Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
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:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply in some cases.)
  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 criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for 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 closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent 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]

February 4[edit]

The Story of Dr. Seuss (film)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's no mention of such a film, and I can't even find anything in development on IMDb. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rosaline (film)[edit]

Rosaline is a Shakespearean character, not a film. Someone searching for a film by this name won't be helped by the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Schallplatten[edit]

Democrat Party (United States)[edit]

Since the consensus last decided on 18 Feburary 2007 (nearly ten years ago) to redirect the page to Democratic Party, a dabpage, there have been attempts to change the redirect page's target to "Democratic Party (United States)". The page has been switched back and forth a few or several times. As of now, it redirects to "Democratic Party (United States)" without official discussion. I would have switched the page back to the dabpage, but my common sense tells me to have the discussion first before doing so. Shall we follow the consensus from 2007, retain "Democratic Party (United States)" as the present target, or redirect the page to another target? George Ho (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The current target (the Democratic Party disambig) might have been chosen in the mistaken belief that the US party is the primary topic, but I don't believe it has ever been. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is tagged as a misspelling, and there are currently five links flagged for correction at the Linked misspellings list. The rationale for redirect to dab is that between Democrat Party (epithet) (which is a "correct" spelling), and Democratic Party (United States), there is no primary topic for the 'misspelling'. I don't mind redirecting to the disambiguation, and making Democratic Party (United States) the primary topic is fine with me too; the only option I object to (strongly) is making the epithet primary. Though I understand that some right-wing POV warriors might support that. wbm1058 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THEMOREUSELESSCRAPTHEREISATTHETOPOFAPAGETHELESSLIKELYITISTHATANYONEWILLREADANYOFIT[edit]

Delete. This has never been linked to, and it's not used as a shortcut for obvious reasons. I rather strongly object to useful talk page templates being called "useless crap", and I object to opinionated "shortcut" links being used to pages that aren't essays. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Note. It is not correct to say this has never been linked to - we have know way of knowing this. It is possible and (in this case correct) to say that it is not currently linked from any page on the English Wikipedia. Links from other places, including historical revisions and edit summaries are not found by whatlinkshere. Also, there is a bug in the pageviews API and/or the stats tool that means we cannot currently see how many page views this receives. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management – a division of Pembroke Management[edit]

Delete. Implausible redirect left behind by a page move in 2010, so it doesn't qualify as "recently created" for WP:CSD#R3. Pageview tool shows only 13 hits since July 2015. Anomie⚔ 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Inner South London Line RDT[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 13#Inner South London Line. Naming invented by an editor; redirect unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I originally moved the template from this name, so please G7 the page if that's possible. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • G7 is not applicable as you are not the only author of the page prior to the move. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Presidential children[edit]

Presidents exist outside the US. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bush did Harambe[edit]

Ronnie Reagan[edit]

Retarget to Ron Reagan, perhaps, I could not see prevailing usage of either of these terms to refer to either, but not sure which of the two they are more likely to refer to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

February 3[edit]

Elizabeth Hourihane[edit]

Nonexistent section. This individual sued Irish Water, but I suspect someone familiar with her already knows this, so the redirect is unlikely to be useful. If it's kept, it may be better pointed at Direct Democracy Ireland#National Citizens Movement, since it's not uncommon to redirect non-notable people to notable organizations they found. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fusion (music)[edit]

Musical fusion is not limited to jazz. I had forgotten, but this actually came up at AfD a few years back, and yours truly closed the discussion as delete. BDD (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added Fusion music to this nomination. This currently targets Category:Fusion music genres, which in my opinion isn't a bad target. but I think the two should be discussed together. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In colloquial speech, "fusion music" certainly is not limited to jazz. This is one of the reasons I instinctively felt it weird that it would redirect to that topic. I know nothing beyond that; I'm not a musicologist or well studied in that area by any means. Wolfdog (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are two questions to consider. First, if "fusion music" or "fusion (music)" are susceptible to multiple meanings, is there still a primary topic among them. Second, if there are multiple meanings without one of those meanings being a primary topic, are we missing a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the more general meaning of "fusion" in music? bd2412 T 15:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think there's a primary topic. The article I deleted was argued to be full of OR and V violations, rather than the topic itself being non-notable (at least that was my reading as closer), so starting again is an option. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wanted to read an article about Fusion (music) today and was pretty surprised when Wikipedia wanted to redirect med to Jazz fusion. I think it would be better to redirect to Category:Fusion music genres. Otherwise we risk people believing that fusion is limited to jazz when it comes to music. //Sofie Sigrinn (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian Harmon[edit]

REVERT to version 258062515. This article was first redirected to a redlink, then the redirect was "repaired" to point to an article about a completely different person. If the original article doesn't pass notoriety criteria, perhaps the article should be deleted; either way, the redirect should not be in place, as there are actual Brian Harmons in the world, including a published author. Morfusmax (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Do not revert. The last article revision at this title, from 23 December 2008 was nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of Brian Michael Harmon, which at that time was at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Brian Harmon) but deleted 3 days later. The version at this title is identical to the version that was deleted, except that it has fewer references, and so would be speedy deletable under criterion WP:CSD#G4 as a repost. I will happily provide the content of the deleted article to anyone who wants to write a draft about this person, but that draft will have to show that he is more notable now that in December 2008 to survive as an article (I have not looked and so have no opinion whether they are or not). In the mean time, this redirect is clearly plausible as a {{R from misspelling}} but whether that is better or worse than a redlink I'm not presently sure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

46 DC EA D3[edit]

Fairly obscure redirect. Pretty sure this has something to do with the private key, but since I'm not sure I don't want to speedy it out of process. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment, the description at File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg, the lead image for the article, makes it clear that this is indeed the start of the private key. If the key were present in the article, then I would have no hesitation in keeping the redirect (I just found the AACS encryption key controversy article via the 09 F9 redirect for example) but as it isn't I'm not sure. Given that there has been no discussion on the talk page about including the key or not, and we publish it in the file description and also include the key at the AACS controversy article, I'm tempted to just add it but I would prefer to see other opinions first. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Communist era[edit]

Potentially ambiguous, as an entity is not given. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambig. This is a plausible search term for articles like Socialist Republic of Romania, History of Poland (1945–89), People's Republic of Hungary, History of Czechoslovakia (1948–89), People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and others. List of socialist states#Marxist-Leninst sort of fills the role but doesn't have any introduction to explain the ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no such era, and I'm not finding any subjects listed at List of time periods that could be referred to specifically as "communist era". There could potentially be an article created at this title to describe the term (WP:BROADCONCEPT), but since there seems to be no subjects that are specifically called "communist era", a disambiguation page at this title could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Many countries have had a communist era, for example all the ones I listed above, even though the article does not use that title. Template:History of Bulgaria, Template:History of Czechoslovakia, etc. use the term, Communist era of Czechoslovakia exists as a redirect, History of Hungary has a section using the synonym "Communist period", etc. This redirect got 519 views in 2016 so it's obviously something people are searching for, and search results are not helpful, finding mostly articles about communist parties rather than periods of history. This is a classic case where disambiguation is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and my own opinions, your idea wouldn't be a disambiguation page since the articles you have mentioned this far are not title matches or synonymous with the phrase "communist era". I get what you are trying to point out, but this is more of a case where a WP:BROADCONCEPT article is needed. And if it can't be created at this time, best help readers find what they are looking for through Wikipedia's page search function. Also, Communist period doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that Wikipedia's search function will not help users find the article(s) they are looking for, and there is not really a lot that can be said in general other than that many countries which are or were formerly communist describe that period of their history as the "communist era" or "communist period" in relation to events, policies, architecture, societal attitudes, etc. This is exactly the same as how phrases like Victorian era, Reconstruction Era, Plantation era, etc, just that they happen to have been chosen as the names of articles. It is an artefact of our article titling conventions that we seem use dates or the formal name of the country to name these articles rather than descriptive phrases, that doesn't make the term "communist era" any less likely a search term or any less ambiguous. So what we need to do is decide whether the WP:DISAMBIG guideline or what's best for our readers should take precedence - for me there is no question that it should be the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf laid out a good argument why an article on the topic should exist, but this is not a case where "communist era" is a ambiguous term that needs disambiguation between multiple articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't see any scope for an article here as there is nothing to say beyond what is at the first paragraph of era#Colloquial use but using "Communist era" as the example rather than "Elizabethan era", followed by a list of periods in the history various countries that are referred to in this way. If the articles were named "Communist era of <country>" rather than "History of <country> (dates)" or "<official name used during communist era of country>" there would be no question about this being a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Even if the articles were named "Communist era of ...." they would all be partial title matches and so, at least in the standard model of dab physics, a dab page wouldn't be warranted. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
        • This is an example of where IAR should be used - the purpose of disambiguation pages is to assist users in finding the article they are looking for when they use an ambiguous search term. "Communist era" is an ambiguous search term that people are using, so we should have a page (call it a "set index" and move it to "List of communist eras" if you prefer but the outcome is the same) that lists the articles that they could be looking for. In most cases partial title matches make poor entries on disambiguation pages, but not in every case - for example when the articles use natural disambiguation or where alternative titles are used to avoid an ambiguous name by which the subject is also known. The point is that this is an occasion where following the guidelines that work in most cases will actually make things worse for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to set index - Periods of communist regimes belong to the "communist era". "Dabify" would be possible, but the terms are too related. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you know (disambiguation)[edit]

I propose that this be retargetted to Did you know when the disambiguation page at that title is almost certainly restored (see #Did you know below), see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 4#Did you know when Did you know was changed from a redirect to DYK to a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Biggest house[edit]

WP:NOTTRIVIA. That, and describing the target as a "house" may be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Biggest ikan bilis[edit]

Doesn't seem helpful due to the use of the word "biggest". Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, without even getting to the question of the title including the word "biggest". Largoplazo (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Israelo-russe[edit]

No reason to have this alias in French for a page about Russian Jews in Israel. The original article was a dictionary definition. Largoplazo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this is speedy deletable under WP:R3, since the language is not pertinent to the topic. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • It was created as an article and redirected by another user, so R3 would not be within the spirit of the rules. The original article was a one-sentence dictionary definition, which roughly translates as "a person with Israeli and Russian nationality", it doesn't duplicate any existing articles (the closest is probably Israel–Russia relations#Expatriate communities) nor can I find anything at fr.wp (although my French is limited) and there isn't an entry by this name (in either language) in either the English or French Wiktionaries, so it doesn't seem to meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • The article incarnation would have been speedy deletable under WP:A3. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
        • A3 explicitly excludes non-English content, and I would not speedy delete it if it were in English as it is a definition of the title not a rephrasing of it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Clarification: A3 notes that content in another language is still content. In this case, yes, A3 wasn't applicable because it would have been inapplicable even if the text had been in English. But being in another language doesn't exempt an article from A3 in cases where A3 would have been valid if the same text had been in English. Largoplazo (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Revert redirect and transwiki to fr.wiktionary. We certainly don't need an article or redirect at this title, nor would this really help start an article in English (I don't know whether we need one, but I have my doubts), but as a coherent French dictionary definition it seems worthwhile offering to that project for them to do as they wish with it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The definition of "israélo-russe" is not idiomatic and is therefore unlikely to be included in Wiktionary; see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity. Moreover, israélo-russe (note that the title is even spelled incorrectly) does not only apply to people, as "Personne qui est de nationalité israélienne et russe" conveys, but can indicate anything both Israeli and Russian. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
      • That is the criteria for inclusion in the English Wiktionary, who would not want to receive a definition written in French. I am proposing to transwiki this to the French Wiktionary, it may or may not meet their inclusion criteria but we should let the editors there decide that. There is no requirement to accept a transwiki, it's more a request to consider something that was posted to the wrong project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Whatever the French inclusion criteria may be (I assume they are pretty much the same), the entry as written would still be incorrect spelling- and definition-wise. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
          • I can't comment about the spelling of the entry (but this can be tidied up by a French speaker if necessary), but based on google translate and my limited French the definition is correct. I don't think it is correct for the English Wikipedia to determine whether a dictionary definition of a French term written in French meets or does not meet the inclusion criteria for the French Wiktionary - especially when we don't actually know those criteria are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

United States Executive Order 1[edit]

