visually similar and humourous) Widefox; talk 17:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wait until such nicknames receive significant notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete "Trump caterpillar" has gone viral multiple times, and over the various viral iterations, things have gotten very confused. Originally, a photo of a caterpillar taken in Peru was dubbed "Trump caterpillar" and went viral in early 2013 (see this Facebook post. Megalopyge opercularis does not occur in Peru, although related species do. A 2015 article includes the Peruvian photo, but mentions similar species, including M. opercularis (and this 2014 article also has the Peruvian photo alongside a mention of M. opercularis). Some of the instances of the original Peruvian photo attribute copyright to Phil Torres. In the most recent viral iteration, Megalopyge opercularis is being conflated with whatever was in the original Peruvian photo. The most recent viral iteration seems to stem from this Youtube video; I don't have sound, so I'm not sure what is being said, but apparently Jeff Cremer is claiming credit for the 2013 photo (possible, he is affiliated with the lodge that made the Facebook post), and is now claiming that the Peruvian caterpillar is M. opercularis (having apparently gotten confused into a misidentification from previous viral iterations). Long story short, multiple Megalopyge species bear some resemblance to Trump's hair. The first species that got viral attention was Peruvian; that species wasn't identified originally, but is now being misidentified as M. opercularis. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
verified M. opercularis?
  • Question: That's an interersting theory, can you provide some RS on that, and on what would be the correct taxon then? A number of the sources (see below) use the same pictures like our WP entry. --SI 10:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • delete the wiki isn't a repository of dank memes, especially inaccurate ones per Plantdrew's findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, the name got significant media and viral coverage, see collapsable list below. Perhaps retarget if Plantdrew's above claim be verified. --SI 10:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sources
  1. http://www.livescience.com/56302-donald-trump-hair-caterpillar-photos.html
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/29/trumpapillar-deep-in-the-amazon-it-was-donald-trumps-hair-hanging-out-on-a-tree/
  3. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/16/toxic-toupee-explaining-the-most-venomous-caterpillar-in-the-u-s/
  4. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2016/10/06/donald-trump-caterpillar/
  5. http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/blickpunkte-2575.html
  6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2317145/Caterpillar-looks-just-like-property-mogul-Donald-Trump.html
  7. http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/this-peruvian-caterpillar-looks-a-lot-like-donald-trumps-hair/
  8. http://www.metro.us/news/donald-trump-caterpillar-video/zsJpjd---E5ni4U5TZJn4U/
  9. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/626595/Trump-MON-PRIORITY
  10. http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29/caterpillar-that-looks-like-donald-trump-found-in-amazon
  11. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/usa-das-phaenomen-donald-trump-1.2549992
  12. http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.trumpapillar-diese-raupe-sieht-aus-wie-die-haare-von-donald-trump.980486a6-36e9-405c-b320-460ea1268e06.html
  13. http://www.mopo.de/news/panorama/frisur-doppelgaenger-witziges-naturschauspiel--diese-raupe-macht-auf-donald-trump--25021080
  14. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/blonde-hairy-caterpillar-looks-donald-trumps-hair
  15. http://travel.mongabay.com/costa_rica/images/costa_rica_la_selva_0451.html
  16. https://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/10/this-caterpillar-looks-just-like-donald-trumps-hair/21447397/
  17. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9d92dba6-9616-3298-aeda-e283c9e3bc2d/ss_the-donald-trump-caterpillar.html
  18. http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/donald-trump-caterpillar/
  19. http://katu.com/news/offbeat/wildlife-photographer-discovers-trump-caterpillar-that-could-be-dangerous
  20. http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/lets-not-forget-this-donald-trump-lookalike-caterpillar-exists/
  21. http://keyetv.com/news/offbeat/gallery/wildlife-photographer-discovers-trump-caterpillar-that-could-be-dangerous
  22. http://gizmodo.com/this-amazonian-caterpillar-sports-donald-trumps-hair-1787249843
  23. http://www.boredpanda.com/donald-trump-hair-look-alikes/
  24. https://www.thedodo.com/donald-trump-caterpillar-hair-1206147966.html
  25. http://www.geek.com/culture/the-donald-trump-caterpillar-is-irritating-and-highly-toxic-1673196/
  26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9BhqTPCPI
  27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTUCTT6I1TU
  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0BYqzdiuJc
  29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgHvA9o9y7M
  30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBoAwg29CgI
  31. http://mentalfloss.com/article/87212/what-donald-trump-caterpillar-teaches-us-about-animal-survival
  32. http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/151293646457/donald-trump-caterpillar-mimicry
  33. http://www.carbonated.tv/viral/rare-caterpillar-looks-exactly-like-donald-trumps-unique-hair-photos
  34. http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/09/this-amazonian-caterpillar-sports-donald-trumps-hair/
  35. http://www.perunature.com/strangest-rainforest-animals.html
  36. http://www.providencejournal.com/zz/elections/20160929/this-caterpillar-looks-exactly-like-donald-trumps-hair-video
  37. https://www.wired.com/2014/09/never-touch-anything-looks-like-donald-trumps-hair/
  38. http://imgur.com/gallery/7GckH
  39. http://www.businessinsider.de/donald-trump-caterpillar-2016-9
  40. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-case-you-forgot-theres-a-toxic-caterpillar-that-looks-like-trump-seriously_us_57ebf4a8e4b024a52d2c119a
  41. http://mentalfloss.com/article/87212/what-donald-trump-caterpillar-teaches-us-about-animal-survival
  42. https://curiosity.com/topics/meet-the-flannel-moth-caterpillar-aka-the-donald-trump-caterpillar-curiosity/
  43. https://snapzuscience.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-donald-trump-caterpillar-and-natures-masters-of-disguise/
  44. http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/151293646457/donald-trump-caterpillar-mimicry
  45. http://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/donald-trumps-hair-discovered-crawling-in-amazon/
  46. http://nerdist.com/the-donald-trump-caterpillar-sports-a-similar-hairdo/
  47. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4pns9w/we_are_jungle_exploring_scientists_who_discover/
  48. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/caterpillar-resembles-donald-trumps-hair/
  49. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/donald-trump-caterpillar_n_3209328.html
  50. http://io9.com/rare-caterpillar-resembles-donald-trumps-hair-489010765
  51. http://discoverynews.tumblr.com/post/49455130884/rare-caterpillar-resembles-donald-trumps-hair
  52. http://www.neatorama.com/pet/2013/05/06/Donald-Trump-Caterpillar/
  53. https://www.indy100.com/article/quiz-real-donald-trump-policy-or-policy-of-our-warped-imaginations--b17KwRWJze
  54. http://io9.gizmodo.com/sometimes-evolution-looks-like-donald-trumps-hair-and-t-1687799920
  55. http://blog.perunature.com/2012/09/this-is-one-unbelievable-caterpillar.html
  56. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/81979655689568631/
  57. http://www.pinterest.com/pin/392165080022507355/
  58. http://www.counselheal.com/articles/5226/20130503/donald-trump-amazon-caterpillar-resembles-s-hair-video.htm
  59. http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=47391.0
  60. http://www.lazerhorse.org/2015/07/16/megalopyge-opercularis-venomous-asp-caterpillar/
  61. https://scifeeds.com/blog/meet-the-trumpapillar-the-venomous-caterpillar-that-perfectly-mimics-the-donalds-hair/
  62. http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Microgalleries/2016/09/29/22670771.html
  63. http://tecreview.itesm.mx/esta-oruga-comparte-estilo-con-donald-trump/
  64. https://twitter.com/orbitalaika_tve/status/742987062966669312
  65. https://twitter.com/search?q=%22trump+caterpillar%22
  66. http://www.globalanimal.org/2016/03/01/is-that-a-caterpillar-or-donald-trumps-hair/97202/
  • Delete Non-notable meme, (We're gonna build a wall around RfD and the admins are gonna pay for it!). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a caterpillar that slightly resembles Trump, but there's no sustained usage of this term as a name of the caterpillar, so it should be deleted. Similar redirects like Trump bird, Trump pheasant, or Trump Pokémon also don't exist and shouldn't. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    Did you even take a look at all the sources? --SI 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not look at all of them. There are far too many, and a cursory inspection shows that most of them would not establish common usage either way. I did look at some, and most are from this year - not sufficient to demonstrate sustained usage as opposed to silly election-year memes. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete As entertaining as this RfD is, I don't think there is any reason for this redirect to exist. There are serious BLP concerns here as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    BLP concerns? Mr. Trump is using that kind of humor for his own benefit,[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] so that's really not a BLP issue! --SI 21:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he promotes his hair, but I don't think he would be particularly fond of the larvae of an insect being named after it. It's an inherently derogatory comparison in my opinion, which is what raises the BLP issues. I don't think it would be appropriate to include a list of all the animals that have received coverage for looking like Trump in his own article, and I think a redirect to a caterpillar would have similar issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump is not a school boy being bullied for his acne or knock knees; he is a self-imposed top-level prominent figure with a self-chosen hairstyle where he gets public commentary about. It's not about his double chin or BMI.[23] Like the dresses of Lady Gaga it's really another strech of BLP to measure here. The List of nicknames used by George W. Bush is way more BLP critical. --SI 23:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Plantdrew: could you give an answer to the above question? --SI 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there are any reliable sources to prove my theory, because I don't think any of the sources provided above are really reliable when it comes to entomological identification, and sources that are reliable on identification haven't discussed "Trump caterpillars". I think it's indisputable that the first viral instance of "Trump caterpillar" was based on a photo taken in Peru. I'm not finding any reliable sources (when it comes to entomology) that suggest that M. opercularis actually occurs in Peru, although it is a common species in the United States. Many species in the genus Megalopyge or the family Megalopygidae looks somewhat like Donald Trump's hair. If this redirect is going to be kept it should probably go to Megalopygidae. None of the sources are reliable for entomological identification, and it's clear in some of the 2014/2015 sources that M. opercularis is being mentioned as related to, but distinct from, Peruvian caterpillar that went viral originally. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please tell us exactly which sources you cite, I don't see your claim anywhere. BTW: La megalopyge opercularis fue hallada en territorio peruano, La megalopyge opercularis es conocida como “ovejillo” en la Amazonia Peruana., Biólogos hallaron al animal en la amazonía peruana y lo bautizaron ‘Donald Trump’ por un particular detalle., La megalopyge opercularis suele habitaren algunas zonas de Estados unidos, México y parte de la amazonia peruana., El nombre original de la oruga es Megalopyge opercularis y es conocida en Perú como ovejillo., La oruga de la especie Megalopyge opercularis, habita en la amazonía de nuestro país, ... --SI 15:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Pussy crushing[edit]

Delete. One-time TV episode joke. Unlikely search term (124 unique hits). Tellingly, the only thing that links to it is an AN/I thread about a problem user who hears something used once on TV, and creates a redirect for it. Despite his insistence it was of great importance to that episode, it barely appears in the plot section, which makes it seem like the use of "retarded" was more controversial in its story. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep although I am the creator who Ribbet is declaring a "problem user". Ribbet is not providing an accurate synopsis about this. You can see at http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Sponsored_Content/Script that the phrase is used several times (not just once) in the episode, as follows:
    1. PC Bro 14: No other way to be. So uh, listen. I think you're really pretty and interesting, and I'd kinda like to take you upstairs and totally crush your pussy
    2. PC Bro 14: No, I'm sorry, I need affirmative consent. I'll need you to say "Yes, you may take me upstairs and crush my pussy at this time." .
    3. headline reads "'PC' STANDS FOR PUSSY CRUSHING"
    4. Sharon: Do you want to explain to me what pussy crushing is?!
    5. Jimmy: Does this have to do with me calling the school principal a pussy crusher?
    6. PC Principal: I don't speak up for minorities so that I can crush pussy.
    7. PC Principal: I came to this town really thinking I could make a difference. I've been called a bigot towards persons with disabilities. I've been called... Pussy-crusher, because of the behavior of a very few individuals in my PC frat.
"PC Principal" is now the regular principal on South Park, and this repeated use is notable for that reason because it is what he is called.
It may be worth arguing however that rather than redirecting to South Park that the term be explained in some sort of article about slang (assuming it's not notable enough for its own) because I just did some additional research and it appears that the phrase was in use prior to this 2016 episode:
Magary, Drew (26 March 2012). "Gentlemen, Please Stop Crushing Vaginas". Deadspin.com. please, stop crushing pussy. For real. 
Is there an appropriate list of slang words for hooking up for a 1-night stand that this could be directed to instead of the south park episode? Ranze (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what was to be gained from relisting. Only person who wanted it kept was the creator. A few uses in a TV episode doesn't change that it was one TV episode; One external link produced by the creator (where it wasn't even the primary topic of the article) doesn't change that this term is little-used outside of porn. Neelix redirects became speedyable because of cringeworthy sexism; this is more misogynistic since it uses violent imagery against female parts. Finally, hardly just me "declaring" Ranze is a problem user. The AN/I thread started by LM2000 and Crash Underride led to his third topic ban- and we see the same patterns, denying the authenticity and legitimacy of the topic bans, claiming to be misrepresented in the evidence, dumping unreliable and non-notable sources. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how Ranze hasn't been blocked yet for this crap. He's been topic banned three times now. Really? How many times until he's blocked and told not to create any re-directs? This needs to be taken care of, this is getting tiresome. Oh and if no one noticed Delete. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Crash is I believe well aware that my topic ban against creating redirects began 13 September 2016. I created pussy crushing on 23 November 2015, over 9 months prior to the restrictions. People don't get banned for editing in an area of topic ban prior to the ban being enacted. This is why it should be mandatory when nominating RFD to state the date the redirect was created, so people don't jump to conclusions like this. Ranze (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ribbet32: I'm confused by this 'three times' thing. There was the gamergate ban a year ago and then... are you counting the simultaneous September wrestling/redirect as two distinct times or am I forgetting one? I've never heard the PC term used in porn, South Park was the first time I heard it and when I looked into it, the other sources on the matter are complaints about college bro culture, not pornography. It has prior use outside South Park so we should consider rather than deletion if we could use these sources on another page. Perhaps in Category:2010s slang. I don't know if creating an entire crushing pushy page (as the above Deadspin article from 2012 I cited, predating South Park, phrases the expression) is worth it, but if we could consolidate terms like this into a list? Ranze (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete although around since 2008ish, that slur didn't gain more than a weak dictionary entry, especially not a South Park uniqueness or predominance. --SI 19:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Public servant[edit]

Seemingly better suited to target public service. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Public service doesn't mention public servants at all, whereas the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of Civil service starts "A civil servant or public servant is a person in the public sector"... which is a discrepancy with the article's title. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - This is a bit confusing. However, there's still no difference between "civil servant" and "public servant", basically, and the 'civil service' article covers what it is to be a "civil servant". I would prefer to leave things as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

دورايمون[edit]

Recently created, inappropriate foreign language redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

سێو[edit]

These foreign language redirects lack an affinity for their targets (WP:RFOREIGN & Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Foreign languages). They were all created by the same user, however, all the others and vast majority of foreign language redirects they've created seem okay. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Godsy, do you speak these languages? I don't at all; I must rely entirely on Google Translate. But Google's having trouble with all of these titles. The first one is identified as Pashto, and is translated as "sێw". The second one (بەڕوو) it says is Arabic for "Bەڕoo". The third (زانا) is supposedly Persian and translates as "Zana". And the last one (ئارڤین، کالیفۆرنیا) Google says is Urdu, and translates it as "Yarڤyn, kalyfۆrnya" which, if you squint, sorta kinda sounds like its target.
Most likely, this is all one language that Google can't deal with. But maybe we should ask the creator what was meant? Or if they're not around, we need to get some speakers of this/these language(s) to take a look. — Gorthian (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter: they really have no "affinity" as we generally call it for the target; or as other people put it "not particularly Arabic" (or whatever language). While it is sometimes useful to keep foreign-language terms that are closely related to the subject in various ways (from history, etymology, and so on), WP:NOTDIC and WP:FORRED often mean a Delete is more sensible. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Argh, it's probably Sorani—most of the articles that user works on are Kurdish subjects. Google, unfortunately, can't tell Sorani from Sarani. — Gorthian (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gorthian: I don't speak a word of whatever language these redirects are in. I suspect they are of the Central Kurdish language or Arabic, because the creator has tagged other redirects they've created as such, and by looking at the userboxes on their userpage. Champion left a note on the talk page of the creator, in relation to their creation of foreign language redirects, perhaps they might have some insight into this matter.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
More likely Central Kurdish (Sorani language, written in the Sorani alphabet, because of the abundance of vowels. I'm only inferring that from basic linguistic knowledge, though. It looks like زانا has significantly different meanings in different languages written in (loosely) the Arabic script: I'm really not sure these are anything but WP:RFD#D2 confusing as a WP:SURPRISE when there's no info about the terms at their respective targets, again, we encounter the problem of false friends if they mean different things in different foreign languages they essentially end up as being WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP:RFFL (I don't remember leaving a note on the creator's talk page hmm............) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Dear, all this redirects are from Central Kurdish (Sorani). I don't see any matters with this redirects. I want to keep it, because they redirected to right articles, and there are many redirects from other languages. Serchia (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Appeals to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are irrelevant. These are WP:FORRED of "common words or concepts" and such are "examples of inappropriate creation". Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys. I've accidentally deleted this batch of redirects because I misread the nomination date while testing a new version of closerfd.js. I think this is leaning strongly towards delete but I'll leave the RfD open for now... Deryck C. 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Liu4-Si4 Shi4jian4[edit]

We don't have similar redirects like this, note that the tone marks are omitted and replaced with numbers, also note that the first word comprising two characters is hyphenated while the second is not. Usually it will be written like Liùsì shìjiàn or with the tone marks omitted, as in Liusi shijian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Hmmm. This is pretty ancient, January 2005, and has sat quietly in its corner ever since. It's the only contribution by this IP editor (but perhaps they signed up soon after). Stats are at 14 hits in the last year (366 days), i.e. about once every 26 days on average. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

35 May 1989[edit]

Entirely implausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Section 1 of the target, "Names", says " To bypass internet censorship in China, which uniformly considers all the above-mentioned names too 'Sensitive' for search engines and public forums, alternative names have sprung up to describe the events on the Internet, such as May 35th"...
May 35 is a DAB with this target as the first entry (I've changed the description there a little since saying "in contexts where June 4 is censored" is just confusing). 35 May is a redirect to that DAB. May 35, 1989 redirects straight to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. There's also 35th May and 35th of May to the DAB. I've rcatted as {{R from ambiguous}} for those that go to the DAB. I've rcatted this as {{R from other name}} as I have for May 35, 1989.
So, I'm saying keep it. While 35 May might refer to something else, the 1989 essentially disambiguates it and this gets people (except perhaps people in China?) to where they want to go. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. @Champion: You may like to read a bit further about the background: [24][25] Deryck C. 10:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • As a Chinese, I've never heard it mentioned this way before. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
      • As Wikipedians we learn something new every day...! Deryck C. 11:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

مۆز[edit]

Not present at the target. Seemingly no special affinity for the language in relation to the topic. WP:RFOREIGN. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Which language? Gtrans detects it as Kurmanji language (Northern Kurdish) and translates it as masipata; Wiktionary marks "masipata" written in Latin alphabet as Chamicuro language (an endangered indigenous South American language which may be the same as the extinct Aguano language), meaning "banana". This seems rather a leap... or is it good Arabic script for another language? For Arabic, Persian etc it just returns "M ۆ Z" or similar; Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the word "masipata" anywhere. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) www.omegawiki.org/Expression:muz translates banana as "muz" in Turkish language, but Turkish has used the Latin alphabet since 1922; it also transliterates the Northern Kurdish as moz, which is a DAB with no mention of bananas, and the Tajik as моз. Muz is something completely different. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Green bananas[edit]

These could seemingly equally target banana. Perhaps banana#ripening would be a good target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Baking banana[edit]

Adding baking banana as well. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've split this out from the nomination below, because it has a much longer history (since 12 November 2007). Hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There isn't a classification of bananas called baking bananas so this is a bit of an WP:XY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cooking bananas[edit]

These were recently created and even more recently added to the lead of the "cooking" plantain article. These could seemingly equally refer generally to edible bananas depending on which source you look at. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Find sources: "cooking bananas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

If you look at the bottom of the "Cooking plantain" talk page, it describes an effort to differentiate between plantains (AAB group) and cooking bananas (ABB group). But it looks like the term always excludes dessert bananas. --Bod (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bodhi Peace: Take a look at this, it's not the greatest source, but it differentiates by stating "cooking bananas and plantains". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks Si Trew.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename main article to Plantain and organize from there. Article is a mess right now. It should be one Plantain article and then have the classifications explained like the Banana article. Cooking plantain then goes to the section pertaining to that classification. Cooking banana goes to the subsection in banana. If a subsection needs its own article, then create a clearer disambiguator like Plantain (AAB group) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd hold off on renaming/deleting the redirects until the editors get their act together. As it stands the plantain articles (true and cooking) even share the same picture. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pin...[edit]

I can't find anything that says an ellipsis was ever part of the name, and it makes this unlikely as a search term. — Gorthian (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. To be clear (and pedantic), from a purely technical point of view this is not an ellipsis (…) in the name but just three consecutive stop marks… that being said, searching for "Pin…" with the ellipsis symbol proper goes directly to this page anyway (and so would redirect were it not for the RfD banner). Pin… is red. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see the stylization used on the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Testostertones[edit]

Was once an article, but after an AFD, was redirected. Now there's no mention of it in either the original target or in the present one. There are at least seven different schools on Wikipedia that have this name for a musical group, so it becomes an WP:XY issue. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bangla-desh[edit]

Assumptioncollegeofdavao[edit]

Adult themes and mature themes in TV-shows[edit]