See Executive order#History and use. "Executive Order 1" would simply be the first executive order issued by George Washington. However, they don't seem to be officially numbered until Herbert Hoover's presidency, so the Emancipation Proclamation doesn't actually have an official number (that I'm aware of). -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Executive order#History and use. As orders are numbered it is very plausible that someone will use this search term to find what the first one was, the history section of the article about them explains why it isn't really known what the first one was. We do have a List of United States federal executive orders but the earliest entry in that list is from 1836, 40 years after George Washington (who issued the first 8) left office, so I think it's a less useful target. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I would oppose this suggestion. There isn't even any mention of a first executive order there, so whatever information someone would be looking for is not at that target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed that by adding a sentence about what the Washinton Times calls the first [4]. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It still wouldn't be called "United States Executive Order 1", so I'm still wary about a retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support retargeting to Executive order#History and use. The numbering system was set up by the State Department in 1907, and they deliberately numbered executive orders retroactively back to the Lincoln Administration, and no further back.[5][6]. However, Executive Order 1 was not the Emancipation Proclamation. See here. Executive Order 1 was issued October 20, 1862: "provisional court established to function during the military occupation of Louisiana; Charles A. Peabody appointed judge and compensation of officers specified". I have edited the Wikipedia article about executive orders accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is a perfect example of what makes Wikipedia great. I wanted to know about something and was disappointed when I couldn't find it, even making incorrect assumptions based on what I did find. Other people come through and fill in the gaps, and I learned what I wanted to learn in the process. Thanks, both of you, for your work in making this happen. I withdraw my objections to a retarget and am now satisfied that someone in the future won't have a confused moment like I did when trying to figure this out. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. But I didn't mean to give you a rosy view of Wikipedia. There are BIG and PERSISTENT problems here, alas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rock anthem[edit]

Redirect not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Arena rock per AngusWOOF. "Anthem rock" is also mentioned as a synonym there. Google search results are flooded with hits for Party Rock Anthem, but I don't think that partial title match is a good target, because I don't think it is referred to without "party". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might be misunderstanding something, and if that is the case please let me know, but a "rock anthem" is a kind of anthem, while "anthem rock" is a kind of rock and I can't see how one should ever be redirected to the other. – Uanfala (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Resignation of Richard Nixon[edit]

Recommend retarget, all to SP 3-125: Presidential Address Announcing His Intention to Resign the Oval Office. --Nevé–selbert 17:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I shall have to oppose such a move. The topic is the resignation itself (which occurred just before Noon EST on August 9, 1974), not the resignation announcement/address which occurred in the evening of August 8, 1974. There's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) *Keep. The current target (actually the "Final investigations and resignation" section of Watergate scandal) gives lots more background information about the resignation than the article about the speech, which is essentially just the final part of a long process. The speech article is linked from the present target so users actually wanting that can easily find it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The above comment was left when there was only the first redirect listed here. Looking at the others, those redirects specifically referring to the speech should be retargetted per the nominator, the others should be kept as is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget redirects 2 and 4 only. Leave the others as they are. A user looking for the speech would only conceivably use 2 and 4. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Per Millionsandbillions, retarget just "speech" redirects to "SP-3125". Other possible targets are Presidency of Richard Nixon#Nixon resigns and Richard Nixon#Resignation, but the articles are brief overviews(?) or something like that. Neutral on the rest for now. George Ho (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget redirects 2 and 4 only. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with editors above that the "speech" redirects, 2 and 4, should be retargeted. And I think all the others should be kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my nomination while agreeing with editors about retargeting the redirects 2 and 4.--Nevé–selbert 18:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members[edit]

Unnecessary redundancy, unlikely search term, these are not "outline" articles which redirects of these sort may be plausible for, or lists of articles that are something other than Wikipedia articles, it's hard to imagine why a reader may search for anything other than "List of X". (I seem to remember we've had at least one previous discussion involving redirects in the format "List of people named XY".) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It appears that this nominating process was done completely backwards, with discussions being created and noifications sent out first, and the nominations being bundled together into a single discussion later. Pretty sure that's going to break some stuff, but here we are. (You may need to fix links in pretty much every notification you sent out so that users wind up in the right place) The upshot is that my remark is now compleely out of context as it was a reply to what was, at the time, a single nomination. [7] So, for the record, my comment is in reference only to List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom and I have not reviewed and have no opinion on the merits of all the other redirects. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Kind of hard to respond to a nomination with no rationale attached, but for what it's worth: this is a leftover from a page move I did like six years ago. I can't say I recall exactly what was in my mind at the time or have thought about this a single time since then but I would assume I left it because it has a fair number of incoming links and is a possible search term. So, assuming what is being asked for here si deletion, I don't see any benefit in doing so, so Keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • FYI, here is the discussion I was referring to in the nom. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep most. This isn't the usual way we title list articles, but in most cases here, it's accurate. List of wikis is a pure list of articles, and most of the others list entities which already have their own articles or we can reasonably expect to someday. Delete the New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador ones, though. Their target articles, about political parties, have partial lists of members, but nothing that purports to be comprehensive, and so the "List of articles about" format seems misleading for them. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NAVELGAZING. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Zenti-[edit]

No indication on the target page that this spelling is ever used. PamD 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Tom Lamb[edit]

Jaiswal Brahmin[edit]

There is no indication that the Jaiswal have anything to do with the Kanyakubja, except perhaps for them being one of hundreds of Brahmin communities.

The redirect did at one time make the claim of a connection but it was never reliably sourced. Sitush (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esta página está protegida[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This isn't the Spanish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you know[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

error redirect Shizhao (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Revert Did You Know to disambiguation page and retarget there. I'm adding that to the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC
  • Trout Pppery for reverting a disambiguation page set up via consensus at RfD twice now. -- Tavix (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Revert and trout per Uanfala and Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It makes no sense to me to have a disambiguation page containing only one topic that has more than a sentence of coverage. As far as I can tell, the only information at all about the single is "In 2016, DJ Pauly D released a single called "Did You Know" with Tdot illdude.", whereas there is a whole section about the advertising campaign. What in the world does the nominating rationale of "error redirect" mean. Pppery 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • You may wish to read the linked previous discussions. In addition to the advertising campaign there are other topics with very similar names that are likely to be searched for using this string, including Wikipedia:Did you know? so there is no clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, Pppery you were the nominator of this redirect in August last year so you should have been aware of it. Meaning it's rather troubling that you unileraterraly decided to disregard that consensus with discussion 8 months later. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2[edit]

Democratic Elections- Some Prerequisites for Fairness[edit]

No such book title etc. A search only returns Wikipedia mirrors. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Black hole FAQ[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and not a notable book. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Black hole FAQ
You do lack
A reason to retain
Black hole FAQ
You do lack
You do lack (You do lack)
(Delete, with apologies to Chris Cornell) - Eureka Lott 06:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Apache (computer game)[edit]

Apparently the target article (Team17) does not list a game titled "Apache". Either retarget or delete. Lordtobi (✉) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Loudest man-made sound on Earth[edit]

The target does nothing to verify if this is true or not. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I am very surprised that we don't have a List of loudest sounds article, particularly given a search on the Guiness Book of Records finds at least 30 different "loudest" records, although there is no single record really equivalent to this search therm. I'm equally surprise that none of the obviously related articles such as decibel or loudness give any examples of things of varying typical volumes. I recall seeing such comparison diagrams in books I had as a kid, so it's clearly something that people will be interested in and something we should probably have if it can be sourced. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Acoustics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production as they're likely to have some relevant ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I think this is the table you're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed, now how to make that more easily found! Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Further comment, while searching related to the redirect below I've found the following statements:
    • Mines on the first day of the Somme - the sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history.
      • Lochnagar mine - "The sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history up to that point, with reports suggesting it was heard in London. They would be surpassed a year later by the mines in the Battle of Messines."
    • Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) "The sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history
    • Pickett's Charge - "It may well have been the loudest man-made sound on the North American continent until the detonation of the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico." [appears only in a footnote as a quote from a source used to reference a different claim]
    • Rocket engine test facility - "The sound pressure level of large rocket engines has been measured at greater than 200 decibels — one of the loudest man-made sounds on earth." [unsourced]
    • Cwm y Glo - "The explosion was at the time believed to be the loudest manmade explosion ever".
  • Loudest band has an article, with the highest figure mentioned there being 139dB. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This NASA document about notes that "the largest sound power levels ever experienced at NASA Stennis was approximately 204dB, which corresponded to the Saturn S‐IC stage on the B‐2 test stand." but this is not mentioned in our article about the Saturn V. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as this could be expanded into an article. Laurdecl talk 06:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete should be expanded into an article. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plausible topic for an article, but it is not mentioned at the current target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Loudest Man in History[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

This was created as a joke redirect to Billy Mays. The current target is problematic as well, as it doesn't say who the "loudest man in history" is. Either way, I doubt it's plausibility as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I actually think this is a plausible search term, but the closest thing to a suitable target we have that I can find is Alan Myatt who holds the world record for the loudest cry by a town crier (112.8dB). However, a search for "Loudest" on the Guinness Book of Records website finds three record holders who have produced louder sounds Jill Drake (Loudest Scream, individual - 129dB)[8], Luca Zocchi (Loudest whistle - 125dB)[9] and Alpaslan Durmuş (Loudest vocal bass note - 117dB)[10]. We don't have articles on any of these people, and at I think it unlikely they are notable. Dan Harris (coach) (article currently at AfD) has a sourced statement that he has been called "the loudest man on the planet", but that's not measured. Given the lack of a good target, I'm left with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one, screaming isn't the loudest thing a person can do. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 10:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting purely on technical grounds because of the excessive size of the logs currently transcluded on the main page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Loudest noise in recorded history[edit]

Where should this point? Most sources say that the loudest sound ever was the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, including our article, however some sources do say it was the Tunguska event. The loudness of the latter is not mentioned in our article. Based on the preponderance of sources I'd suggest retargetting to the eruption but I wouldn't be opposed to a page that discusses the issue of loudest sounds if one is created (see also #Loudest man-made sound on Earth). Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm thinking this should point to a "list of loudest noises" or related article. I'm wary of it redirecting to a single event since the answer is not definitive. Deletion might help that list get created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Epithelial cell[edit]

Per its edit history, it doesn't look like it was created in error. However, Epithelial cell already existed for about 8 years before this nominated redirect was created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Jordan[edit]

Figure that it's time to discuss this: See Talk:Mike Jordan (racing driver)#Requested move 24 May 2015. Should this redirect target Michael Jordan (disambiguation) ("Keep") or Michael Jordan? Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as with Mike Jackson and Ron Reagan. Even though Michael Jordan has the "Be Like Mike" campaign slogan, he has not gone by Mike Jordan in the preponderance of his news articles and books. His coverage under the name Mike Jordan would be comparable to the others on the dab page. Although he did go by Mike Jordan in college, the question then becomes whether his notability as Mike Jordan in college would be enough to claim primary topic of that version of the name. [11] [12] And having gone by Michael Jordan, the others listed have likely changed to Mike Jordan or added middle names/initials to distinguish themselves. The searcher for Mike Jordan would best be served going to that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Extra embryos[edit]

For one, the word "extra" is nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Better to redirect to In_vitro_fertilisation#Leftover_embryos_or_eggs. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplemental angle[edit]

Probably not a likely {{R from incorrect name}}. 0 views in the last 30 days. Steel1943 (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as used in some book searches concerning surveying, astrology, and AutoCAD. But the tag about incorrect name can stay or be converted to an alternative name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary question[edit]

The use of the redirect in the target article (it is mentioned a few times) makes the term not an official alternative name or subtopic of the target article. In fact, whenever the term "supplementary question" is used in the target article, the phrase could be replaced with "additional question" and the meaning would be the same. With that being said, unless the term in the redirect can be defined, the redirect is vague and is not exclusive to any part of its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Question time as more general, covering use of supplementary questions in multiple countries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Supplementary question has a specific meaning in the UK Prime Ministers Question's, namely that while the initial question must be provided in advance, the supplementary is not and need not be about the same topic - thus requiring the Prime Minister to provide an answer "off the cuff". Thus supplementary questions are a major tactic for HM Opposition to try to embarrass HM Government and contain the real substance while the initial question will often be something innocuous. I'm not sure if other Parliaments follow this scheme. Pretzelpaws (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary oxygen[edit]

The term of the redirect isn't mentioned in its target section or even in the section's entire parent article. Otherwise, the redirect could refer to any other "supplemental oxygen" source as that is not exclusive to oxygen masks. Steel1943 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Breathing gas as more general topic about adding oxygen to a gas mixture for various uses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • retarget to Oxygen therapy which is also referred to as "supplemental oxygen". Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary staffing[edit]

Per its target article, it seems as though this redirect could vaguely describe the subject, but it's apparently not an official term for the target subject. If it is not an official term, the redirect is ambiguous considering that its target is mainly exclusive to Australia. Steel1943 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the term "supplementary staffing" is a well-known and well-used term for "labour hire" - examples (excluding the Wikipedia one) are easily found: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?q=%22supplementary+staffing%22 - you will note this includes references in the US, Scotland, and other countries as well as Australia. Given I made the page 10 years ago and there has not been any suggestion of ambiguity by any other visitor or editor I think the relationship to "labour hire" is fairly evident. I would suggest it is to Wikipedia's loss if you choose to delete this page simply because a person unfamiliar with the topic stumbled across it. I'm not sure what objective research has been applied in the comment "apparently not an official term" - as per the Google search, it is a well-known term in the industry and among companies who use such services. Davidmwilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the page stats show people are visiting it / searching for this term. It is an erroneous (and time-consuming) assumption to state this page should be deleted because the term is not known to you. I trust this is now settled and I can undo your flagging of the page? Davidmwilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep given that the labour hire article has a phrase in the lead saying mainly in Australia. And the google searches in Australia show use in news articles and books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete Supplemental/supplementary staffing seems to be a term-of-art in the medical business for a certain kind of nursing temp work; at least, that's what my searches show. The only quick hit linking it to the Australian practice appears to be a WP scrape. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplements and complementary and alternative medicine[edit]