Unlikely search term, and an unlikely target. Too much of a WP:XY to redirect to anything, really, so let's delete it. (See Adult themed and Adult content) — Gorthian (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems like an axe-grind RD; these themes are definitely not limited to animated series by any means, and it's just plain too long to be plausible (the dash between TV and shows is the nail in the coffin here). Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D8, "very obscure synonym". Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect is so WP:PRECISE that it's wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What's with the hyphen on TV-shows? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is an awkwardly worded (especially with the hyphen for TV shows) redirect that really doesn't seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Provincial sport of East Pakistan[edit]

Abecedarian Books, Inc.[edit]

Within a few hours in 2005, this title went from an advertising blurb, to a stub, to a redirect (to vanity press). Then in 2012, someone thought that was too derogatory and retargeted it to self publishing. No matter, this company is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Delete as useless. — Gorthian (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Stats are well below noise level (17 in the last 366 days before yesterday), no internal links beyond this discussion. It's not really useful for any kind of historical reason when (a) no external sites are actually being clicked through to look for it and (b) even if they did, considering its history the chances are they'd get something different from when the link was set up. Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see a good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Indus Valley Plains of Pakistan[edit]

Efficient Networks[edit]

Apparently was (is?) a part of Gigaset Communications, but is not mentioned in that article. There's one other mention on Wikipedia, at TI-AR7, but it is not worth a redirect. Needs to be deleted. — Gorthian (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment it was bought by Siemens for 1.5 billion in 2002, but it isn't mentioned at the Siemens article. [26] That precedes the formation of Gigaset, but if the Gigaset article covers its history in Siemens then it can be mentioned there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trompete[edit]

Not related to these languages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked the first as {{R from other language|de}} and the second as {{R from other language|it}}. "Trompete" is also the Portuguese for it, but I chose German because the reference is in German; nothing stops us adding more than one language template, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (in body text). The first is mentioned only in a German-language references, and the second only in a redirect hatnote. Tromba (film) should probably be moved over Tromba. "Tromba" is a false friend in (at least) a couple of other Romance languages, es:tromba is a waterspout and pt:tromba is a proboscis; so it is rather WP:XY even as a foreign-language redirect. (Catalan, Romanian and Latin are red). I guess, WP:NOTDIC kicks in really, not a translation dictionary.
For the other, Wiktionary lists both "Trompete" (German) and "trompete" (German and Portuguese). Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for Trompete (modifying target to mention term in infobox or names section) and Make disambiguation for Tromba (there is also Tromba (film) and Tromba (skipper), so that should be uncontroversial). (Disclosure: I created both.) Music encyclopedias (such as the most prestigious one, The New Grove, but others as well) generally cross-index musical instruments (and some other music terminology) from major musical languages (usually German, French, and Italian), presumably for the reason that those are the terms encountered in classical music scores, which are not usually issued in translation and thus are frequently encountered by English-speaking musicians. Basically this is a matter of WP:UEIA. (I can't think of a similar context where they are likely to see the senses of proboscis or waterspout, so I don't really see it like WP:XY.) In Grove, these names in other languages then appear under the heading for the English term. For this reason, both of these terms were on the original list for Music encyclopedia topics/44, which is why I created the redirects. (Both terms should of course appear somewhere in the Trumpet article, though.) Rigadoun (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

November 17[edit]

Korean disease[edit]

Makes no sense, in fact, when I first saw this I thought of the Middle East respiratory syndrome, but the title is too generic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep See following sources:
See also Google Books search
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - This appears to be, as stated above, in use by several publications. At the same time, I'm concerned about readers being mislead if they're looking for information about the health care system in South Korea. I lean to keeping things as-is, however. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Naxuan[edit]

Pyrusca (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep @Pyrusca: Why? Pppery 23:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Probably because it looked like run-of-the-mill WP:X1 nonsense? – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Nakhchivan (city), which was apparently known in antiquity as Naxuana, of which Naxuan appears to be a variant [27]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Uanfala. The original target was the republic, where "Naxuana" is also mentioned. But the citations quoted there speak of the "city", so the city is the best target for Naxuan. Because Naxuana also redirects there, that will be consistent. — Gorthian (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, it's been deleted now, which probably indicates that Pyrusca didn't place the RFD template on the page. — Gorthian (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually it was tagged correctly, but apparently after it was already placed on one of the master lists of Neelix-created redirects for speedy deletion. If consensus here is to recreate or retarget it, any user in good standing may do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've recreated the redirect. That doesn't feel like the most proper thing to do, but it's proving to be much less bother than having it undeleted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was previously closed by User:BDD as "speedily deleted by Beeblebrox" at 14:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC). The outcome was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17 and the RfD was resumed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore deleted revisions per WP:RUD and speedy retarget per Uanfala. Nominator didn't suggest an action and no others have been suggested; should be a WP:SNOW case. Regarding attribution, my feeling is that this particular redirect is sufficiently creative to require crediting the original creator, and also their contribution was deleted somewhat out of process, so we ought to presume copyright applies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Making a redirect from a translation isn't creative enough to require attribution, and if it's restored, it makes the X1 situation possible again since it was originally created by Neelix. I know there are a couple people making another sweep through his contributions, restoring this will add it back there. The status quo would prevent that from happening. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The X1 injunction only applies where a redirect hasn't been subsequently edited by another human editor. Because we have RfD + re-creation + RfD closure (likely retarget) this should not reappear on the X1 cleanup list, assuming the list was programmed correctly. Deryck C. 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about Neelix's contribution list, which isn't editable and will reappear there should the redirect be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, the instructions at WP:X1 don't mention anything about whether or not another editor has edited it. I agree with your interpretation, but others might not. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore deleted revisions per Ivanvector. I don't know if digging up the ancient name of a city requires attribution, but it certainly doesn't hurt, provided Deryck's observation holds true. – Uanfala (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. An editor in good standing and good faith has recreated the redirect. That should've resolved all problems and we could've been done here. Uanfala had to dig this issue out of the grave by taking this to deletion review over an incorrectly applied CSD tag, which means we're now debating whether or not the redirect should be restored? This is one petty issue after another, but I'll play along... -- Tavix (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm slightly contrite for having become the cause of all that. When the G4 tag was placed, I couldn't persuade the nominator that it was inapplicable so I reckoned the redirect was likely to get deleted (I regularly see speedy deletions that are much more wildly off than that) and I imagined it would get stuck in a loop of getting deleted again every time it was recreated. I thought the delrev would put the matter to rest and possibly give us a chance to examine the two (questionable, in my opinion) practices that are the root of this situation: speedy deleting pages that are under discussion and closing discussions as "speedy delete" when no participant has supported the deletion. Well, the delrev achieved neither and instead has apparently locked us into another catch-22. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If the redirect were to be deleted, the next step would be talking with the deleting admin to explain to them why the tag was inapplicable. You jumped the gun twice by taking it to DRV before that could even happen, which turned the molehill into a mountain. I know you had the best of intentions, and I'm not faulting you for that or trying to point fingers, I'm just calling what I observed. Back to the root of the problem, you mentioned that you don't want the deletion of this redirect to happen again, and I'm taking that stance by wanting to keep it as-is. By restoring the redirect so that Neelix is the creator, there stands a chance that this redirect could be deleted again via WP:X1. I'm trying to prevent that from happening by saying let's leave it as it is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

1166 Neelix redirects on Vermont Representative Districts[edit]

Neelix Redirects using the same template for Vermont Representative Districts. Full list follows. I have not tagged them all individually, because of the quantities involved. Some of these redirects are good, but the quantity is excessive. Where exactly to draw the line between helpful and excessive is the question I bring to RFD.

The first chunk of these redirects, so people can see the formatting:

  1. Addison 1
  2. Addison 1 District
  3. Addison 1 Representative District
  4. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District
  5. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  6. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  7. Addison 2
  8. Addison 2 District
  9. Addison 2 Representative District
  10. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District
  11. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  12. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  13. Addison 3
  14. Addison 3 District
  15. Addison 3 Representative District
  16. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District
  17. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  18. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  19. Addison 4
  20. Addison 4 District
  21. Addison 4 Representative District
  22. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District
  23. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  24. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  25. Addison 5
  26. Addison 5 District
  27. Addison 5 Representative District
  28. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District
  29. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  30. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  31. Addison Rutland 1
  32. Addison Rutland 1 District
  33. Addison Rutland 1 Representative District
  34. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District
  35. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  36. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  37. Addison-1 District
  38. Addison-1 Representative District
  39. Addison-1 Vermont Representative District
  40. Addison-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  41. Addison-2 District
  42. Addison-2 Representative District
  43. Addison-2 Vermont Representative District
  44. Addison-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  45. Addison-3 District
  46. Addison-3 Representative District
  47. Addison-3 Vermont Representative District
  48. Addison-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  49. Addison-4 District
  50. Addison-4 Representative District
  51. Addison-4 Vermont Representative District
  52. Addison-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  53. Addison-5 District
  54. Addison-5 Representative District
  55. Addison-5 Vermont Representative District
  56. Addison-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  57. Addison-Rutland-1 District
  58. Addison-Rutland-1 Representative District
  59. Addison-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District
  60. Addison-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
The full list of redirects
  1. Addison 1
  2. Addison 1 District
  3. Addison 1 Representative District
  4. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District
  5. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  6. Addison 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  7. Addison 2
  8. Addison 2 District
  9. Addison 2 Representative District
  10. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District
  11. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  12. Addison 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  13. Addison 3
  14. Addison 3 District
  15. Addison 3 Representative District
  16. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District
  17. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  18. Addison 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  19. Addison 4
  20. Addison 4 District
  21. Addison 4 Representative District
  22. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District
  23. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  24. Addison 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  25. Addison 5
  26. Addison 5 District
  27. Addison 5 Representative District
  28. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District
  29. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  30. Addison 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  31. Addison Rutland 1
  32. Addison Rutland 1 District
  33. Addison Rutland 1 Representative District
  34. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District
  35. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  36. Addison Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  37. Addison-1 District
  38. Addison-1 Representative District
  39. Addison-1 Vermont Representative District
  40. Addison-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  41. Addison-2 District
  42. Addison-2 Representative District
  43. Addison-2 Vermont Representative District
  44. Addison-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  45. Addison-3 District
  46. Addison-3 Representative District
  47. Addison-3 Vermont Representative District
  48. Addison-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  49. Addison-4 District
  50. Addison-4 Representative District
  51. Addison-4 Vermont Representative District
  52. Addison-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  53. Addison-5 District
  54. Addison-5 Representative District
  55. Addison-5 Vermont Representative District
  56. Addison-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  57. Addison-Rutland-1 District
  58. Addison-Rutland-1 Representative District
  59. Addison-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District
  60. Addison-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  61. Bennington 1
  62. Bennington 1 District
  63. Bennington 1 Representative District
  64. Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District
  65. Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  66. Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  67. Bennington 2 1
  68. Bennington 2 1 District
  69. Bennington 2 1 Representative District
  70. Bennington 2 1 Vermont Representative District
  71. Bennington 2 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  72. Bennington 2 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  73. Bennington 2 2
  74. Bennington 2 2 District
  75. Bennington 2 2 Representative District
  76. Bennington 2 2 Vermont Representative District
  77. Bennington 2 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  78. Bennington 2 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  79. Bennington 3
  80. Bennington 3 District
  81. Bennington 3 Representative District
  82. Bennington 3 Vermont Representative District
  83. Bennington 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  84. Bennington 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  85. Bennington 4
  86. Bennington 4 District
  87. Bennington 4 Representative District
  88. Bennington 4 Vermont Representative District
  89. Bennington 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  90. Bennington 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  91. Bennington 5
  92. Bennington 5 District
  93. Bennington 5 Representative District
  94. Bennington 5 Vermont Representative District
  95. Bennington 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  96. Bennington 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  97. Bennington Rutland 1
  98. Bennington Rutland 1 District
  99. Bennington Rutland 1 Representative District
  100. Bennington Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District
  101. Bennington Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  102. Bennington Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  103. Bennington-1 District
  104. Bennington-1 Representative District
  105. Bennington-1 Vermont Representative District
  106. Bennington-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  107. Bennington-2-1 District
  108. Bennington-2-1 Representative District
  109. Bennington-2-1 Vermont Representative District
  110. Bennington-2-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  111. Bennington-2-2 District
  112. Bennington-2-2 Representative District
  113. Bennington-2-2 Vermont Representative District
  114. Bennington-2-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  115. Bennington-3 District
  116. Bennington-3 Representative District
  117. Bennington-3 Vermont Representative District
  118. Bennington-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  119. Bennington-4 District
  120. Bennington-4 Representative District
  121. Bennington-4 Vermont Representative District
  122. Bennington-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  123. Bennington-5 District
  124. Bennington-5 Representative District
  125. Bennington-5 Vermont Representative District
  126. Bennington-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  127. Bennington-Rutland-1 District
  128. Bennington-Rutland-1 Representative District
  129. Bennington-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District
  130. Bennington-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  131. Caledonia 1
  132. Caledonia 1 District
  133. Caledonia 1 Representative District
  134. Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District
  135. Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  136. Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  137. Caledonia 2
  138. Caledonia 2 District
  139. Caledonia 2 Representative District
  140. Caledonia 2 Vermont Representative District
  141. Caledonia 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  142. Caledonia 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  143. Caledonia 3
  144. Caledonia 3 District
  145. Caledonia 3 Representative District
  146. Caledonia 3 Vermont Representative District
  147. Caledonia 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  148. Caledonia 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  149. Caledonia 4
  150. Caledonia 4 District
  151. Caledonia 4 Representative District
  152. Caledonia 4 Vermont Representative District
  153. Caledonia 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  154. Caledonia 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  155. Caledonia Washington 1
  156. Caledonia Washington 1 District
  157. Caledonia Washington 1 Representative District
  158. Caledonia Washington 1 Vermont Representative District
  159. Caledonia Washington 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  160. Caledonia-1 District
  161. Caledonia-1 Representative District
  162. Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District
  163. Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  164. Caledonia-2 District
  165. Caledonia-2 Representative District
  166. Caledonia-2 Vermont Representative District
  167. Caledonia-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  168. Caledonia-3 District
  169. Caledonia-3 Representative District
  170. Caledonia-3 Vermont Representative District
  171. Caledonia-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  172. Caledonia-4 District
  173. Caledonia-4 Representative District
  174. Caledonia-4 Vermont Representative District
  175. Caledonia-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  176. Caledonia-Washington-1 District
  177. Caledonia-Washington-1 Representative District
  178. Caledonia-Washington-1 Vermont Representative District
  179. Caledonia-Washington-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  180. Chittenden 1 1
  181. Chittenden 1 1 District
  182. Chittenden 1 1 Representative District
  183. Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District
  184. Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  185. Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  186. Chittenden 1 2
  187. Chittenden 1 2 District
  188. Chittenden 1 2 Representative District
  189. Chittenden 1 2 Vermont Representative District
  190. Chittenden 1 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  191. Chittenden 1 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  192. Chittenden 2
  193. Chittenden 2 District
  194. Chittenden 2 Representative District
  195. Chittenden 2 Vermont Representative District
  196. Chittenden 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  197. Chittenden 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  198. Chittenden 3 1
  199. Chittenden 3 1 District
  200. Chittenden 3 1 Representative District
  201. Chittenden 3 1 Vermont Representative District
  202. Chittenden 3 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  203. Chittenden 3 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  204. Chittenden 3 10
  205. Chittenden 3 10 District
  206. Chittenden 3 10 Representative District
  207. Chittenden 3 10 Vermont Representative District
  208. Chittenden 3 10 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  209. Chittenden 3 10 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  210. Chittenden 3 2
  211. Chittenden 3 2 District
  212. Chittenden 3 2 Representative District
  213. Chittenden 3 2 Vermont Representative District
  214. Chittenden 3 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  215. Chittenden 3 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  216. Chittenden 3 3
  217. Chittenden 3 3 District
  218. Chittenden 3 3 Representative District
  219. Chittenden 3 3 Vermont Representative District
  220. Chittenden 3 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  221. Chittenden 3 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  222. Chittenden 3 4
  223. Chittenden 3 4 District
  224. Chittenden 3 4 Representative District
  225. Chittenden 3 4 Vermont Representative District
  226. Chittenden 3 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  227. Chittenden 3 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  228. Chittenden 3 5
  229. Chittenden 3 5 District
  230. Chittenden 3 5 Representative District
  231. Chittenden 3 5 Vermont Representative District
  232. Chittenden 3 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  233. Chittenden 3 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  234. Chittenden 3 6
  235. Chittenden 3 6 District
  236. Chittenden 3 6 Representative District
  237. Chittenden 3 6 Vermont Representative District
  238. Chittenden 3 6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  239. Chittenden 3 6 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  240. Chittenden 3 7
  241. Chittenden 3 7 District
  242. Chittenden 3 7 Representative District
  243. Chittenden 3 7 Vermont Representative District
  244. Chittenden 3 7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  245. Chittenden 3 7 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  246. Chittenden 3 8
  247. Chittenden 3 8 District
  248. Chittenden 3 8 Representative District
  249. Chittenden 3 8 Vermont Representative District
  250. Chittenden 3 8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  251. Chittenden 3 8 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  252. Chittenden 3 9
  253. Chittenden 3 9 District
  254. Chittenden 3 9 Representative District
  255. Chittenden 3 9 Vermont Representative District
  256. Chittenden 3 9 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  257. Chittenden 3 9 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  258. Chittenden 4
  259. Chittenden 4 District
  260. Chittenden 4 Representative District
  261. Chittenden 4 Vermont Representative District
  262. Chittenden 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  263. Chittenden 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  264. Chittenden 5 1
  265. Chittenden 5 1 District
  266. Chittenden 5 1 Representative District
  267. Chittenden 5 1 Vermont Representative District
  268. Chittenden 5 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  269. Chittenden 5 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  270. Chittenden 5 2
  271. Chittenden 5 2 District
  272. Chittenden 5 2 Representative District
  273. Chittenden 5 2 Vermont Representative District
  274. Chittenden 5 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  275. Chittenden 5 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  276. Chittenden 6 1
  277. Chittenden 6 1 District
  278. Chittenden 6 1 Representative District
  279. Chittenden 6 1 Vermont Representative District
  280. Chittenden 6 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  281. Chittenden 6 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  282. Chittenden 6 2
  283. Chittenden 6 2 District
  284. Chittenden 6 2 Representative District
  285. Chittenden 6 2 Vermont Representative District
  286. Chittenden 6 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  287. Chittenden 6 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  288. Chittenden 6 3
  289. Chittenden 6 3 District
  290. Chittenden 6 3 Representative District
  291. Chittenden 6 3 Vermont Representative District
  292. Chittenden 6 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  293. Chittenden 6 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  294. Chittenden 7 1
  295. Chittenden 7 1 District
  296. Chittenden 7 1 Representative District
  297. Chittenden 7 1 Vermont Representative District
  298. Chittenden 7 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  299. Chittenden 7 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  300. Chittenden 7 2
  301. Chittenden 7 2 District
  302. Chittenden 7 2 Representative District
  303. Chittenden 7 2 Vermont Representative District
  304. Chittenden 7 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  305. Chittenden 7 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  306. Chittenden 8
  307. Chittenden 8 District
  308. Chittenden 8 Representative District
  309. Chittenden 8 Vermont Representative District
  310. Chittenden 8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  311. Chittenden 8 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  312. Chittenden 9
  313. Chittenden 9 District
  314. Chittenden 9 Representative District
  315. Chittenden 9 Vermont Representative District
  316. Chittenden 9 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  317. Chittenden 9 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  318. Chittenden-1-1 District
  319. Chittenden-1-1 Representative District
  320. Chittenden-1-1 Vermont Representative District
  321. Chittenden-1-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  322. Chittenden-1-2 District
  323. Chittenden-1-2 Representative District
  324. Chittenden-1-2 Vermont Representative District
  325. Chittenden-1-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  326. Chittenden-2
  327. Chittenden-2 District
  328. Chittenden-2 Representative District
  329. Chittenden-2 Vermont Representative District
  330. Chittenden-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  331. Chittenden-3-1
  332. Chittenden-3-1 District
  333. Chittenden-3-1 Representative District
  334. Chittenden-3-1 Vermont Representative District
  335. Chittenden-3-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  336. Chittenden-3-10
  337. Chittenden-3-10 District
  338. Chittenden-3-10 Representative District
  339. Chittenden-3-10 Vermont Representative District