Seems like classic WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The term exist and is used. A simple google search will lead you to a multitude of sourced using the term for this specific meaning. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC) 
  • All versions of the term I can find do not include the "Supplements and..." at the beginning. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the "sCAM" acronym as defined for example here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Supplementary budget[edit]

The redirect is not present in the target article, so the connection between the terms is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional customs duty[edit]

Unclear what "additional" refers to. Also, Customs duty also targets Tariff. Steel1943 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as with additional fees. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "additional" qualifier is unnecessary. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional extended coverage[edit]

Unclear what "additional" is supposed to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete like extra extra coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional information of Japanese industry[edit]

"Additional information" is vague. That, and "Japanese industry" isn't exclusive to the Shōwa period. Steel1943 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Do we really need more "Further reading" or "Additional information" searches? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional information about Nirvana (band)[edit]

"Additional information" is quite vague. In addition, even with that, the current target wouldn't be correct. Steel1943 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Do we really need more "Further reading" or "Additional information" searches? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and AngusWOOF. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional deviating definitions[edit]

It is unclear what this redirected meant to refer. At the present time, the redirect's target section doesn't exist, but either way, the redirect itself is quite vague. Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete does not seem to be a plausible search term, and if this is linked, it should not be. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional Dame of the Order of Australia[edit]

This phrase is not mentioned in the target article. For this reason, unless this term refers to a specific honorific title of some sort, the word "Additional" is vague and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other countries battleships[edit]

Unclear what "other countries" this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other Happy Tree Friends characters[edit]

Unclear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other black holes[edit]

The redirect is unclear on what black holes it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there's a classification of "other" in the black hole world? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other characters in Transformers: Animated[edit]

Unclear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete there might have been a bunch of lists that were merged, but now there are too many Others on the list for this to be useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of alternate history United States Presidents[edit]

Not clear if all of the fictional presidents on the redirect's target's page portrayed a United States president in an "alternate history" role, considering that "alternative history" is considered a sub-category of fiction. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as useful gathering point to find POTUS in fiction. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fictional president[edit]

Presidents aren't exclusive to the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Fictional Acting U.S. Presidents[edit]

No evidence that all examples of presidents in the redirect's target page portrayed "acting presidents" in their respective roles. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not a sub-listing presently available. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Garbage[edit]

These should both point to the section in the essay for they are synonyms, considering one is an obscure synonym for the target, I think the latter target is preferred. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other fictional United States Presidents[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

This redirect may have had a purpose redirecting where it does back during the previous RfD, but at this point, the redirect is a circular reference to itself since any "other" list is at its target, confusing readers who may be at the redirect's target, then try to find "other fictional presidents...". Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other fictional politicans[edit]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other media for 24[edit]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep it means everything besides the TV series which is precisely what the article covers. Had the article covered the entire franchise including the TV series home media, then it would not be a useful redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other royal and princely houses in the line of succession to the British throne[edit]

Unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other Norse sagas[edit]

It's not clear what "other" is meant to exclude, as implied by this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

---

It must have had an important purpose, once. At present, doesn't appear to link to anything notable.

dino (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I see a Saga#Other but not sure what that means for the titles that are placed there. Is "Other" a classification of a Norse Saga? I don't see this being useful. 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)

List of other MS Paint Adventures characters[edit]

Besides the vague use of the word "other", there doesn't even seem to be a list of characters at the target article, nor does it seem that such a list exists. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other South Park residents[edit]

The word "other" could also refer to other main characters, making this redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Latin name[edit]

disambiguate possibly not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the term Prisencolin (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • disambiguate? Not sure what else to include in a dab page besides Roman naming conventions. Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people). "Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name" and shouldn't be linked; scientific names aren't necessarily derived from Latin and those that are Latin derived wouldn't be recognized by somebody speaking classical Latin.
Having a dab page would resolve incoming links. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name"
That may well be, but that’s how it’s often used.
Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people).
Yes, but I think that’s due to sites listing baby names and their derivations. (It seems to me science pages are less likely to employ heavy-duty SEO.) Get past that first page; it quickly tilts in favour of plants, birds and bugs. —Wiki Wikardo 08:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or Retarget if a suitable target is found. While binomial nomenclature is latin, may things have latin names, and I don't think that is the primary topic of all that we cover that could go by this name.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • keep It's a common colloquialism, and nobody has presented a plausible other target, so there's nothing to disambiguate with. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I see Latin name as bolded in the lead paragraph, commonly used term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Politics of Taiwan[edit]

This nomination might risk a rehash of Taiwan vs. Republic of China. However, past discussions at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China, especially the failed recent RM that I created, prove how messy the political topic is. In 2005, the move request resulted in "no consensus" to change from "Politics of Taiwan" to "Politics of the Republic of China". However, the article was renamed without discussion, and the article changed over the years. Also, the Politics of RoC article has maintenance issues. Nevertheless, the recent RM says not to rename back to "Politics of Taiwan". Maintenance issues aside, majority says that the article should be always about the de facto government, Republic of China, which originally started as the mainland Chinese government. Rather than re-propose the same thing, I instead propose that the redirect be retargeted to History of Taiwan. That "History of" page has details about politics inside the Taiwan island and political and regime changes of the island. Some might say that the island has "no politics". However, the island has history, especially of politics, and the proposal is something that I can come up with. I know the proposal seems ridiculous, but I believe this would work okay. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, what about retargeting to Political status of Taiwan? George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • retarget to History of Taiwan at least until a new article is created in its place. There is political history of Taiwan that is unrelated to the ROC.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Added two more, Prisencolin. George Ho (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Issue here is with the target article's name. Start a RM if you disagree with where the target article should be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Patar knight, I did the RM in December 2016. The consensus opposed changing the target's name back to "Politics of Taiwan". George Ho (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Anyone searching for any of those three terms will almost always be looking for the information contained on Politics of the Republic of China. This proposal is ridiculous: it is a clear disservice to any interested readers who would be looking for information on politics and instead find themselves in a general history article. It would not "work okay". CMD (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No Opinion I have not studied the issue so I have not opinion but I am grateful for the notice. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If "redirecting to 'History of Taiwan'" is not good choice, how about converting to a set index article? Would that do? George Ho (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I made the draft in the sandbox for the proposed SIA. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)[edit]

Redirect is useless and potentially misleading because no such subway station exists, unlikely a plausible search term since there are no blueprints or maps for a potential station at Secaucus. Since the extension proposals were rejected, very unlikely a new station will be built there for the foreseeable future 173.3.76.153 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect's creator was not notified of this discussion. I'm doing so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as with those film article disambiguators whose proposed dates have past. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete but not because of the disambiguator. That is irrelevant. It is because there are no plans at all for this imaginary station. epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well there IS a Secaucus Junction station, just not for this particular subway line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I know that. The subway station is imaginary and exists only in some ambitious rail planner's head. epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Carter Proft[edit]

There's zero mention of a "Carter Proft" anywhere on Wikipedia. The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear. -- Tavix (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Completely aside from this being a implausible redirect, the subject being an obscure journeyman in the German minor-leagues, this is absolutely a WP:XY deal. What makes his playing for the Chiefs a more likely redirect target than, say, the Kassel Huskies, the team he's been playing for for three seasons, or any of the other amateur and professional teams for which he has played to date? Like a number of other hockey redirects recently XfDed, this is the creation of an editor who was community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count. Ravenswing 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Better to leave it a redlink so that when he does become notable per WP:NHOCKEY then he can have a page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Neopunk[edit]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. However, the nominated redirect is a {{R from history}} that was blanked and redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak Revert page as the term appears to be widely used Google. OTOH, WP:RSs are hard to find... — Iadmc♫talk  21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep there's a book that connects it to the pop punk bands like Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Bad Religion, which the article has lots of. [13] Other news articles show usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pop punk rock[edit]

Seems like a made-up term since per the article, the subject of the article seems to be a mix of Punk rock and Pop music. Either way, "punk pop rock" is not mentioned in the target article, and for that reason, these redirects could have a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not seeing "Pop punk rock" in Google searches and not in target article — Iadmc♫talk  21:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep not a likely search term but the logic is very simple, since "punk" is short "punk rock" then "pop punk" could be referred to "pop punk rock". Also this term is indirectly included in the article in the title of one of the sources.--MASHAUNIX 23:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at least they're looking for the pop punk music with this term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Easycore[edit]

The terms "easycore" and "easy core" are not present in the target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to hardcore punk or pop punk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

February 1[edit]

Alphington A.F.C.[edit]

Delete – per rationale #10: the redirects could plausibly be expanded into articles [if they passed WP:GNG], and the target articles contain virtually no information on the subject. These are non-notable football clubs being redirected to league articles which contain no information on those clubs, and will become outdated when these clubs are promoted or relegated. NB: the redirect Vospers Oak Villa F.C. was recently retargeted to another article; whether other editors would like to retarget these redirects somewhere, I don't know. Some might be possible, others not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mrs. Donald Trump[edit]

I created this redirect in November pointing to Melania Trump, it was subsequently retargeted by @Neve-selbert:. I understand it may be ambiguous, but surely Melania is the primary topic, to be frank, this can also refer to the wife of Donald Trump Jr. (whom we don't currently have an article about), if not retargeted back to the original target, I would prefer deletion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of other fictions by Éric Rohmer[edit]

Unclear what "other fictions" refers to, and the target page doesn't help clarify this either. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Documentary films by Eric Rohmer[edit]

The target article isn't exclusive to "Documentary films by Eric Rohmer". In fact, the target article doesn't have a grouped section to identify such a group. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. While his bio talks about these documentaries, it isn't clear which of these listed in the filmography fit the bill besides Percival, maybe. So redirecting to a generic list doesn't help the searcher. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Other launch games for the Atari 5200[edit]

Unclear what games this redirect is meant to exclude. Also, the target article is not clear on what the "launch games" are. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible article. Target article does not list which of the games are launch titles. It doesn't make sense to have an "other launch games" grouping. The game is either a launch game or it isn't. According to List_of_video_game_console_launch_games#Atari_5200 there are only four launch titles. So what would be the others? Also note no other articles or redirects for Other launch games for the (platform). I was thinking this may apply to consoles that have multiple launches corresponding to launches in other regions, or later console re-packagings. But given there is no data on any of that in either the Atari 5200 article or on the list, this is just speculative. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC) updated 01:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Hungarian Challenger[edit]

2017 Hungarian Open[edit]

WHB 2017 Hungarian Open[edit]

Felip Betendorf[edit]

Delete Not currently mentioned in the article. At the time redirect was created, he was mentioned in the article as the person who "introduced [it] to western civilization" ([17]). Portuguese Wikipedia has on what is apparently the same person, pt:João Felipe Bettendorff. No reason for a notable person to redirect to the article on a plant they're associated with, and no article on the person exists on en.wiki. Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep of course, I have restored the reference to the jesuit who introduced the fruit to Europe. I have no idea why the information was deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the fact that Felip Betendorf is now mentioned at the article. I also noticed that the Portuguese Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article about a person named João Felipe Bettendorff. Any chance "Felip Betendorf" is the same person as "João Felipe Bettendorff"? It looks like the "Felip Betendorf" version of the name can be traced to a French advertisement for guarana, which may have inadvertantly butchered the spelling of his name (see this book for more information about that advertisement). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems normal to redirect a NN person to a page with something useful to say about them. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ICEO[edit]

Re target to interim CEO, as it is an abbreviation of that. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 03:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Interim management would be the appropriate retarget for any of those business positions (Interim CEO, Interim CFO, Interim supervisor) as it explains putting in a "heavyweight executive". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Papercut pete[edit]

No mention of "papercut", "paper cut", or "Pete" at the target. The closest I could get was at The Adventures of Pete & Pete, where one of the Petes has an enemy named "Papercut" (or "Paper Cut"). But the phrase "Papercut Pete" occurs nowhere. — Gorthian (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This term does not appear in the target article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

T-Pain is Dead[edit]

Not mentioned anywhere in article space. Apparently, this was a potential name for one of his albums, but never produced under this title. Delete both. — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. This term does not appear in either of the target articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodham (film)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. The latest info I could find on this film, a year and a half ago, said that it was pretty much in limbo. We need to delete these non-informative redirects. If the film ever comes to be, we can deal with it then. — Gorthian (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort frolic[edit]