  340. Chittenden-3-10 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  341. Chittenden-3-2
  342. Chittenden-3-2 District
  343. Chittenden-3-2 Representative District
  344. Chittenden-3-2 Vermont Representative District
  345. Chittenden-3-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  346. Chittenden-3-3
  347. Chittenden-3-3 District
  348. Chittenden-3-3 Representative District
  349. Chittenden-3-3 Vermont Representative District
  350. Chittenden-3-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  351. Chittenden-3-4
  352. Chittenden-3-4 District
  353. Chittenden-3-4 Representative District
  354. Chittenden-3-4 Vermont Representative District
  355. Chittenden-3-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  356. Chittenden-3-5
  357. Chittenden-3-5 District
  358. Chittenden-3-5 Representative District
  359. Chittenden-3-5 Vermont Representative District
  360. Chittenden-3-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  361. Chittenden-3-6
  362. Chittenden-3-6 District
  363. Chittenden-3-6 Representative District
  364. Chittenden-3-6 Vermont Representative District
  365. Chittenden-3-6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  366. Chittenden-3-7
  367. Chittenden-3-7 District
  368. Chittenden-3-7 Representative District
  369. Chittenden-3-7 Vermont Representative District
  370. Chittenden-3-7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  371. Chittenden-3-8
  372. Chittenden-3-8 District
  373. Chittenden-3-8 Representative District
  374. Chittenden-3-8 Vermont Representative District
  375. Chittenden-3-8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  376. Chittenden-3-9
  377. Chittenden-3-9 District
  378. Chittenden-3-9 Representative District
  379. Chittenden-3-9 Vermont Representative District
  380. Chittenden-3-9 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  381. Chittenden-4
  382. Chittenden-4 District
  383. Chittenden-4 Representative District
  384. Chittenden-4 Vermont Representative District
  385. Chittenden-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  386. Chittenden-5-1
  387. Chittenden-5-1 District
  388. Chittenden-5-1 Representative District
  389. Chittenden-5-1 Vermont Representative District
  390. Chittenden-5-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  391. Chittenden-5-2
  392. Chittenden-5-2 District
  393. Chittenden-5-2 Representative District
  394. Chittenden-5-2 Vermont Representative District
  395. Chittenden-5-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  396. Chittenden-6-1
  397. Chittenden-6-1 District
  398. Chittenden-6-1 Representative District
  399. Chittenden-6-1 Vermont Representative District
  400. Chittenden-6-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  401. Chittenden-6-2
  402. Chittenden-6-2 District
  403. Chittenden-6-2 Representative District
  404. Chittenden-6-2 Vermont Representative District
  405. Chittenden-6-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  406. Chittenden-6-3
  407. Chittenden-6-3 District
  408. Chittenden-6-3 Representative District
  409. Chittenden-6-3 Vermont Representative District
  410. Chittenden-6-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  411. Chittenden-7-1
  412. Chittenden-7-1 District
  413. Chittenden-7-1 Representative District
  414. Chittenden-7-1 Vermont Representative District
  415. Chittenden-7-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  416. Chittenden-7-2
  417. Chittenden-7-2 District
  418. Chittenden-7-2 Representative District
  419. Chittenden-7-2 Vermont Representative District
  420. Chittenden-7-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  421. Chittenden-8
  422. Chittenden-8 District
  423. Chittenden-8 Representative District
  424. Chittenden-8 Vermont Representative District
  425. Chittenden-8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  426. Chittenden-9
  427. Chittenden-9 District
  428. Chittenden-9 Representative District
  429. Chittenden-9 Vermont Representative District
  430. Chittenden-9 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  431. Essex Caledonia
  432. Essex Caledonia District
  433. Essex Caledonia Orleans
  434. Essex Caledonia Orleans District
  435. Essex Caledonia Orleans Representative District
  436. Essex Caledonia Orleans Vermont Representative District
  437. Essex Caledonia Orleans Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  438. Essex Caledonia Orleans Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  439. Essex Caledonia Representative District
  440. Essex Caledonia Vermont Representative District
  441. Essex Caledonia Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  442. Essex Caledonia Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  443. Essex-Caledonia
  444. Essex-Caledonia District
  445. Essex-Caledonia Representative District
  446. Essex-Caledonia Vermont Representative District
  447. Essex-Caledonia Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  448. Essex-Caledonia-Orleans
  449. Essex-Caledonia-Orleans District
  450. Essex-Caledonia-Orleans Representative District
  451. Essex-Caledonia-Orleans Vermont Representative District
  452. Essex-Caledonia-Orleans Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  453. Franklin 1
  454. Franklin 1 District
  455. Franklin 1 Representative District
  456. Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District
  457. Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  458. Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  459. Franklin 2
  460. Franklin 2 District
  461. Franklin 2 Representative District
  462. Franklin 2 Vermont Representative District
  463. Franklin 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  464. Franklin 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  465. Franklin 3
  466. Franklin 3 District
  467. Franklin 3 Representative District
  468. Franklin 3 Vermont Representative District
  469. Franklin 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  470. Franklin 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  471. Franklin 4
  472. Franklin 4 District
  473. Franklin 4 Representative District
  474. Franklin 4 Vermont Representative District
  475. Franklin 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  476. Franklin 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  477. Franklin 5
  478. Franklin 5 District
  479. Franklin 5 Representative District
  480. Franklin 5 Vermont Representative District
  481. Franklin 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  482. Franklin 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  483. Franklin 6
  484. Franklin 6 District
  485. Franklin 6 Representative District
  486. Franklin 6 Vermont Representative District
  487. Franklin 6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  488. Franklin 6 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  489. Franklin-1
  490. Franklin-1 District
  491. Franklin-1 Representative District
  492. Franklin-1 Vermont Representative District
  493. Franklin-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  494. Franklin-2
  495. Franklin-2 District
  496. Franklin-2 Representative District
  497. Franklin-2 Vermont Representative District
  498. Franklin-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  499. Franklin-3
  500. Franklin-3 District
  501. Franklin-3 Representative District
  502. Franklin-3 Vermont Representative District
  503. Franklin-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  504. Franklin-4
  505. Franklin-4 District
  506. Franklin-4 Representative District
  507. Franklin-4 Vermont Representative District
  508. Franklin-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  509. Franklin-5
  510. Franklin-5 District
  511. Franklin-5 Representative District
  512. Franklin-5 Vermont Representative District
  513. Franklin-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  514. Franklin-6
  515. Franklin-6 District
  516. Franklin-6 Representative District
  517. Franklin-6 Vermont Representative District
  518. Franklin-6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  519. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1
  520. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1 District
  521. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1 Representative District
  522. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District
  523. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  524. Grand Isle Chittenden 1 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  525. Grand Isle-Chittenden-1-1
  526. Grand Isle-Chittenden-1-1 District
  527. Grand Isle-Chittenden-1-1 Representative District
  528. Grand Isle-Chittenden-1-1 Vermont Representative District
  529. Grand Isle-Chittenden-1-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  530. Lamoille 1
  531. Lamoille 1 District
  532. Lamoille 1 Representative District
  533. Lamoille 1 Vermont Representative District
  534. Lamoille 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  535. Lamoille 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  536. Lamoille 2
  537. Lamoille 2 District
  538. Lamoille 2 Representative District
  539. Lamoille 2 Vermont Representative District
  540. Lamoille 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  541. Lamoille 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  542. Lamoille 3
  543. Lamoille 3 District
  544. Lamoille 3 Representative District
  545. Lamoille 3 Vermont Representative District
  546. Lamoille 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  547. Lamoille 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  548. Lamoille 4
  549. Lamoille 4 District
  550. Lamoille 4 Representative District
  551. Lamoille 4 Vermont Representative District
  552. Lamoille 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  553. Lamoille 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  554. Lamoille Washington 1
  555. Lamoille Washington 1 District
  556. Lamoille Washington 1 Representative District
  557. Lamoille Washington 1 Vermont Representative District
  558. Lamoille Washington 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  559. Lamoille Washington 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  560. Lamoille-1
  561. Lamoille-1 District
  562. Lamoille-1 Representative District
  563. Lamoille-1 Vermont Representative District
  564. Lamoille-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  565. Lamoille-2
  566. Lamoille-2 District
  567. Lamoille-2 Representative District
  568. Lamoille-2 Vermont Representative District
  569. Lamoille-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  570. Lamoille-3
  571. Lamoille-3 District
  572. Lamoille-3 Representative District
  573. Lamoille-3 Vermont Representative District
  574. Lamoille-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  575. Lamoille-4
  576. Lamoille-4 District
  577. Lamoille-4 Representative District
  578. Lamoille-4 Vermont Representative District
  579. Lamoille-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  580. Lamoille-Washington-1
  581. Lamoille-Washington-1 District
  582. Lamoille-Washington-1 Representative District
  583. Lamoille-Washington-1 Vermont Representative District
  584. Lamoille-Washington-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  585. Orange 1
  586. Orange 1 District
  587. Orange 1 Representative District
  588. Orange 1 Vermont Representative District
  589. Orange 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  590. Orange 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  591. Orange 2
  592. Orange 2 District
  593. Orange 2 Representative District
  594. Orange 2 Vermont Representative District
  595. Orange 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  596. Orange 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  597. Orange Addison 1
  598. Orange Addison 1 District
  599. Orange Addison 1 Representative District
  600. Orange Addison 1 Vermont Representative District
  601. Orange Addison 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  602. Orange Addison 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  603. Orange Caledonia 1
  604. Orange Caledonia 1 District
  605. Orange Caledonia 1 Representative District
  606. Orange Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District
  607. Orange Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  608. Orange Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  609. Orange-1
  610. Orange-1 District
  611. Orange-1 Representative District
  612. Orange-1 Vermont Representative District
  613. Orange-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  614. Orange-2
  615. Orange-2 District
  616. Orange-2 Representative District
  617. Orange-2 Vermont Representative District
  618. Orange-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  619. Orange-Addison-1
  620. Orange-Addison-1 District
  621. Orange-Addison-1 Representative District
  622. Orange-Addison-1 Vermont Representative District
  623. Orange-Addison-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  624. Orange-Caledonia-1
  625. Orange-Caledonia-1 District
  626. Orange-Caledonia-1 Representative District
  627. Orange-Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District
  628. Orange-Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  629. Orleans 1
  630. Orleans 1 District
  631. Orleans 1 Representative District
  632. Orleans 1 Vermont Representative District
  633. Orleans 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  634. Orleans 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  635. Orleans 2 District
  636. Orleans 2 Representative District
  637. Orleans 2 Vermont Representative District
  638. Orleans 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  639. Orleans 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  640. Orleans Caledonia 1
  641. Orleans Caledonia 1 District
  642. Orleans Caledonia 1 Representative District
  643. Orleans Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District
  644. Orleans Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  645. Orleans Caledonia 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  646. Orleans Franklin 1
  647. Orleans Franklin 1 District
  648. Orleans Franklin 1 Representative District
  649. Orleans Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District
  650. Orleans Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  651. Orleans Franklin 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  652. Orleans-1
  653. Orleans-1 District
  654. Orleans-1 Representative District
  655. Orleans-1 Vermont Representative District
  656. Orleans-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  657. Orleans-2
  658. Orleans-2 District
  659. Orleans-2 Representative District
  660. Orleans-2 Vermont Representative District
  661. Orleans-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  662. Orleans-Caledonia-1
  663. Orleans-Caledonia-1 District
  664. Orleans-Caledonia-1 Representative District
  665. Orleans-Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District
  666. Orleans-Caledonia-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  667. Orleans-Franklin-1
  668. Orleans-Franklin-1 District
  669. Orleans-Franklin-1 Representative District
  670. Orleans-Franklin-1 Vermont Representative District
  671. Orleans-Franklin-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  672. Rutland 1 1
  673. Rutland 1 1 District
  674. Rutland 1 1 Representative District
  675. Rutland 1 1 Vermont Representative District
  676. Rutland 1 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  677. Rutland 1 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  678. Rutland 1 2
  679. Rutland 1 2 District
  680. Rutland 1 2 Representative District
  681. Rutland 1 2 Vermont Representative District
  682. Rutland 1 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  683. Rutland 1 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  684. Rutland 2
  685. Rutland 2 District
  686. Rutland 2 Representative District
  687. Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District
  688. Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  689. Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  690. Rutland 3
  691. Rutland 3 District
  692. Rutland 3 Representative District
  693. Rutland 3 Vermont Representative District
  694. Rutland 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  695. Rutland 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  696. Rutland 4
  697. Rutland 4 District
  698. Rutland 4 Representative District
  699. Rutland 4 Vermont Representative District
  700. Rutland 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  701. Rutland 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  702. Rutland 5 1
  703. Rutland 5 1 District
  704. Rutland 5 1 Representative District
  705. Rutland 5 1 Vermont Representative District
  706. Rutland 5 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  707. Rutland 5 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  708. Rutland 5 2
  709. Rutland 5 2 District
  710. Rutland 5 2 Representative District
  711. Rutland 5 2 Vermont Representative District
  712. Rutland 5 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  713. Rutland 5 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  714. Rutland 5 3
  715. Rutland 5 3 District
  716. Rutland 5 3 Representative District
  717. Rutland 5 3 Vermont Representative District
  718. Rutland 5 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  719. Rutland 5 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  720. Rutland 5 4
  721. Rutland 5 4 District
  722. Rutland 5 4 Representative District
  723. Rutland 5 4 Vermont Representative District
  724. Rutland 5 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  725. Rutland 5 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  726. Rutland 6
  727. Rutland 6 District
  728. Rutland 6 Representative District
  729. Rutland 6 Vermont Representative District
  730. Rutland 6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  731. Rutland 6 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  732. Rutland 7
  733. Rutland 7 District
  734. Rutland 7 Representative District
  735. Rutland 7 Vermont Representative District
  736. Rutland 7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  737. Rutland 7 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  738. Rutland 8
  739. Rutland 8 District
  740. Rutland 8 Representative District
  741. Rutland 8 Vermont Representative District
  742. Rutland 8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  743. Rutland 8 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  744. Rutland Windsor 1
  745. Rutland Windsor 1 District
  746. Rutland Windsor 1 Representative District
  747. Rutland Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District
  748. Rutland Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  749. Rutland Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  750. Rutland-1-1
  751. Rutland-1-1 District
  752. Rutland-1-1 Representative District