Fictional place barely mentioned in List of characters in the BioShock series and nowhere else that I can find. We don't have any info on it, so it needs to be deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort frolic.) — Gorthian (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Barely mentioned means it is there, it is a simple binary question, is it there or not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The article can be beefed up with this news article in PC Gamer, which states how it is the most memorable level in the game. [19] And here's another interview with the designer in Vice magazine [20] Also mentioned in multiple reviews for other games. [21] [22] [23] [24] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC) updated 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mlle Blanche de Glace[edit]

This character's name is "Mille Blanche de Glace", and she's mentioned at BioShock 2. But all of these redirects misspell her name in exactly the same (unlikely) way, leaving out the "i". I recommend deleting them. — Gorthian (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No variant where she goes by the typo name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

BioShock characters[edit]

129 character redirects
(section for editing convenience)[edit]

This list was originally about twice as long. I've redirected what I could to either List of characters in the BioShock series or BioShock 2. I cannot find appropriate targets for the remaining redirects. A few of the characters are mentioned in passing in other articles or are part of the voice actors' filmographies, but with no information about the characters. I propose deleting all. — Gorthian (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

William Pryor Supreme Court nomination[edit]

January 31[edit]

Jeff Ainsworth[edit]

Delete per various WP:HOCKEY precedents that these redirects are WP:XY. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 3#More NHL draft picks for details. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete All: Completely aside from these being implausible redirects, the subjects all being obscure journeymen minor-league and amateur players, this is absolutely an XY deal. Let's take McKenzie, for example: what makes his playing for a team in the 2010 Memorial Cup a more likely redirect target than, say, the team for which he was playing, or any of the nine other amateur and professional teams for which he has played to date? These redirects are all the creation of an editor who was community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count. Ravenswing 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Ravenswing. Sums it up better than I can. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Original multiple worlds[edit]

There's no mention of these talkers at the target page. Someone looking for specific information is going to end up confused or disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I don't see news articles on any of these. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Xbox[edit]

Seems like a partial title match for New Xbox Experience. Otherwise, it's ambiguous since the word "new" is vague/subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominator comment: For the record, I suggest delete over retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Steel1943 as likely search target. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. "New Xbox" is simply whichever console is the newest. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Xbox where a user can find all of the Xbox products and select whichever is the newest at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and possibly refine to Xbox One#Project Scorpio. I understand the nominator's concerns, here, and Tavix's—to some extent, this is always going to be a maintenance burden. But right now, a reader searching this is either looking for the most recent Xbox he or she could buy in a store or the upcoming Xbox. And right now, all of that information is on the Xbox One article. It may be better to leave readers at the top, with the TOC close at hand, but I would not oppose refining or deleting. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce[edit]

Redirect from implausible typo —S Marshall T/C 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Had enough of experts[edit]

While "had enough of experts" is a phrase associated with Brexit, it does not appear in the article or indeed anywhere else on Wikipedia. The only occurrences of the word "expert" are in a single paragraph in the middle of the "Economic effects" section and these do not deal with people's reaction to experts or anything related to that. I can imagine there is relevant content about this somewhere on Wikipedia, but if there is I haven't found it. If such content doesn't exist then I think this redirect should be deleted as it wont help anyone searching this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It appears at Michael Gove#Views on the EU, where it may be significant enough to justify an {{R from quotation}}. Anti-intellectualism comes to mind too, though it's probably not an especially likely search term for the general idea. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a thing, enough for a redirect anyhow https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=Had%20enough%20of%20experts Deku-shrub (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I know it's a thing, that's not in doubt. However, for the redirect to be useful there needs to be relevant content about it somewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Michael Gove#Views on the EU as the quote is attributed to him. [26] [27] [28] and hasn't been the catchphrase of the entire Brexit event. Not sure if "had enough of" will be a snowclone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Honestly, I think this is a WP:XY deal; other politicians, in the current jingoistic wave worldwide, have expressed like sentiments, and I question whether this phrase has been so widely associated with Gove to make it a more plausible search term than (say) Gove himself. Ravenswing 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    I still don't quite feel strongly enough to vote, but the argument wouldn't be that the quote was somehow a synonym for Gove, i.e., that a reader would think "I want to find out about Michael Gove. I'll type in 'Had enough of experts'..." The argument would be that they're aware of the quote and want more context, maybe even without knowing the identity of the speaker, i.e., "Who was it again that said 'had enough of experts' in the Brexit debate?" --BDD (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Grand Theft Auto characters[edit]

Easily confused with an actual list of characters, which the target does not include, just the entity's protagonists. Lordtobi (✉) 13:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough to make a dab page full of PTM's though. If anything it should point to the first video game as was done with List of Final Fantasy characters / Characters of Final Fantasy. The franchise doesn't have a list of recurring characters whereas Final Fantasy did and was summarized in Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
changed vote to Retarget to Grand Theft Auto (video game)#Gameplay which is the first title in the franchise. This makes it consistent with Characters of Final Fantasy and List of Final Fantasy characters. And the section does list 8 playable character names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdoor Retreat[edit]

Outdoor treat refers to a video game and this redirect is the result of a page move in 2015. The redirect is too vague in my opinion and would be difficult to find similar articles with the name. st170e 19:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@St170e: What similar articles did you have in mind? -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There's Retreat (spiritual), but those aren't always outdoors, and it seems like there must be secular versions of this too. I see the nominator's point that this could WP:SURPRISE, but what else is there to consider within Wikipedia? The title-case capitalization is a point in favor of the status quo too. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
An outdoor retreat would be suited more to a dictionary definition. Outdoor retreats are synonymous with Retreat (spiritual) as BDD has pointed out. I am seeing the benefits of sticking with the status quo and a hatnote to the Retreat article too, though. st170e 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete – I'm not sure what this could be but at the moment it is the definition of WP:SURPRISE. Laurdecl talk 06:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete - I am the user who initially suggested this redirect's deletion to "st170e". As stated, the redirect is overly vague, and additionally it is highly unlikely that it would be the target of any links outside of Wikipedia. Of all the expansion packs for The Sims 4 which have their own articles, this is the only one which has a redirect for its name without the "The Sims 4" title. An earlier request that I made to have the other expansion packs for The Sims 4 have similar redirects created for them, which I made based on the existence of this redirect, was declined by "st170e", so for the sake of consistency I feel that if all the pages cannot have redirects for the shortened version of their names due to vagueness, none of them should have one. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in the absence of actual articles this could be confused for. Tag as {{R from subtitle}}. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case, may I ask what your opinion is regarding the creation of similar redirects for other expansion packs, e.g., The Sims 4: Get to Work, The Sims 4: Dine Out, etc.? 114.75.78.136 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
They'd have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. From a cursory search, Get to Work seems fine to create. Nothing else jumped out to me in terms of competing usage. Dine Out might be a different story. My Google search did show a lot of Sims related hits, but it's also a common enough phrase. Perhaps it's fine to create with a hatnote to Dining in (unless I'm missing a more appropriate article). As an aside, simply saying WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a reason to delete this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let us see what the general consensus is. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Are you sure about the Rcat {{R from subtitle}}? Did you notice that it's a redirect to an Rcat which doesn't necessarily apply to this? (In theory with where {{R from subtitle}} currently targets, it would only apply if the nominated redirect targeted The Sims 4.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, isn't that what we did with those Neelix redirects from a subtitle when they came up last year? I'll need to look into it more when I have time. What would you think about creating a new rcat at {{R from subtitle}} for situations like this? -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but add a hatnote to Retreat (disambiguation) per Tavix. There are no competing uses for this term that have an article, and while I can forsee there maybe being an article on the concept of places of peacefulness, holidaying or moving away from the city type uses (see also Escape to the Country) but they won't be at this title and will be listed on the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that would be a useful hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Imagine (song)[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Imagine (John Lennon song) satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria overwhelmingly, just as Revolver (album) does for the Beatles album Revolver (Beatles album). Imagine (Tone Damli song) is only a stub article in complete contrast with the WP:FA status of Imagine (John Lennon song) (so I presume WP:NCMDAB gives us some leeway here). The Lennon song is widely regarded as among the greatest songs of the 70s and beyond; its long-term significance cannot be in doubt. Most people searching for Imagine (song) are looking for the Lennon classic. Case-in-point? Take pageviews, where Lennon absolutely swamps the other artist. There is very definitely, a primary topic at hand here. Note also that Imagine (album) redirects to Imagine (John Lennon album). --Nevé–selbert 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The John Lennon song is obviously the primary topic. The Lennon song "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (quoted from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). For those reasons, I am in strong support of retargetting this to Imagine (John Lennon song) and adding a hatnote at that article to Imagine. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Send to RM This seems more like a requested move discussion. The John Lennon song was originally at this title, moved to (John Lennon song) in 2015 and then, shortly afterwards, the resulting redirect pointed to the disambiguation page. If we're redirecting (song) to (John Lennon song) then the article really should just be at (song) in the first place. That would need a requested move to reverse the previous one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf and Izno: No, this is not a move request. This is to decide whether the redirect Imagine (song) should redirect to Imagine (John Lennon song) or Imagine#Songs. This has nothing to do with the title of any articles. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Tavix: I disagree. If "Imagine (song)" redirects to "Imagine (John Lennon song)" then the article is the primary topic for "Imagine (song)" and so should be at that title (per WP:PRECISE, and probably other disambiguation policies/guidelines). If it isn't the primary topic for "Imagine (song)" then things should stay as they are. Given the current set-up is the result of an RM consensus it requires an RM consensus to reverse. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Is WP:INCDAB relevant? --Izno (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Those are arguments for RM and should be independent of this discussion. There was an RM over this already, here. If you want to open another RM, go ahead and make those arguments there, but this is not the place to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Thryduulf--WP:RM is the right one. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Imagine (John Lennon song) per nom and the arguments made in the previous discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    RM would be pointless. Revolution (song) redirects to Revolution (Beatles song) per a 2013 move discussion. Said proposal has precedent.--Nevé–selbert 22:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've started an RM to fix the naming of "Revolution" (see Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)#Requested move) because, as noted by BDD below, it is contrary to article titling and disambiguation policies. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep / send to RM per Thryduulf. "Imagine (song)" shouldn't redirect to "Imagine (John Lennon song)" any more than "Imagine" should redirect to "Imagine (song)". --BDD (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've fixed the (album) situation, which was not a result of an RM anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    I reverted your move, per In ictu oculi's reasoning at Talk:Revolver (Beatles album)#Requested move 2013.--Nevé–selbert 22:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Based on a single user's comment from several years ago, when PDAB was an attempt to change naming policy instead of just an essay? Ok. Great. PRIMARYTOPIC be damned! --BDD (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    I cannot see why such a move is necessary at this juncture. The courteous thing to do would have been to open a requested move at Talk:Imagine (John Lennon album), something you did not do. It's also somewhat undermining the rationale I gave here, and I find it extraordinary that you think the action you performed was non-controversial.--Nevé–selbert 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    It was reverting an undiscussed move. I will apologize for apparently misreading your nomination statement, however; I thought the implication behind "Note also that Imagine (album) redirects to Imagine (John Lennon album)" was that that was a situation that needed rectifying. Indeed, the status quo flies in the face of WP:PRECISE, WP:D, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but what's a few broken policies and guidelines between friends? --BDD (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (and disagree with moving the article). Primary topics are often shaky. When in doubt, put the article at a name that is sufficiently disambiguated from all other Wikipedia articles. When in doubt, disambiguate rather than point to most prominent topic. Deryck C. 22:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedily close and send to RM. This isn't just out-of-scope for RfC, it's shopping/rehash of previous RMs and against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I would expect the RM to be speedily closed as well, honestly. Imagine (John Lennon song) is regularly cited against attempts to move song articles to be alleged PRIMARY topics on the basis of being in the charts this month. RfD doesn't exist to go for end-runs around RM precedent and NC guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bathmophobia[edit]

Delete This was deleted outright (discussion) as a faux-clinical phobia, but was resurrected as part of a BLP story on Donald Trump, which has been deleted several times now as a questionable allegation. The story is gone and this redirect should be gone too. See the original discussion before stating that this needs to appear in the list. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment the recent AfD says it all. On the surface it seems there's sources, but per the inclusion criteria at the list article, they fails RS, and more importantly MEDRS, so is not notable and shouldn't redirect there Delete and delete wikt:bathmophobia (although per that, it's strange that we have the wiktionary entry, so if we keep that, shouldn't we redirect to the list or soft redirect to wikt?). User:Andrew Davidson Seemingly RS [29] [30] but they aren't MEDRS, and would argue they aren't RS. Widefox; talk 23:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Submultiple[edit]

This redirect is wrong (the word cannot be defined in the target). It is also an orphan. As "submultiple" is used in several articles (all about units of measurement), but never defined, it will be less confusing for the reader to delete the redirect. So, a reader searching for the word would be directed to an article using the word, instead to be sent to nowhere. D.Lazard (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. I added a description of the term at the target article. Another option would be to discuss this term at the divisor article, if you think that is more appropriate, since the term "submultiple" and "divisor" are very closely related. In any event, this should not be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Submultiple". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017. 
  2. ^ "Submultiple". Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017. 
  • Comment: As far as I know, the term "submultiple" is no more in use in mathematics since more than one century. As it has been replaced by "divisor", it could be mentioned in Divisor, in a sentence like "In some old mathematical texts, the word submultiple is used in the sense of divisor." However, the Wikipedia articles that use the term "submultiple" show that the word is still in usage for referring to units of measurement whose names begin by deci, centi, milli, .... This seems not sufficient for a dedicated article, and I do not know where to give the definition of this meaning of "submultiple". Probably in Wiktionary? D.Lazard (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • If "submultiple" is simply an archaic word for "divisor," then I think the best solution is to include a sentence (like the one you suggested above) at the divisor article to explain the relationship between the terms. If readers come across the word "submultiple" in an old textbook (see this one, for example), then I think it would be most helpful to our readers to direct them to the article with information about that concept. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Breakfast means breakfast[edit]

Personally recommend a retarget to Malapropism, where the blunder is attributed. --Nevé–selbert 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Brexit redirects impertinent to discussion
To Champion, SimonTrew, Steel1943, Tavix and Thryduulf:
Go ahead and nominate any you feel should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you any opinion on Brexshit or perhaps Brexit cereal, Tavix? I was going to do a mass-nomination, but I felt it would turn into a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I thought pinging you guys might be best, to see what you think of some of them.--Nevé–selbert 21:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd recommend individual nominations unless there's obvious relation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Breakfast means breakfast https://order-order.com/2016/10/04/breakfast-means-breakfast/
Brexit means breakfast has a fair bit of coverage, both enough for a redirect IMO https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=brexit%20means%20breakfast Deku-shrub (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of having enough coverage for a redirect, but about there being an appropriate target for people using the redirect to find out about it. It isn't mentioned at the Brexit article so someone landing there via this redirect will likely just be confused. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Registering for the draft[edit]

Registering for the draft is not only implemented in U.S, but also other countries like mainland China. !Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Conscription, which would probably be the best way to solve the issue. (I've added one other one if you don't mind.) -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Conscription per Tavix. That article notes that the concept is also known as "drafting." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Currently, all references to "registration" at Conscription are about the United States. Will readers searching these terms be satisfied? How do other countries conscript—is the US unique in its registration system? --BDD (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If you narrow your search to simply "register", you'll find a hit for China: Citizens 18 years of age are required to register in PLA offices, but policy not enforced. Policy exempted in Hong Kong and Macao. Netherlands also mentions a registration, although it's done automatically: to this day, every male and female citizen aged 17 gets a letter in which he is told that he has been registered but does not have to present himself for service. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
!Panzerkampfwagen! can you rename that to Conscription in China as with the other articles? Also there's a section on the Conscription page for China so that's ready for the hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, Panzerkampfwagen! I think I agree with AngusWOOF's suggestion. Draft registration is a subtopic of conscription generally. This will make a good start for a standalone article on conscription in China. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've established a short article accounts the topic(Conscription in China).--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

List of English suffixes[edit]

Article talks about suffixes in general and there is no full list of English suffixes on the article Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • soft redirect to Wikt:Appendix:English suffixes. The 410 page views last year confirm my suspicion that this is a very likely thing people will be looking for, and while Wikipedia doesn't have such a list Wiktionary does so we should help people to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft redir per Thryduulf.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan kerry[edit]

Not a valid alternative name. Subject is not referred to as such. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. This does not appear to be the subject's name. The most prominent individual in my search results was a member of the administrative staff of Leicester Cathedral and Leicester College who does not rise to the level notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was about to say that this redirect should be tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}, but then I noticed that the "k" in "kerry" is lowercase. Too many errors, best to delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the notable John Kerrys in Wikipedia are expanded to Jonathan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Globalwarming Awareness2007[edit]

Implausible. Delete and salt. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. This was apparently created after a spammy article about an SEO contest was deleted, and then protected to prevent further creations (I'm not sure if salting existed back then). Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target and implausible. If this recipe calls for a dash of salt, I'm fine with that too, though I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone came back a decade later to create spam at this title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete But not salt as the spammers are likely gone as it contains 2007 Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Skabeloner[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I believe this is Danish. -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wall of meat[edit]

A random phrase that an editor happens to like isn't an appropriate basis for a redirect. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep. The phrase seems to have garnered significant news coverage and is mentioned in the article. I have my doubts that the target group is notable (and the existence of a notability tag means I'm not alone) but while the article exists this redirect seems not inappropriate. If the target is deleted this will be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak keep I get DrFleischman's point, and I only made the redirect because I thought some readers might search for the phrase - and be happy to find that it referred to the pro-Trump biker group. But maybe it only mattered for the few days before and after the inauguration? In the old days I often would create a page and promptly move it - leaving a redirect - because my primary motivation was to help readers find the articles they're looking for. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
A whopping pageview total of 8 over the inauguration--yes, 8--shows that readers aren't being aided by this redirect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually that shows that human readers were helped 8 times in 28 days. I see no good reasons to make it harder for people to find the content they are obviously looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's a bit strong. I was thinking more of human chain or human barricade, as some articles put it. Perhaps a hatnote then? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as-is; the phrase is specific and specific to this Bikers for Trump thing, which did not propose a human shield to prevent armed assault, but a vigilante version of a riot-police line to blockade protesters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 30[edit]

Panama Dave[edit]

Uncommon nickname. --Nevé–selbert 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Sorry, this isn't Hanoi Jane as there is no notable usage of this in news articles and books. Searches online point to a non-notable musician. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oh I have plenty of nicknames for Dave ... all of which unfortunately cannot be broadcasted here, Anyway non notable nickname - Has never been used anywhere as far as I'm aware. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
My initial association was with Panama (song) and David Lee Roth, flying around on that wire in the music video. But I digress. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike other, similar nicknames like Dodgy Dave, which has tens of thousands of apparently relevant ghits, this one comes up with about five thousand, and nothing on the first two pages of results has anything to do with David Cameron. – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

United States 44th President (2008-2017)[edit]

36th President-elect of the United States[edit]

Only 6 ghits for "36th President-elect of the United States". --Nevé–selbert 17:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. If you know that there have been 36 presidents elect, you likely know that you are looking for Trump. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I hardly remember making this redirect, I was probably bored. I think you should just retarget it to Lists of presidents-elect or something, but I can see why deleting is logical here. Go ahead. CatcherStorm talk 12:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A.S.D[edit]

Professional human Go player[edit]

Somewhat unnecessary disambiguation, given that robots haven't reached the point where they're paid for what they do, making all professional Go players human. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

General Belgrano[edit]

The Argentine politician may not necessarily be the primary topic for this term. There are seven matches for "General Belgrano" at the Belgrano disambiguation, and arguably the most renowned in English-speaking contexts is the sunken Argentine warship. This redirect might as well be better suited as redirect to the disambiguation. --Nevé–selbert 11:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Never commented on one of these, so I hope that this is done in the correct context. Historically Manuel Belgrano as one of the founding fathers of Argentina would be the primary topic for this term - and I'm positive members of wikiproject Argentina would agree with me. In a British context, the warship is more likely to be known as a result of the war but I'm not convinced that other English it would have the same significance in other English speaking countries. WCMemail 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambig. In Britain ARA General Belgrano (C-4) is overwhelmingly the primary topic, but based on We Curry Monster's comment it seems like in Argentina it is the person ship was named after, so I think overall there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambig. I just disambiguated two links to ARA General Belgrano (C-4) and one to General Belgrano, Buenos Aires. wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic[edit]

Article does not say anything about Pre Islam Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The term means little in itself, could be a disambig page at most, referring to parts of the world before they became Muslims, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Partial title matches aren't disambiguated. See WP:PTM. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Tavix, that's a fair point. Nevertheless, I think this is one of those cases where you have a somewhat ambiguous term that appears fairly frequently in the real world (see, e.g., this book and this book); I don't think we should make a WP:CONCEPTDAB for this term, but I do think that it would be most helpful to readers to create a DAB with the dozen (or so) articles about "pre-Islamic" topics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. This will most effectively ensure that readers are taken to the content those linking the term intended and help anyone who searched directly for this get to the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pre-Islamic calendar as primary topic, but a dab page may be just as helpful if the calendar only applies to Saudi Arabia, and the wiktionary box can be placed on the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed metals[edit]

Orphaned redirect, and doesn't seem to be a real term, based on a Google Books search. Slashme (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • When I saw this, the first thing that jumped to my mind was the dispute about the creation of metallic hydrogen (for more info, see the discussion about the ITN blurb for metallic hydrogen at WP:ITN/C). A did a quick search and found other "disputed" metals (see, e.g., mercury(IV) fluoride; that article says "[t]he existence of the compound is disputed"). Because this term is ambiguous, I am in favor of deleting this redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't double checked, but I think that this is another artefact of the article title dispute that also spawned the incredibly long redirect to the same target nominated yesterday. Unlike that one however this got just 4 hits in 2016 which is exactly the number I have come to expect from a redirect unused by humans so I have no hesitation in recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless a reference can be provided to prove this a real term, this term is akin to me declaring that wood is a metal since that could be disputed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

President Trump cameos[edit]

Pointless redirect, the entries on the target are not related to his presidency, which is what the title suggests. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: misleading and unnecessary. --Slashme (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

USPE, 2008[edit]

Not a valid acronym. I have created USPE as a redirect to European Police Achievement Badge. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I could not find sources that use "USPE" as an acronym for "United States Presidential Election." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
How is the acronym invalid? United States Presidential Election. This is a navigation tool to avoid having to type in the full title. How does it interfere with the redirect to the European Police Achievement Badge? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
William S. Saturn, per WP:RFD#DELETE, we generally do not keep redirects if the title involves a novel or obscure name. I could not find the acronym "USPE" in reliable sources (with the one exception of this study). If you can show me reliable sources that use this acronym, then I will change my vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Look at #5 on reasons not to delete a redirect. I find the redirect useful as do others. USPE, 2016 is often used (especially from September 2016 to December 2016). USPE, 2012 is used somewhat less but still in use. The USPE acronym is easily deduced from United States Presidential Election --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are easily deduced from the target, apparently not ambiguous so they are at minimum harmless, and at least one person has explicitly stated they find them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#K5 and attestation via NCFF's link. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete USPE12, neutral on rest I don't see any news articles in front of the Google searches for news articles and books that use this acronym, and with a comma in between either. So this will be based purely on convenience for the Wikipedia user. USPE12 is not useful though, could refer to 1912, and not a notable hashtag AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) updated 18:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Muslim ban[edit]

Wikipedia:PREEMPTSALT[edit]

Unused shortcut to a dead-on-arrival policy proposed a few days ago. It's usually better to propose something first and then add all the extras once it's been approved. As there is no such thing as preemptive salting, never has been, and it is explicitly disallowed by policy, this shortcut should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to that, this is entirely unused and basically unknown, and that target section already has two shortcuts and does not mention create protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the section in its present form doesn't mention creation protection, but it does mention page protection in a general sense. Since creation protection is a form of page protection, targeting this redirect to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism is akin to targeting a WP:PRECISE title to a more general/ambiguous subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Love trumps hate[edit]

Both should point to the same target. I don't know which one is better or if either is appropriate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • They shouldn't point to Hillary Clinton, this was not her campaign slogan. It therefore would make sense to target both at the article on the many protests that have used this slogan. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it was tweeted by Hillary in December 2015 and misquoted soon afterwards [31] but is related to the whole Muslim ban topic, so it could possibly go to Immigration policy of Donald Trump per WP:RECENTISM and most likely slogan association. Whichever page it lands on should have an explanation of the tweet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor[edit]

Being one of the board of trustees is not enough justification for a redirect. (The article on the organization has been deleted 3 times under various forms of the name.) DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Nomimation makes sense, and in the absence of a reasonable alternative there is no use for this. The purpose of redirects is to help readers find content they are looking for. If we don't have any content on this organization this redirect shouldn't exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Beeblebrox. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per nominator and Beeblebrox. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 29[edit]

Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals[edit]