  753. Rutland-1-1 Vermont Representative District
  754. Rutland-1-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  755. Rutland-1-2
  756. Rutland-1-2 District
  757. Rutland-1-2 Representative District
  758. Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District
  759. Rutland-1-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  760. Rutland-2
  761. Rutland-2 District
  762. Rutland-2 Representative District
  763. Rutland-2 Vermont Representative District
  764. Rutland-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  765. Rutland-3
  766. Rutland-3 District
  767. Rutland-3 Representative District
  768. Rutland-3 Vermont Representative District
  769. Rutland-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  770. Rutland-4
  771. Rutland-4 District
  772. Rutland-4 Representative District
  773. Rutland-4 Vermont Representative District
  774. Rutland-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  775. Rutland-5-1
  776. Rutland-5-1 District
  777. Rutland-5-1 Representative District
  778. Rutland-5-1 Vermont Representative District
  779. Rutland-5-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  780. Rutland-5-2
  781. Rutland-5-2 District
  782. Rutland-5-2 Representative District
  783. Rutland-5-2 Vermont Representative District
  784. Rutland-5-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  785. Rutland-5-3
  786. Rutland-5-3 District
  787. Rutland-5-3 Representative District
  788. Rutland-5-3 Vermont Representative District
  789. Rutland-5-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  790. Rutland-5-4
  791. Rutland-5-4 District
  792. Rutland-5-4 Representative District
  793. Rutland-5-4 Vermont Representative District
  794. Rutland-5-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  795. Rutland-6
  796. Rutland-6 District
  797. Rutland-6 Representative District
  798. Rutland-6 Vermont Representative District
  799. Rutland-6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  800. Rutland-7
  801. Rutland-7 District
  802. Rutland-7 Representative District
  803. Rutland-7 Vermont Representative District
  804. Rutland-7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  805. Rutland-8
  806. Rutland-8 District
  807. Rutland-8 Representative District
  808. Rutland-8 Vermont Representative District
  809. Rutland-8 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  810. Rutland-Windsor-1
  811. Rutland-Windsor-1 District
  812. Rutland-Windsor-1 Representative District
  813. Rutland-Windsor-1 Vermont Representative District
  814. Rutland-Windsor-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  815. Washington 1
  816. Washington 1 District
  817. Washington 1 Representative District
  818. Washington 1 Vermont Representative District
  819. Washington 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  820. Washington 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  821. Washington 2
  822. Washington 2 District
  823. Washington 2 Representative District
  824. Washington 2 Vermont Representative District
  825. Washington 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  826. Washington 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  827. Washington 3 1
  828. Washington 3 1 District
  829. Washington 3 1 Representative District
  830. Washington 3 1 Vermont Representative District
  831. Washington 3 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  832. Washington 3 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  833. Washington 3 2
  834. Washington 3 2 District
  835. Washington 3 2 Representative District
  836. Washington 3 2 Vermont Representative District
  837. Washington 3 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  838. Washington 3 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  839. Washington 3 3
  840. Washington 3 3 District
  841. Washington 3 3 Representative District
  842. Washington 3 3 Vermont Representative District
  843. Washington 3 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  844. Washington 3 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  845. Washington 4
  846. Washington 4 District
  847. Washington 4 Representative District
  848. Washington 4 Vermont Representative District
  849. Washington 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  850. Washington 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  851. Washington 5
  852. Washington 5 District
  853. Washington 5 Representative District
  854. Washington 5 Vermont Representative District
  855. Washington 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  856. Washington 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  857. Washington 6
  858. Washington 6 District
  859. Washington 6 Representative District
  860. Washington 6 Vermont Representative District
  861. Washington 6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  862. Washington 6 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  863. Washington 7
  864. Washington 7 District
  865. Washington 7 Representative District
  866. Washington 7 Vermont Representative District
  867. Washington 7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  868. Washington 7 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  869. Washington Chittenden 1
  870. Washington Chittenden 1 District
  871. Washington Chittenden 1 Representative District
  872. Washington Chittenden 1 Vermont Representative District
  873. Washington Chittenden 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  874. Washington Chittenden 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  875. Washington-1
  876. Washington-1 District
  877. Washington-1 Representative District
  878. Washington-1 Vermont Representative District
  879. Washington-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  880. Washington-2
  881. Washington-2 District
  882. Washington-2 Representative District
  883. Washington-2 Vermont Representative District
  884. Washington-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  885. Washington-3-1
  886. Washington-3-1 District
  887. Washington-3-1 Representative District
  888. Washington-3-1 Vermont Representative District
  889. Washington-3-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  890. Washington-3-2
  891. Washington-3-2 District
  892. Washington-3-2 Representative District
  893. Washington-3-2 Vermont Representative District
  894. Washington-3-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  895. Washington-3-3
  896. Washington-3-3 District
  897. Washington-3-3 Representative District
  898. Washington-3-3 Vermont Representative District
  899. Washington-3-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  900. Washington-4
  901. Washington-4 District
  902. Washington-4 Representative District
  903. Washington-4 Vermont Representative District
  904. Washington-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  905. Washington-5
  906. Washington-5 District
  907. Washington-5 Representative District
  908. Washington-5 Vermont Representative District
  909. Washington-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  910. Washington-6
  911. Washington-6 District
  912. Washington-6 Representative District
  913. Washington-6 Vermont Representative District
  914. Washington-6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  915. Washington-7
  916. Washington-7 District
  917. Washington-7 Representative District
  918. Washington-7 Vermont Representative District
  919. Washington-7 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  920. Washington-Chittenden-1
  921. Washington-Chittenden-1 District
  922. Washington-Chittenden-1 Representative District
  923. Washington-Chittenden-1 Vermont Representative District
  924. Washington-Chittenden-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  925. Windham 1
  926. Windham 1 District
  927. Windham 1 Representative District
  928. Windham 1 Vermont Representative District
  929. Windham 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  930. Windham 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  931. Windham 2
  932. Windham 2 District
  933. Windham 2 Representative District
  934. Windham 2 Vermont Representative District
  935. Windham 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  936. Windham 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  937. Windham 3 1
  938. Windham 3 1 District
  939. Windham 3 1 Representative District
  940. Windham 3 1 Vermont Representative District
  941. Windham 3 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  942. Windham 3 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  943. Windham 3 2
  944. Windham 3 2 District
  945. Windham 3 2 Representative District
  946. Windham 3 2 Vermont Representative District
  947. Windham 3 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  948. Windham 3 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  949. Windham 3 3
  950. Windham 3 3 District
  951. Windham 3 3 Representative District
  952. Windham 3 3 Vermont Representative District
  953. Windham 3 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  954. Windham 3 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  955. Windham 4
  956. Windham 4 District
  957. Windham 4 Representative District
  958. Windham 4 Vermont Representative District
  959. Windham 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  960. Windham 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  961. Windham 5
  962. Windham 5 District
  963. Windham 5 Representative District
  964. Windham 5 Vermont Representative District
  965. Windham 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  966. Windham 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  967. Windham 6
  968. Windham 6 District
  969. Windham 6 Representative District
  970. Windham 6 Vermont Representative District
  971. Windham 6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  972. Windham 6 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  973. Windham Bennington 1
  974. Windham Bennington 1 District
  975. Windham Bennington 1 Representative District
  976. Windham Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District
  977. Windham Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  978. Windham Bennington 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  979. Windham Bennington Windsor 1
  980. Windham Bennington Windsor 1 District
  981. Windham Bennington Windsor 1 Representative District
  982. Windham Bennington Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District
  983. Windham Bennington Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  984. Windham Bennington Windsor 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  985. Windham-1
  986. Windham-1 District
  987. Windham-1 Representative District
  988. Windham-1 Vermont Representative District
  989. Windham-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  990. Windham-2
  991. Windham-2 District
  992. Windham-2 Representative District
  993. Windham-2 Vermont Representative District
  994. Windham-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  995. Windham-3-1
  996. Windham-3-1 District
  997. Windham-3-1 Representative District
  998. Windham-3-1 Vermont Representative District
  999. Windham-3-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1000. Windham-3-2
  1001. Windham-3-2 District
  1002. Windham-3-2 Representative District
  1003. Windham-3-2 Vermont Representative District
  1004. Windham-3-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1005. Windham-3-3
  1006. Windham-3-3 District
  1007. Windham-3-3 Representative District
  1008. Windham-3-3 Vermont Representative District
  1009. Windham-3-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1010. Windham-4
  1011. Windham-4 District
  1012. Windham-4 Representative District
  1013. Windham-4 Vermont Representative District
  1014. Windham-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1015. Windham-5
  1016. Windham-5 District
  1017. Windham-5 Representative District
  1018. Windham-5 Vermont Representative District
  1019. Windham-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1020. Windham-6
  1021. Windham-6 District
  1022. Windham-6 Representative District
  1023. Windham-6 Vermont Representative District
  1024. Windham-6 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1025. Windham-Bennington-1
  1026. Windham-Bennington-1 District
  1027. Windham-Bennington-1 Representative District
  1028. Windham-Bennington-1 Vermont Representative District
  1029. Windham-Bennington-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1030. Windham-Bennington-Windsor-1
  1031. Windham-Bennington-Windsor-1 District
  1032. Windham-Bennington-Windsor-1 Representative District
  1033. Windham-Bennington-Windsor-1 Vermont Representative District
  1034. Windham-Bennington-Windsor-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1035. Windsor 1 1
  1036. Windsor 1 1 District
  1037. Windsor 1 1 Representative District
  1038. Windsor 1 1 Vermont Representative District
  1039. Windsor 1 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1040. Windsor 1 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1041. Windsor 1 2
  1042. Windsor 1 2 District
  1043. Windsor 1 2 Representative District
  1044. Windsor 1 2 Vermont Representative District
  1045. Windsor 1 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1046. Windsor 1 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1047. Windsor 2
  1048. Windsor 2 District
  1049. Windsor 2 Representative District
  1050. Windsor 2 Vermont Representative District
  1051. Windsor 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1052. Windsor 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1053. Windsor 3
  1054. Windsor 3 District
  1055. Windsor 3 Representative District
  1056. Windsor 3 Vermont Representative District
  1057. Windsor 3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1058. Windsor 3 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1059. Windsor 4
  1060. Windsor 4 District
  1061. Windsor 4 Representative District
  1062. Windsor 4 Vermont Representative District
  1063. Windsor 4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1064. Windsor 4 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1065. Windsor 5
  1066. Windsor 5 District
  1067. Windsor 5 Representative District
  1068. Windsor 5 Vermont Representative District
  1069. Windsor 5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1070. Windsor 5 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1071. Windsor 6 1
  1072. Windsor 6 1 District
  1073. Windsor 6 1 Representative District
  1074. Windsor 6 1 Vermont Representative District
  1075. Windsor 6 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1076. Windsor 6 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1077. Windsor 6 2
  1078. Windsor 6 2 District
  1079. Windsor 6 2 Representative District
  1080. Windsor 6 2 Vermont Representative District
  1081. Windsor 6 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1082. Windsor 6 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1083. Windsor Orange 1
  1084. Windsor Orange 1 District
  1085. Windsor Orange 1 Representative District
  1086. Windsor Orange 1 Vermont Representative District
  1087. Windsor Orange 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1088. Windsor Orange 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1089. Windsor Orange 2
  1090. Windsor Orange 2 District
  1091. Windsor Orange 2 Representative District
  1092. Windsor Orange 2 Vermont Representative District
  1093. Windsor Orange 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1094. Windsor Orange 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1095. Windsor Rutland 1
  1096. Windsor Rutland 1 District
  1097. Windsor Rutland 1 Representative District
  1098. Windsor Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District
  1099. Windsor Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1100. Windsor Rutland 1 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1101. Windsor Rutland 2
  1102. Windsor Rutland 2 District
  1103. Windsor Rutland 2 Representative District
  1104. Windsor Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District
  1105. Windsor Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1106. Windsor Rutland 2 Vermont Representative District, 2002-2012
  1107. Windsor-1-1
  1108. Windsor-1-1 District
  1109. Windsor-1-1 Representative District
  1110. Windsor-1-1 Representative District (Vermont)
  1111. Windsor-1-1 Vermont Representative District
  1112. Windsor-1-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1113. Windsor-1-2
  1114. Windsor-1-2 District
  1115. Windsor-1-2 Representative District
  1116. Windsor-1-2 Vermont Representative District
  1117. Windsor-1-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1118. Windsor-2
  1119. Windsor-2 District
  1120. Windsor-2 Representative District
  1121. Windsor-2 Vermont Representative District
  1122. Windsor-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1123. Windsor-3
  1124. Windsor-3 District
  1125. Windsor-3 Representative District
  1126. Windsor-3 Vermont Representative District
  1127. Windsor-3 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1128. Windsor-4
  1129. Windsor-4 District
  1130. Windsor-4 Representative District
  1131. Windsor-4 Vermont Representative District
  1132. Windsor-4 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1133. Windsor-5
  1134. Windsor-5 District
  1135. Windsor-5 Representative District
  1136. Windsor-5 Vermont Representative District
  1137. Windsor-5 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1138. Windsor-6-1
  1139. Windsor-6-1 District
  1140. Windsor-6-1 Representative District
  1141. Windsor-6-1 Vermont Representative District
  1142. Windsor-6-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1143. Windsor-6-2
  1144. Windsor-6-2 District
  1145. Windsor-6-2 Representative District
  1146. Windsor-6-2 Vermont Representative District
  1147. Windsor-6-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1148. Windsor-Orange-1
  1149. Windsor-Orange-1 District
  1150. Windsor-Orange-1 Representative District
  1151. Windsor-Orange-1 Vermont Representative District
  1152. Windsor-Orange-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1153. Windsor-Orange-2
  1154. Windsor-Orange-2 District
  1155. Windsor-Orange-2 Representative District
  1156. Windsor-Orange-2 Vermont Representative District
  1157. Windsor-Orange-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1158. Windsor-Rutland-1
  1159. Windsor-Rutland-1 District
  1160. Windsor-Rutland-1 Representative District
  1161. Windsor-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District
  1162. Windsor-Rutland-1 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012
  1163. Windsor-Rutland-2
  1164. Windsor-Rutland-2 District
  1165. Windsor-Rutland-2 Representative District
  1166. Windsor-Rutland-2 Vermont Representative District
  1167. Windsor-Rutland-2 Vermont Representative District 2002-2012

Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep all - all appear to be correct hyphenation variations pointing at the correct targets, and I see no pressing harm caused by any of these (none are plausibly ambiguous with other targets, for example). Or if they are, nom hasn't said so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    I am certainly not aware of any ambiguities.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the ones that are just Location Number or Location Hyphen Number since these are potentially confusing, particularly when a lot of local city government projects, city streets, et cetera are known as something like Edge City One or such. Keep the rest of them since they seem useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson/First Inaugural Address[edit]

Inappropriate WP:SUB. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete both - I don't see this as worth keeping at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

GroverCleveland[edit]

Timeline of Presidents of the United States[edit]

This should go to List of Presidents of the United States for that was what I was looking for, when someone hears "timeline" in this kind of context they would more likely be looking for a chronological timeline of presidents. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete the redirect "Timeline of the Presidents of the United States" but contents keep on "Lifespan timeline of the United States". The contents are clearly about the lifespan timeline of the presidents, that leads me to change the article name from "Timeline of the Presidents of the United States" to "Lifespan timeline of the United States" and the change of name was undisputed. ~Manila's PogingJuan 10:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per PogingJuan housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RKNs[edit]

Ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Over-obscure & specialised acronyms.TheLongTone (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete "RKN's" per above, Weak Retarget "RKN" to Redknee since it is their ticker symbol --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rumson Polo Club[edit]

There's no mention of the Rumson Polo Club at the target article. Someone searching for information on this club would end up disappointed or confused. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Delete per WP:REDLINK, someone searching this will want more information than the fact that it exists. -- Tavix (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep at least they would know that the institution was in Rumson, New Jersey, a good start for a researcher. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - This appears to be its own notable topic (though, I may be wrong about this), and I think WP:REDLINK applies. The nominator also makes a good point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you bothered to read the article, it DOES appear in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    You JUST added something. Don't make it sound like it's always been there. -- Tavix (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    It was there before he wrote his comment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The target article does mention a bit more than just that it exists, noting what the current name is and an organizational merger. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - As much as, yes, maybe now a bit of information is in the article, I stand by thinking that deletion is the right choice. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Crown Commonwealth League of Rights (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete. Housekeeping - target is not a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the target functionally is a DAB page, since the CCLoR is an umbrella organization for all the others. Since the target is unlikely to be moved, this is WP:CHEAP.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Section 18C[edit]

(Newly created redirect) cut and dried WP:PTM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference has been made to "Section 18C" daily in the Australian Press for some months now. That is why I created that short cut. Observoz (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep coverage has increased to daily mentions in the last few months, as mentioned above. But even before that, it has been receiving regular coverage since at least 2011. The link WP:PTM provided by the nominator seems to only apply to disambiguation pages. Is there any sort of precedence concerning that guideline being applied to the deletion of redirects? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I mean there exists a WP:XY issue as it is a partial title match for more than one topic, I can't link to a previous discussion with a similar rationale, but it is common at RfD. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
What other notable topics could this refer to? -- Tavix (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix:[29][30] to start with. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Where in Wikipedia are these topics discussed? If there truly are other notable topics on Wikipedia known as Section 18C, this should be disambiguated. If we can't do that, it needs to be kept as is. -- Tavix (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Tam Honks[edit]

Tim cruise[edit]

Not sure if this is more likely a typo for Tim Cruz or totally implausible (i.e. should we delete this or not?) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This seems perfectly plausible as a typo to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd lean towards keeping this. Is Tim Cruz notable enough for an article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure about the issue, but I encourage Tim Cruz to be nominated for deletion. My instinct is that he's not notable. There's a District Attorney named Timothy J. Cruz who appears, to me, to be the most notable individual associated with "Tim Cruz" (a lot of people in the U.S. seem to have this name). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Danick Gauthier[edit]

WP:XY Joeykai (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest redirecting it to the team that Danick plays for. But according to this database he seems to change teams at least once a year, so just deleting it may be the better option. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Święty Mikołaj[edit]

Not related to these languages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Carol Storck[edit]

Delete or create article [31]. Carol Storck is Karl Storck's son, not an alternate spelling of Karl. WQUlrich (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Black Barbies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

Dino Crisis (disambiguation)[edit]

Target is not a disambiguation page. (But since the redirect was formerly a disambiguation page, I don't see this being immediately uncontroversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. As a franchise page, it does disambiguate between the similarly named games of its series, and is unlikely to get moved, so the redirect is cheap. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. As long as I have worked on dab pages, I have assumed that titles with "(disambiguation)" in them should always redirect to a dab page (if they are not dab pages themselves). And that "dab page" means a page with the {{disambiguation}} template, not a list or any other article. When the dab page is gone, the "(disambiguation)" redirect should be gone, too. — Gorthian (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The target of a (disambiguation) redirect page should be a disambiguation page (there's a clue in the name). This redirect is misleading, and of no use to anyone. Narky Blert (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Muslimanity[edit]

ئیسلام[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

Musliminity[edit]

Former Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island)[edit]

Nigerians in Uruguay[edit]

When is Christmas?[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete both per WP:NOTFAQ. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, not redirects. When Christmas is is a valid question and plausible search term, especially since it varies between traditions (e.g. Eastern Orthodox). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both per previous discussions on this sort of redirect and the scope of NOTFAQ (perhaps my heart has grown three sizes since the last discussion). The target answers the question posed by the redirect title, and does so in the first and second paragraphs of the lede as well as in the infobox, including the various different churches' varying interpretations of when exactly Christmas is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. As much as I have advocated for deletion of WP:NOTFAQ redirects in the past ... yeah, the question is answered in both the first sentence of the article and in the infobox, so ... question answered. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both Unless we should have a million other "when is X" redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 6#How old is Tom Cruise for example, it does answer the question, I never denied that it does not, but article space is not the Reference desk. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Tom Cruise's age is pedestrian, while the date of Christmas has been subject to centuries of academic/theological debate (see: Christmas#Date). These two redirects aren't comparable at all. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Why is Christmas?, What is Christmas?, Who is Christmas?. The possible list is endless. I suspect that I might be able to get answers to all such questions by the old-fashioned technique of entering Christmas into the search box. Narky Blert (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:COSTLY. This format has no more affinity for this recurring holiday than any other, especially as it has a fixed date. Even beyond that per Champion. WP:NOT applies to Wikipedia, unlike other policies that are specifically about the article namespace, making the rationale (i.e. WP:NOTFAQ) given by the nominator valid. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Holiday decorations[edit]

I'm inclined to retarget this to Christmas decoration but am hesitant to do so, because Christmas is not the only holiday for which people decorate things, or are decorated themselves. However, I couldn't find anything better at the DAB at decoration. (Incidentally, holiday decoration is red.) Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague WP:XY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per nom. There are an awful lot of holidays which are not Christmas for which there are traditional decorations, although this seems to be the only one for which we have a separate article. If there were others then perhaps we could turn this into a set index, but I haven't been able to find any by very quickly searching. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. From Holiday:

    The word holiday has differing connotations in different regions. In the United States the word is used exclusively to refer to the nationally, religiously or culturally observed day(s) of rest or celebration, or the events themselves, whereas in the U.K. and other Commonwealth nations, the word may refer to the period of time where leave from one’s duties has been agreed, and is used as a synonym to the US preferred vacation.