This is not at all a likely search result, and I really don't see this redirect helping anyone. Dustin (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • This originated from a page move during an article title naming dispute in May 2014 for the article that is today at the target but has had quite a few other names. This one looks to have been created very much as a WP:POINT thing, and so I was on the verge of recommending speedy deletion. However, then I checked the traffic statistics and this got 8 hits in the 30 days leading up to the nomination, and 40 in 2016. This latter 10 times as many as I was expecting (even clearly implausible redirects seem to get about 1-4 hits a year classified as human that I suspect aren't). It is linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 18 but a mention in a 3-year old archive is unlikely to generate more than a handful at most of hits, so there is something else going on here that I don't understand. Is this the sort of thing that will be asked as a homework question perhaps? Don't speedy delete is the most firm recommendation I can come up with at this point, but I've left a note for Nergaal, who moved the page to this title, and I'm about to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements so they may be able to shed more light. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't remember exactly how, but I stumbled upon this by accident after the redirect popped up while I was typing something unrelated into the search bar. I have little doubt that the great majority of views of this redirect occurred in the same manner, with people viewing the redirect by accident rather than by seeking it out. Dustin (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete. The need for such a redirect has long passed. Sandbh (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per Sandbh. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Thryduulf smartly deduced: it was created in a page (and topic) naming row, now rather meaningless even in the issue. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that traffic for this title is likely coming from people who play around with the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hanazuki[edit]

I would like this to be changed into a disambiguation for other things like Hanazuki: Full of Treasures and redirecting Miu Hanazuki to List_of_Aikatsu!_characters#Noted-Minor_Students which I'm nominating now. Ranze (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I tagged the nominated redirect and notified its creator. (The nominator is unable to tag the redirect due to a community-enforced editing ban relating to redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Two dab this. The TV show is recently released so it will attract most if not all recent searches. As for Miu Hanazuki, the character is a partial title match and a very minor character in the franchise who does not go by just her last name as common the entire time, so I don't see a reason why she would need to be added to a dab list. In fact her character redirect should probably be removed.. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Second Lincoln Administration[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

There has only ever been one Lincoln administration, running continuously for four years. We don't have First Clinton Administration or First Obama Administration. --Nevé–selbert 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. The comments the last time this was discussed make it clear that the present target is where this redirect should point if it exists, and given that it does exist and there is an unambiguously correct target for it I see absolutely no benefit in deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is entirely plausible that readers may think a president's second "term" could be called their second "administration." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Règles d'utilisation des images[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, this isn't the French Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This and that administration[edit]

Could refer to any administration. --Nevé–selbert 18:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Presidential Library[edit]

Should delete, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Nevé–selbert 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Emailconfirmed users[edit]

Wikipedia:EM[edit]

Should both target the same target. For the record, Wikipedia:EM has several incoming links, whereas Wikipedia:Em has only 1 incoming link (not counting the one on this page.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Del (letter)[edit]

"Del" is not a letter at all, so this redirect is misleading. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. It’s left over from a very recent move, but a mistaken one – as above this is not a letter – and has no article links. See also User talk:RedPanda25#Del for some background on the move. Whether or not this is a primary topic so at the correct location is another matter, but it definitely is not a letter.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • weak retarget to ∂, the partial derivative symbol known as "del" (among other names). It's not, I think, implausible for someone to not know whether something is a symbol or a letter in such uses. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per Thryduulf. I think it's entirely plausible that readers who are unfamiliar with mathematics may think that a symbol used as an operator may be called a "letter." However, because the article for ∂ explicitly refers to it as "del," I think that's the best target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retargeting to ∂ probably makes the most sense, but it seems to me that there's also a slight chance this might be confused with either the delete character (abbreviated as del) or with the letter dalet (dāl in Arabic). – Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ∂ete. There's too many things this can incorrectly be, but nothing this can correctly be. The best thing to do in this situation is to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note There is an ongoing requested move affecting Del (the current target of this redirect). See Talk:Del#Requested move 29 January 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject: Environment/Climate change task force[edit]

Recently (December 2016) created cross-namespace redirects. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Merged listings. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete This seems intended as a pseudo-namespace redirect. Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces lists "WikiProject" in the section "The following prefixes do not enjoy broad community support". If you want to add such redirects get consensus to change that before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution MegaMix[edit]

Same reason as for Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME Plus!: This is a non-notable bootleg modification that is no longer mentioned in the target article.

The following capitalization variants currently exist:

-- SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Registro de subidas[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Elfonly[edit]

Cultural exchange[edit]

Not about cultural exchange in general and no other article about exactly that to redirect to. (Btw that would be an article worth creating!) Fixuture (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 28[edit]

Affectors[edit]

There's nothing at this disambiguation that's known as "affector(s)". wikt:affector gives A nerve cell that directly activates a muscle but I'm not seeing that anywhere locally. All other results are a band named "Affector". -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: the "(disambiguation)" redirect only exists because Affectors was linked on the disambiguation page Effector. If these entries are deleted, that line should be removed. bd2412 T 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it to a more direct link. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Even if someone was looking for one of the definitions at affect, "affector/affectors" appear only rarely in common usage. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Pokémon Z[edit]

No such product exists. Page history is entirely rumours and hoax information adding by long term vandal known for creating hoaxes. The1337gamer (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for vandal. Looking through the history it was constantly added as a video game and then redirected to the TV series. I originally thought it might have been a candidate for the new season following Pokemon XY, which explains the huge spike in views in October 2015, but this has since died down once the season title was officially announced. There isn't a video game of this name. There's potentially a decent retarget to List of Pokémon: XY & Z episodes but this wasn't brought up, in favor of redoing it to the video game, and now it's just XY&Z or XYZ, [32] never Z by itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Caliber (film)[edit]

None of these supposed films are mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Selectively retarget any films where he is the producer of the work. Delete Caliber: he will not be in [33], Weak keep The Vault as he is the producer. Delete The Vault (2015 film). It wasn't released. [34] Weak keep Mortimer Wintergreen but delete (film) and (2015 film) as it was not released. [35] Delete Fierce Invalids film as he expressed interest in producing / adapting it but it was abandoned. [36] Delete Affected or redirect it to the novel. He's not directly producing it but the rights were bought by his company and the original article without the (film) explains it enough. Delete or redirect Inamorata (film) to the (novel). It was a film production idea but not much else. [37] [38] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC) updated 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:TNT since at the present time, that seems like the best solution. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To the extent that any/all of these are not mentioned at the target, I agree they should be deleted per WP:SURPRISE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

T. J. Battani[edit]

WP:XY; precedent set for not having this type of redirect Joeykai (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Completely aside from this being an implausible redirect, the subject being a desperately obscure player with an ephemeral career in the low minor leagues, and quite aside from the creator in question being community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count, this is absolutely an XY deal. What makes his playing for a team in the 2008 Memorial Cup a more likely redirect target than, say, the team for which he was playing, or the seven other amateur and professional teams for which he played? Ravenswing 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and leave as redlink as with the other players without articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Battle for Bittora (film)[edit]

No mention of this title in the target. This used to be an article on the (planned) film, but was turned into a redirect to prevent deletion because principal photography has not begun. The problem is that there seems to be no potential target that mentions the film. — Gorthian (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I've added content about the upcoming film in the target page. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, now that the film is listed at the target. There is another redirect for this title at Battle For Bittora (film) (with the word "For" capitalized), which is tagged as {{R from merge}}. It looks like both redirects have a fairly extensive history. I have added that redirect to this discussion so that we don't get inconsistent results for the similarly-titled redirects. However, if the film is an adaptation of Battle for Bittora (novel), then I think it would make more sense to add a sentence at that article to explain that there will be a film and then retarget this to the article about the novel. Mr. Smart LION, what are your thoughts about that option? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The idea is nice. I've added content to the novel article about the film and also corrected the redirect to the novel. But make sure that my Battle for Bittora (film) article shouldn't be deleted because I was the first to create the article on the same topic. Battle For Bittora (film) was created an hour later. So please merge history of Battle For Bittora (film) to Battle for Bittora (film). Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Smart LION, thanks for adding the info to the article about the novel. I am now going to change my vote to retarget both to Battle for Bittora (novel) per my previous comment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If both are retargeted to the novel article, then some user can start Battle for Bittora (film) and some other user can start Battle For Bittora (film) creating confusion. It's better to retarget only Battle for Bittora (film) to the novel article and merge history of Battle For Bittora (film) to Battle for Bittora (film) as I was the first to create the article on the same topic as explained in my previous comment. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Some user could start the film article once there is significant notability for it, and the other version would then redirect to the film article. Both histories are still preserved. Should the "for" version be substantial and nothing else is needed from "For" then you can bring it up for deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to novel. Nothing is lost from keeping both of these a redirect should the article need to be recreated. The "For" version can be tagged for miscapitalization, but I don't see anything at least in the talk history section that needs to be preserved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The question afterwards becomes whether (novel) should be moved back to Battle for Bittora as primary topic? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @AngusWOOF: I planned to start a RM after this to do just that. — Gorthian (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Elena (video game character)[edit]

I believe Elena (video game character) should be redirected to Elena (Street Fighter) as it about the same subject Dwanyewest (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedurally relisting as the redirect wasn't tagged until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Efterspurgte artikler[edit]

WP:FORRED. This is not the Danish Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Parlbio[edit]

Unused redirect, and would save all of 3 characters. Avicennasis @ 22:20, 29 Tevet 5777 / 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. As far as I can see, there is no rationale presented here for deletion of this redirect. Regardless if a template redirect is transcluded or not, it could still be used as a search term to locate its target template. Also, the redirect is a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per lack of reason to delete, and the {{R from move}} being a reason to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vg[edit]

Unused redirect, and I doubt we need to link to {{Vince Guaraldi}} so often that we need a shortcut to it. Avicennasis @ 22:05, 29 Tevet 5777 / 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UNACADEMIC[edit]

per @EEng:, a rather WP:POINTy redirect, created by a sockpuppet, with no incoming links. Obviously unused, let's just delete it. Avicennasis @ 21:11, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. "Unacademic" does not appear on the target page. I did search to see if it was used in any other policy or similar page, but the search results were swamped by characterisations of various articles as "unacademic" in AfD discussions (particularly from circa 2010-12 for some reason). I wouldn't be opposed to a retarget if someone knows of a good target though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete BTW, the OP is referring to this [39] and [40]. EEng 04:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Underwood[edit]

If Underwood is not notable, so be it, but he has appeared in more than Zoey 101. A redirect is not needed, and is, in this case, deceptive. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

He is primarily (overwhelmingly, actually) known for Zoey 101; his other roles are minor (known) in comparison. Honestly, I don't care if a redirect exists for this (it's probably smart to have one to prevent recreation of the problematic article), but if a redirect is to exist, redirecting to Zoey 101 makes by far the most sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood as his real name is "Matthew" and he's actually notable. (Be sure to unlink all backlinks if this is the solution.) -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: Wrong Matthew Underwood – this is the one who co-starred on the Nickelodeon TV series Zoey 101. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @IJBall: We're discussing what to do with the redirect "Matthew Underwood". I'm saying the best solution would be to have "Matthew Underwood" redirect to "Matt Underwood". I know they're not the same person, but that's irrelevant. There is a notable person with the name "Matthew Underwood" (the sportscaster), so the redirect should point to his article, located at Matt Underwood. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List_of_Zoey_101_characters#Logan_Reese, his primary character. Add one of those redirects here and hatnote to Matt Underwood for the baseball sportscaster. Matt is the common name for the sportscaster. And Matthew is prominently pointing to the actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's preferable to redirecting directly to Zoey 101, but it's a reasonable alternative. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood since per the above conversation, the actor doesn't have an article. If there is ever an article written about the actor, it can be written over the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Underwood. Upon looking at the close of that discussion, there may be a reasonable claim that this redirect targeting the character makes the redirect eligible for WP:G4 ... emphasis on the word "may". Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    Um, no – my original AfD proposal closed with "...after deletion, it can then be replaced by a redirect to Zoey 101." It's clearly right there in the AfD proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    That's not how the AFD closer closed the discussion per their closing comments; the AFD was closed to "delete" with no additional comments or allowances mentioned. So, in a nutshell, there's not evidence to prove either one of us right. Again, as I said, "...emphasis on the word "may".". Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Hatnotes can be used to take people to the list of Zoey 101 characters if that is really relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's also a reasonable alternative. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support switching to a redirect to Matt Underwood. I'm not sold on the thought of a hatnote unless we have an article with information about the actor rather than just the character. Underwood ≠ Reese. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Matt Underwood per above. Seems to be the best course of action. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Lampa disambiguation[edit]

Delete. Malformed link to a DAB page. NB Lampa (disambiguation) exists. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this would have suggested that lampa is a type of disambiguation, which I'm assuming it isn't? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mechanikles[edit]

Anthony Borthwick[edit]

delete. Antony Borthwick (no "h") is a Borthwick baronet but Anthony isn't. Neither are Notable. Antony doesn't have an Article. It's not necessary to have a redirect from a misspelling, especially when there isn't a redirect from the correct spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Antony Borthwick (a title the nominator essentially referenced) doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete this isn't going to be helpful when he's just a list item and not even spelled the right way. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Heavy boots[edit]

I'm failing to see a connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Very weak retarget (if not, delete). This originally targetted Walking on the moon, now a redirect to a song, but at the time was an article about people walking on the Moon. It included the sentence "However some people still believe that astronauts were kept from floating away by especially heavy boots." sourced to this 1989 newsgroup posting. In that context the redirect made some sense. However in the intervening decade our articles have been rearranged and expanded somewhat and the content about walking on the moon is now at moon landing and the sentence about boots being heavy has not survived, and there appears to be no content specifically about footwear in the space suit article either (which is mildly surprising). We appear to have no coverage anywhere else about boots that are notable for their heaviness, although there are many different types of boot which are sometimes described as heavy, so it's no more a useful search term for footwear than is "blue boots" or "sturdy boots". It is used metaphorically, and (according to those who have analysed the book) significantly in the novel Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and it does get a sentence there, so this is where it should target if it is retargetted (but as noted, my preference for this is very weak). Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or Weak retarget to Weighted boots. There's also Magnetic boots, but those don't have to be necessarily heavy whereas the former is expected to be heavier than normal for whatever physical therapy / training reason. The news articles do mention heavy boots but all as a general adjective and not as a specialized kind of boot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

1st Presidential Inauguration[edit]

The rest of the list
Discussion[edit]

Delete. This is a blatant failure of WP:WORLDWIDE. It's highly misleading to imply that the United States is the only country to have Presidential inaugurations. Several other countries have Presidents, and those Presidents get inaugurated too. Similar terms like 1st president are red for good reason. It's also important to note that most articles don't even mention what "inauguration number" it is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There are just too many possible targets for these, e.g. "Second presidential inauguration" could refer to the second inauguration of any given president or the inauguration of the second president of any country that has had at least that many presidents. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: This is interesting. Note the capitalisation, I was not trying to undermine WP:WORLDWIDE at all. The inauguration of Trump was officially billed as the "58th Presidential Inauguration", see here and here (and 58th Inauguration). I just presumed the others were billed as such also.--Nevé–selbert 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That just shows that "58th Presidential Inauguration" may be a good search term for the inauguration of Trump, not that it isn't an equally likely search term for the inaugurations of other presidents. Taking another number a random, the 7th, it seems from a quick google that the primary topic for that is the 2013 inauguration of Robert Mugabe as president of Zimbabwe or the 1971 inauguration of Park Chung-hee as president of South Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:R from legal name[edit]

The target WP:RCAT template is exclusive to redirects that target biographical articles about individuals. Legal names are not exclusive to people: See Legal name (business). Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep or move over redirect. The primary topic is people, see legal name and is less confusing than the current title. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To expand, I believe "personal name" is too vague to have any meaningful use. It seems from reading the article "personal name", it would correspond with {{R from full name}}. However, the rcat we're discussing here is for people's "real names" who are known by a pseudonym. Therefore, the rcat should have the title "R from legal name" to correspond with the article legal name. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
A personal name need not be a full one. Let's say we have a kid whose parents named him Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones, entered as Tavix Pilot Jones on his birth certificate, and he becomes notable as a DJ, under the stage name DJ RFD. "Tavix Jones", "Tavix Pilot Jones", and "Tavix Pilot Inspektor Jones" all redirect and get tagged as personal names (the Neelix redirect "Tavix Pilot" having been deleted). Assuming a separate Rcat for legal names, only "Tavix Pilot Jones" should get it. ({{R from full name}} just redirects to {{R to long name}}, so we currently don't distinguish between longer names and full ones.) --BDD (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A discussion about an rcat template couldn't do without a ping to Paine Ellsworth. – Uanfala (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. I see differences between the two that might call for two different rcats. A personal name might not be the subject's legal name, for example, Mark Twain's personal names Samuel Clemens and Samuel L. Clemens, which are different from his legal/birth name of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Then there are legal name redirects such as Martha Helen Stewart that are neither birth names nor (common) personal names. The redirection of this rcat to the personal-names rcat is just a matter of convenience, probably because there has been no need in the past to categorize and monitor legal names apart from personal names. Of course if editors do think there's such a need and want to monitor a legal-names category, then two separate rcats would be needed.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Huh? How is "Martha Helen Stewart" not a personal name? Are you using the term in the sense of "given name"? Because the Rcat isn't... --BDD (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear – middle names, in this case "Helen", are usually alternative names and sometimes birth surnames (maiden names), and while they are certainly a part of one's personal name, they are not commonly used as a personal name. Martha Stewart's common personal name would be the article title. While "Martha Helen Stewart" is her legal name, it is not her common personal name, which is simply "Martha Stewart".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I follow. But "Martha Helen Stewart" both her legal name and a personal name. I don't see {{R from personal name}} as limited to common personal names, though perhaps some of the less common ones simply wouldn't get created. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
A better example might be when celebrities legalize their pseudonyms. If their stage name or pen name is their legal name, then it could not also be their personal name. Unfortunately, while this probably happens fairly frequently, it would be very difficult to reliably source the info, and that would be a necessity especially for living people.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 18:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I would think a "legalized" name would be a personal name, then. Disregarding other uses of the term "legal name", legal name in the context of persons seems like a narrower concept within personal names. So I can see the argument for keeping. Maybe there's no real benefit to separately categorizing which personal names are legal. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it would be better to come up with a (new?) rcat for the legal names of businesses, rather than changing this usage. Maybe {{R from legal entity}}? The rcat instructions can offer guidance as to which one to use, as they do for rcats like {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} vs. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The more I think about this, the more I feel the target RCAT should be deleted altogether. If used according to the template code, it should only be used when the personal name differs from the subject's name when born. That seems to be a fairly rare situation, but when that name differs, we also have {{R from married name}} (if it's because of marriage) and {{R from alternative name}} (if it's for a different miscellaneous reason). What's the need to monitor this situation? I do think there is an argument for the creation of business legal names, and perhaps this redirect stands in the way of that being created, or would be confusing if that does get created, so I'll concede to delete this redirect in favor of a new RCAT for that purpose. -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Create RCAT here that would encompass all legal names. Legal names seems like useful RCAT outside of application to biographies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Just a gentle reminder: a new rcat requires an accompanying maintenance category and either a bot or one or more editors willing to "maintain" the category entries.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that I'm reading "personal name" in the library science sense. In authority control, a personal name is any name that refers to a person, as opposed to a corporate name, geographic name, etc. I don't think that tells us what should happen to this redirect, but it may clarify my remarks above. This looks like no consensus to me, but I don't know if I'd be considered to be WP:INVOLVED. I believe I've only opined on definitions rather than what should happen with the redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Either deprecate and delete or create new R tag. Don't keep. I agree with the nominator's statement that "legal name" can refer to organisations too, so it is somewhat problematic to redirect this to {{R from personal name}}. We can either say we don't need a separate tag for legal names of people and organisations and tell people to use {{R from alternative name}}, {{R from personal name}} etc instead, or create a new tag for the specific purpose of legal names, which would have a tagline like From legal name: This is a redirect from a person or an organisation's legal name to a more common name. Deryck C. 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

China (pottery)[edit]

This is ambiguous; not only porcelain but tableware in general is known as "china", while Chinese ceramics is also pottery (from) China. I changed it to target China (disambiguation)#Ceramics and then fixed the links that were now pointing to this redirect, which confirmed that many were not meant for porcelain. But my retargeting was undone by Johnbod; see the redirect’s history. Bringing it here for wider discussion. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as was. I'm doubtful that it is actually true that tableware in general is known as "china". This was absolutely not the case historically. The great majority of modern Western tableware is porcelain, which these days is dirt cheap. I shouldn't think this redirect is much used in practice, but it should remain pointing at porcelain, where the usage is explained. Failing that (and there is no need for this), it should go to pottery or tableware (though these do not mention the usage), but absolutely not to Chinese ceramics (a subject area where I am the most active editor), for which "china" has not been a synonym in English for some 250 years, since Europe also began to make porcelain. I'm fine with the disam page staying as it is (although it's not really accurate), but what is the point of sending a redirect there - the sort of thing the disam rules strongly discourage? A useful hatnote was also removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • [non-porcelain] tableware certainly is known as "china": see wikt:china, or e.g. this "china set" made of stoneware not porcelain. This is maybe a particularly British usage, but it’s a common an long standing one. Re "what is the point?", redirects are often created or retargeted to dab pages when the redirect is a partial disambiguation: see WP:INCOMPDAB, and the category with over 20,000 other such redirects. There are no longer any article links to the redirect, so there are no problems with articles linking to a dab page through it; if anyone in future uses it and so creates such a link this can be repaired as normal.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Política de uso de imágenes[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If there was something specifically related to Spanish(-speaking editors) at the target I might reconsider, but if you know the policy name in $other_language but not in English the best way to find what you are looking for is via interwiki links. This specific redirect is also misleading, as "Política de uso de imágenes" translates as "Image use policy" and es:Wikipedia:Política de uso de imágenes interwikis to our Wikipedia:Image use policy so a Spanish speaker using this redirect would likely not end up where they wanted anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pages that has been on VFD[edit]

Delete, this is unused, bad grammar, outdated, and potentially misleading. I would expect this to be redirected to a list of articles that have been nominated for AfD, not the main AfD page. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looking at the page history, the original idea was for a page to provide examples of articles that had been nominated for deletion but have neither been deleted nor kept as is (redirected, disambiguated, broadened, etc). The original format wouldn't have scaled and it never got expanded beyond it's original edit, but the idea was not a bad one. I don't know that we have such a page now, but even if we do nobody would look for it at this title and anyone using it would be expecting something like a Category:Pages kept at AfD which does not exist (to my knowledge anyway). Even if such a category did exist, the grammar and old acronym mean that retargetting it now would make it unlikely to gain any uses. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page de description d'une image[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN. This isn't the French Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, although at least this one is pointing at the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Rockmusic[edit]

WP:COSTLY redirect due to lack of space. However, this may be a valid {{R from CamelCase}}; this redirect was created in 2004. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's not camel case, but it is old, harmless, occasionally used, and already tagged as a misspelling. - Eureka Lott 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per EurekaLott. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kellymoat: Please could you elaborate on why you believe this redirect should be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Rockmusic - one word? Nah. Not needed. It is not a plausible misspelling. Therefore, no redirect is justified. Kellymoat (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment this had some use as a hashtag although not for any particular notable event or thread. Other than that I see one camel case use as an example name in Macromedia Flash [41] However rock-music is used often enough in books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current wildfire[edit]

WP:CNR that may mislead readers looking for a project-namespace guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire#Guidelines which is exactly the project-namespace guideline regarding current wildfires that people are likely looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually, after thinking about this, the current target is a guideline about what constitutes a "current wildfire". It's in an unusual place but it is guidance about current wildfires that would usually be found on a Wikipedia page. I'm about to suggest (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wildfire) merging it in with the other guidelines, if that is done then I'll revert to me retarget recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep this has routinely been a source of conflict and it is really important to have this link as reference. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Battle of Syracuse (387 BC)[edit]

Baunnee Martinez[edit]

Kastrítsi, Greece[edit]

Delete the lot. Same rationale as for Kato Kastritsi and Ano Kastritsi, below. The only one I have a doubt over is the last, which uses the Greek diacritic and is in the nominative case. Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all of them so many redirects for use of diacritics is unnecessary and confusing. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the -i and the -ion versions as I'm getting lots of search results for -ion, including ", Greece" as location but only in travel sites and earthquake maps. Delete the -io versions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment by nom. Kastritsi is a DAB page, so per WP:INTDAB should not be a target page. Any redirects into it should only be there to help navigation. Narky Blert (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kato Kastritsi, Greece[edit]

Delete the lot. See also Áno Kastrítsion, Greece, below. The only redirect which makes even the slightest sense to me is the last one, which preserves the diacritics in el:Κάτω Καστρίτσι Αχαΐας. 2011 population = 758. Narky Blert (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all of them so many redirects for use of diacritics is unnecessary and confusing. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Áno Kastrítsion, Greece[edit]