(emphasis added). I'd go further: in UK "holiday" without qualification means "vacation" (a U.S. word, which as a Brit I understand but do not use), to be distinguished from e.g. "Christmas holiday" and "bank holiday". Narky Blert (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

`Id-ul-milad[edit]

Delete both WP:RFOREIGN as not mentioned at target. (Neither "Eid" or "'Id" appear at the target at all.) Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled Qatari general election, 2013[edit]

Pretty sure that the next Qatar election isn't happening in 2013 since it's now 2016, nor is a canceled election in 2013 going to be the next election. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, the target covers precisely the 2013 cancelled elections. – Uanfala (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this to Cancelled Qatari general election, 2013 and having it focus on the cancelled event. The next one can be redlinked until details are provided heading into 2019. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That suggestion was rejected in an RM on the article's talk page. Number 57 15:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It was rejected because it was in a postponed status at the time of the RM which was 2014 and it was questioned whether the article should even exist (possible AFD?). That it has been several years since the postponement with no new election scheduled is just opening the article to WP:CRYSTAL. Renaming to Cancelled Qatari general election, 2013 would keep it as a stub but complete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the first one and the last two, since the target does deal with how the 2013 Qatari election was delayed. Delete the others for being implausible searches. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete indefinitly as implausible typo. If someone's looking for the election they would not be struggling with the spelling of that word, but rather focus on Qatar/Qatari or cancelled/canceled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC) updated 16:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep first one and last two per Patar knight, delete the others. The general election scheduled in Qatar for 2013 is still going to happen (it's still the same election) but it was postponed to 2016, then postponed again to 2019; the target is the article which discusses this election and its postponements. We do not have and are not likely to ever have a separate article for this bit of procedural wrangling, it's all part of the same event. "Cancelled" is incorrect but it is a plausible error (whether you think it should be "canceled" or whether you rightly observe that the election was not cancel[l]ed but postponed). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Also note that these could all go to G5 speedy deletion: they're all redirects left from a sockpuppet's undiscussed page moves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Mortal Instruments: City of Ashes (2014 film)[edit]

List of chocolate brands[edit]

Vague search term but the current target is not appropriate, I reckon just delete, we have List of bean-to-bar chocolate manufacturers, List of chocolate bar brands etc but all are less general to be retargeted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of chocolate bar brands. Searcher is most likely looking for brands that have chocolate, and there's a small section for non-bar brands like M&M's and links to other lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

White cake[edit]

This can refer to a lot of things, the term is not mentioned. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Note no other colors like "yellow cake" or "brown cake" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There's yellowcake, but it might not be a good idea to eat that "cake". --Lenticel (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and tag {{R with possibilities}}. I'm sure that "white cake" is a specific variety of cake (much like how angel cake is a specific variety of cake) but I can't find any info on it at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. White cake is a specific kind of cake with particular flavor. It need not necessarily even be white in color. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is the specific cake is not mentioned in the article and thus won't help a reader. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Christmas Stories[edit]

I don't see the need for a dab here, but this clearly misleads the reader. We have A Christmas Story (disambiguation) but I don't see that as any help for they could be looking for anything. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Christmas theme[edit]

More obscure, unlikely, vague, alien, Neelix-esque, Neelixish terms, Christmas-themed what? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Can I take a second to point out the irony of using made-up words like "Neelix-esque" and "Neelixish"? The Neelix redirects have largely been taken care of, I don't see why we need to continue the hysteria surrounding his name. It's especially problematic if a non-regular of RfD comes in here, they might think we're speaking an alien language. More to the point, our article on Christmas traditions might be "close enough" for at least one or two of these. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: It was I who started this business, and I can't think of a better way to call redirects by this. Perhaps Neelix already has a certain degree of bad reputation attached to his name, I see where you're coming from, but I only mean this lightheartedly. There is already quite a lot of alien tongue spoken at RfD (FORRED, etc). I have had to explain RFOREIGN a couple of times already, I reaffirm I am only using those terms lightheartedly, now I'm beginning to wonder what are we to do should Neelix begin editing again soon. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 20:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Its all in good nature, the last bit I included solely for the wordplay (Neelix is a character in Star Trek, and I linked to Klingon). Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @Tavix:Yes, yes, I remember now, Legacypac nominated the article for deletion and it was closed a couple of days later for it was found out that the nomination had to do with the case of the redirects, I don't know if the nomination was tongue-in-cheek or not, but a valid deletion argument wwwas presented, so maybe just coincidence. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also common word Christmas that doesn't really need a link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurisumasu[edit]

No special affinity to these languages. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Islamity[edit]

More pseudo-Neelix terms. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete not dictionary or slang. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Húkur[edit]

Hatcher Pass, Alaska[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

Act dischairging the Yule vacance[edit]

This is a duplicate of Act dischargeing the Yule vacance. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep this is how it is spelled in the old text for the first one in 1640. [32] although the spelling should be noted on the target article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - alternative titles/spellings are absolutely a good use for redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Keep - this is not a "duplicate", it is the correct original spelling from the actual legislation.Mais oui! (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep' per above. Original titles should be kept. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

스트래스필드[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Nominating for deletion per WP:FORRED. The target article talks about the large immigrant population, but it's certainly not all Korean. Yet this is the only foreign-language redirect to the article. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

의식동원[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

I suspect this is WP:FORRED, because nothing in the target article mentions anything about Korean practices or affinities. Plus, Google Translate tells me that "의식동원" means "conscious mobilization" in English. So I have no idea if this is an acceptable redirect or not. — Gorthian (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The first lady of the world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23

ㅋㅋㅋ[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Not mentioned in the target. Leet has no special affinity for Korean, either, making this a WP:FORRED case. (As I understand it, "kekeke" is a transliteration of the Korean, and is basically the same as English's "hahaha".) Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • De-leet as above. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, good grief, Si, I wasn't even finished with the nominations yet. Do you want to include the other two as well, now they're listed? — Gorthian (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. Yeah, delete those too. There are about 150 redirects to Leet, many of them in Leetspeak. I am not sure that we should have all of those, really, but I can't be bothered to argue each individually. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep [Retarget per Travix (below)] "kekeke" is a leet-spek term, and it is Korean, therefore FORRED does not apply. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Retarget ㅋㅋㅋ to LOL where it is described. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete ㅋㅋㅋ, Delete all this isn't a dictionary for Korean leet speak. Are we to make redirects for the thousands of emojis people make up? WP:NOTDICT No description of this particular version at the target page either so this doesn't give any useful information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. We have information on this at the proposed target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ghair muqallideen[edit]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (nor at its previous target, Non-denominational Muslim). Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Ahl-i Hadith. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Taqlid. Literally translated, it means non-taqlidist and could refer to a variety of such Islamic movements. --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

어둠의 왼손[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

This book has been translated into dozens of languages. There used to be a list of the translations in the article but, on the way to FA status, the decision was made to delete that section. This is the only foreign-language redirect to the article and, since the book has no special meaning or affinity for Korean, it should be deleted per WP:FORRED. — Gorthian (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep
    • Bad practice to relist something closed as no-consensus a few days ago. [Closed as "Trainwreck".]
    • It's a redirect, it has existed for some time, it does no harm. The guideline WP:R#HARMFUL says we should not delete.
    • It's useful for someone who has the title, and wants to know more about the book.
    • It's not a "vocabulary translation" like "dog" or "cat".
    • FORRED is an essay - the opinion of some editors, with which other editors disagree.
    • The fact that other translations don't have redirects is irrelevant - an "other stuff doesn't exist" argument by which the whole of Wikipedia would vanish.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Hi, I'm the one who closed the previous discussion. If you actually read my closing statement, I specifically encouraged an individual discussion of these redirects. Think of it as an unbundled relist. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, as far as it goes. The waste of time involved in debating obviously non-harmful and non-new redirects is appalling though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
Tavix@} actually seems to be the third listing for this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. No affinity to that language. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note was in the target at the time of creation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Delete not related to Korean. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Muslimites[edit]

Delete all. These combinations were all created on the same day, 5 September 2014, by the same user, User:Digaarsemn, whose only contributions to Wikipedia were redirects created on that day, except for one edit to Jewellery made on the day before. Some are reasonable, e.g. Muslimist is a reasonable alternative to Islamist, but these ones I think are rather stretching it. We don't have churchgoer, for example, so if we can manage without that, I think we can manage without mosquegoer. Si Trew (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll split them out if you want, it's always a bit subjective to know when to group these things. I did indeed split out some others, but felt these were safe to take together. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all None of these seem to be common terms, especially the first two seem to be valid foriegn terms but not used in English. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the above. See also Muslim#Lexicology for the reasons and references. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC).

Sunniness[edit]

  • Weak retarget to Sunlight. According to Wiktionary, sunniness is the property of being sunny. But, sunny is a DAB; sunshine -> sunlight, which does not once say anything is sunny. So it might be better off deleted. Si Trew (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, but this really should go to sunny if anywhere. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that (were it retargeted)... the DAB at sunny] doesn't really have any entries beyond sunlight that could be referred to as having sunniness. Si Trew (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to sunlight per User:Si Trew. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Retarget per above, but hatnote to current target, since it is a valid term to refer to the quality of being related to Sunni Islam. [33], [34]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per the above while noting that I wouldn't object to adding a note as well CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

African Negro[edit]

Several Neelix redirects that I am very unsure of the correct outcome for.

  1. Black-African --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  2. Black-Africans --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  3. African-Negro --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  4. African Negro --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  5. African-Negroes --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  6. African Negroes --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  7. African-Negros --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  8. African Negros --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  9. Negro African --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  10. Negro-African --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  11. Negro Africans --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  12. Negro-Africans --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  13. African blacks --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)
  14. African black --> Black people (edit | history | delete | links)

Tazerdadog (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Negro-African, is very, is much a, real term that gets widely used, so it should go to the most relevant page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=751133788"