Delete the lot. #1-6 should be uncontroversial: the qualifier "Greece" is unnecessary. IMO the only one which might deserve keeping is the last one, which is a transliteration with diacritics of the Greek name: el:Άνω Καστρίτσι Αχαΐας. However, Ano Kastritsi is a village with 832 inhabitants as of 2011, and (a) IMHO redirects like this just clutter up Wiki and (b) how many English-speakers add diacritical marks to transliterations of current Greek names? Narky Blert (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Ano Kastritsi, Greece, and probably keep the other four with no diacritics, depending on whether those forms are actually used — e.g. would a Hellene refer to the place as "Ano Kastritsio" in certain grammatical contexts? Having the ", Greece" is helpful for Americans who typically put the country name after the placename as if it were a US state; see Paris, France or Athens, Greece for two examples, or the annoying "City State" (for US locations) versus "City Country" (for other countries) chosen by LDS Church leaders for the places listed at List of LDS temples. Putting ", Greece" after the placename, if the placename is a good redirect, is almost always a good idea for any place in Greece. I have no idea whether the diacriticised versions are a good idea or not. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Point taken on the ", Greece" qualifier, however unnecessary it might be. Input from a native Greek-speaker would be useful here; as far as my shaky Greek goes, I understand that "-o" or "-ou" usually represents the genitive, and "-on" the accusative, case (at least in the singular, "-όν" and "-ών" are not the same). Narky Blert (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Narky Blert, I've left a message at the Greek Wikipedia's Village Pump asking people to come here and participate in this discussion (and the two above it) if they understand English. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Bilingual Greek-English editor here, after seeing Nyttend's note in the Greek village pump:) First of all, all these redirects for Καστρίτσι, Άνω Καστρίτσι and Κάτω Καστρίτσι (this is the way a typical modern Greek would say the names of the villages in the 21st century) are impressive to say the least. Without going into intricate grammar details and terminology (I'm an engineer), what I can say with certainty here is that such "-on" types are remnants of Katharevousa and are not commonly used in Greece nowadays (Demotic Greek is the official language of the Greek state for several decades now). On the other hand, there are some old road signs still around in the Greek countryside that use the Katharevousa names of places (it used to be the language for formal state purposes up until the late seventies if I am not mistaken: I lived in the US until 1980 so I can't be sure). So it would be useful to keep these redirects if it so happens that these villages in the prefecture of Achaia still have old signs, or in any case they may be mentioned in Katharevousa form in old writings so they may prove useful. Please note that the form is το (Άνω = Upper, Κάτω = Lower) Καστρίτσιον, which is nominative and neutral gender (i.e. not related to the point Narky Blert has made above: true about -ou and -on, and -όν/ών are indeed not the same, but this is irrelevant here). Hope this was helpful, feel free to ping me if you need more input, cheers from Greece:)--Saintfevrier (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them so many redirects for use of diacritics is unnecessary and confusing. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Günther Nowak[edit]

The subject is mentioned in List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients#Non-existent_recipients but it's unclear why a "non-existent" recipient should have a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)1

Handbagging[edit]

I don't see the value of a soft redirect to Wiktionary for this word. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Handbag, which covers the verb. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, actually, the verb was added to the See Also section there by the same user who created this redirect. It seems no more apt there than it does as a redirected article, as it's only a colloquialism, a metaphor, incidentally related to the Handbag article, so I've removed it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fuck off[edit]

Samuel Waldow[edit]

Miami 2017 (Seen the Lights go out on Broadway)[edit]

An unlikely redirect that is now only a capitalization redirect, so old that it hasn't been touched except by bots since 2008 and nobody even noticed that its original target (Miami 2017 (Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway)) was back on Wikipedia. Closeapple (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects from other capitalisations are generally kept as they are at worst harmless and at best very useful. You've fixed the target, so there is nothing more to do here as far as I'm concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a mix of capital and lower-case that doesn't make sense to retain as news articles will use 1) the properly capped one, YouTube 2) sentence case "Seen the lights go out on Broadway" or 3) All caps on first letters of all words, which is also what the back of the album cover stylizes. Billy Joel website with lyrics supporting cases #2 and #3 Lights is not a proper noun to be capped separately from the others. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment please see Miami 2017 (Seen the Lights go Out on Broadway) as another one to consider removing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Capital of Washington[edit]

Ambiguous, could as well refer to Washington, D.C. for anyone not familiar with U.S. administrative divisions, especially the difference between Washington, D.C. and Washington State. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:R from title[edit]

Propose retargeting to {{R from name with title}}, if you look at the incoming links, they clearly intend that rather than a more general topic,, e.g. Defense Secretary Carter, Governor Rick Snyder, Secretary Rice etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note I'm seeing a lot of uses where all sorts of alternative name redirects are tagged with this (I can't say whether properly or not). – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The term "from title" is a bit tricky because Wikipedia page names have also been called "article titles" or "page titles" or just "titles" since early Wikipedia days. It looks like about half of the redirects that use {{R from title}} could be more specifically {{R from name with title}}, and the other half are just {{R from alternative name}} generally (and are things that have nothing to do with personal honorary titles). If I had to go one way or another, I'd say keep it at {{R from alternative name}} because it's more general; an honorary title could be considered an alternative name, but not all alternative names are honorary titles, and I suspect {{R from title}} will continue to get used for both as long as it exists because it "feels" like the shortest way to express both of those concepts. --Closeapple (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Thank you for the ping, Uanfala!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

United States capital[edit]

Move United States capital (disambiguation) over redirect, perhaps? Nominated via Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_25#Georgia_capital, note that there is a hatnote at target, but the disambig isn't linked. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Regardless, United States capital (disambiguation) should be linked from a hatnote at Washington, D.C. if it is to exist. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move over redirect. I don't think there's a primary topic. WP:SMALLDETAILS might be a case for the status quo, but they're homonyms. If I were to aurally hear the phrase "United States capit[a,o]l", I would instantly think of the United States capitol. When referring to the capital city, "Capital of the United States" would be the most common phrase. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep readers are looking for Washington DC, but yes, a hatnote could be added if they want variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

Scare tactic[edit]

Japanese detainment[edit]

Seems too vague. Without specifying Japanese Americans, this could refer to any incident of Japanese people or the nation of Japan detaining or being detained (for example, List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II). --BDD (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)[edit]

MOS:HOTLINK[edit]

Help:Advanced editing[edit]

Wikipedia:Filling the page[edit]

Wikipedia:Editing Tips and Tricks[edit]

I'm rather sure that users looking up this phrase may not neveccarily be looking for information about wiki markup. They might be looking up information about possibly article layout guidelines. I'd be inclined to say that unless there is a more helpful target, these pages should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK Retargeted to Help:Editing since this seems like a rather helpful title for a Wikipedia how-to guide. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: People are not likely to write any more tutorials of this sort (I'm not aware of any new ones in years), but the exact phrase is probably too exact for it to be something someone would enter as a guess (e.g. a noob looking for how-to info).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing the community portal[edit]

Wikipedia:Community portal cannot be edited by this redirect directly, and this redirect leads to the talk page of the community portal (Wikipedia talk:Community portal). Editing Wikipedia:Community portal is done through this link, and I'm sure that we should be be retargeting to that since it's technically an external link. With that being said, probably delete, weak retarget to Wikipedia:Community portal or very weak restore the page since the nominated redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ripcordz Are Go[edit]

Next Holyrood elections in 2016[edit]

Georgia capital[edit]

This is not a G7 request. I created this redirect without knowing that most "[country] capital" redirects don't exist. Should this be kept? feminist 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. To me at least, "Georgia capital" is not the same as "Capital of Georgia". "Georgia capital" would be the amount of capital in or held by the country. I can't recall hearing a capital city being referred to as "[country] capital". Maybe "[country] capital city"... -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. For most US states, and for most countries, "X capital" is unambiguous and helpful, and the only reason this one is different is that Georgia is ambiguous. Since Capital of Georgia exists, this is a convenient reformatting. I've never heard "capital of X" referring to the amount of economic capital, aside from the joke in which Ireland's the richest country in the world because its capital is always doublin'; no reason that phrase can't be used, but it's rare compared to the use referring to the capital city. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend. This seems like hairsplitting, but I might expect that at "Georgian capital", not here. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the 'n' matters. Using the adjectival form "Georgian capital" would simply be (more) grammatically correct. "The Georgian capital is centrally located." Are we talking about the capital city being located in the center of the state or would it be where one might find the state's capital goods? -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose "Georgia capital" is grammatically wrong for either topic. But it seems a likely enough search term, and at the risk of sounding super condescending, someone using an ungrammatical search term like this probably has the more elementary query of "What's the capital of Georgia?" as opposed to "What sort of economic capital does Georgia have?" --BDD (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential and Vice Presidential March[edit]

Delete. WP:WORLDWIDE aside, there is no "Presidential and Vice Presidential March" in American politics. As such, this would be a textbook WP:XY between Hail to the Chief and Hail, Columbia. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget I think it perfectly plausible that someone looking for this would not know that there are different marches for the president and vice president, so it is a useful search term. The current target though is not good, per both WP:XY and WP:WORLDWIDE, but we do have Honors music which lists the marches and (other pieces of music that are not (called) marches) for various presidents and vice presidents. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. Good find, Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I had closed it as withdrawn and retargeted to honors music, but I have opened it back up by request. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (restore original target) after the DRV was closed and this speedily reopened, see this, for example, which is why I created the redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
So you found a mislabled YouTube video with barely any page views and thought that was good enough for a redirect? With no other usage, this is solidly in "novel or very obscure" territory. I think you and Thryduulf are on the same page that this could be a useful search term, but I would strongly oppose keeping it as is per WP:WORLDWIDE. At least honors music solves both issues I mentioned in the nom... -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
See also [51], note that video was auto-generated, presumably from this album. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: I did ping you on my talk page and since you did not respond, I have decided to open a DRV myself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment to make it explicitly clear, I strongly object to keeping the page redirecting to the original target. That page is linked from Honors music so users looking for it (and not any of the other pieces of music it could equally refer to) will still get there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

SQL 2000[edit]

SQL 2005[edit]

The President Obama[edit]

29th United States Ambassador to the United Nations[edit]

Sod alll[edit]

Unsure. This was created in April 2010 and had never gotten any other edits until an hour and a half ago, when Loopy30 tagged it for {{db-error}}. The redirect seems a bit pointless, but (1) apparent pointlessness is no reason for speedy deletion, and (2) I see no reason to conclude that it was created in error. In particular, it's likely that an error obvious enough for speedy deletion would have been discovered before now, so I'm really hesitant to do anything with this redirect without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The re-direct of the term is not pointless, but the plausibilty of that typo is extremely low. The typo is the three 'l's in the title. It appears to have been created in error with the correct re-direct (sod-all) created a minute afterwards. I don't care one way or the other, just trying to clean up... 'cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's merely an implausibility thing, it definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted; the relevant criterion, "R3", is only for recently created redirects. Of course, we can delete non-recent redirects with discussion. But what do "sod all" or "sod-all" have to do with "nothing"? The target article has no mentions of sod, and I don't see how sod (all of it or not all of it) is relevant to the concept of nothingness. If you believe that "sod all" is a good redirect, this title is reasonable as an {{R from typo}}, since triplicating a duplicated letter isn't a hard mistake to make. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
OK then. Keep as redirect page with {{R from typo}} if you think it is needed. "Sod-all" has nothing to do with sod (lawn/turf) and is instead a British colloquialism roughly equivalent to the North American "f*ck-all" (or in Quebec - "f*ck-nothing") derived from the word sodomy/sodomize. As far as time goes, if an error is not picked up automatically in a few days, it can last for years before being discovered/corrected manually. Yesterday, I found and corrected/reverted typos/vandalism that were years old. Good hunting. Loopy30 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Nyttend is correct that redirects of this sort are not speedy deletion candidates, even if apparently completely implausible, as there are often reasons that are not apparent to a single person - nominate them at RfD instead. In this case, I was expecting to recommend deletion as implausible but it gets more hits than I was expecting (14 last year) and there are far more instances of the typo being made in talk space that I would ever have predicted, so I'm going to recommend keeping it as harmless and slightly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I see Thryduulf's rationale, but don't find it terribly convincing, since it could apply to any word/name with a double letter in it, and we don't want people going around creating redirs like Jesssica Alba or WP:CANVASSS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for three L's. I've added {{R from slang}} for "sod all". A three-L version is not used in news articles or books and is not a plausible typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete since it just only has one misspelling. Still I find it not that useful to our readers --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

Wikipedia:Economics of information security[edit]

Leslie Gilliams[edit]

Wikipedia:EDITASAP[edit]

Shortcut created in September 2016. The shortcut sounds more like it refers to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Edit warring wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing as soon as possible. Diego (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a helpful mnemonic for the section in question, and does appear to refer to WP:DEADLINE, so it's confusing. We don't need more policy/guideline shortcuts (much less ones to essays like this) that just seem nifty to someone as a passing fancy. We occasionally need additional ones that tie strongly to the content in section in an obvious way, if a particular section has no shortcut at all and is frequently referred to specifically.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN[edit]

Shortcut created in September 2016. I fail to see how this is the proper target, considering this short sounds more like an edit war or some sort of guideline regarding someone making consecutive edits to the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.
That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing again, as soon as possible. Diego (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete like the one above; this is not a clear enough referent to the content at the target, so it is not mnemonic and just confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:EARLY[edit]

Shortcut using a standard word that redirects to a failed proposal proposed almost 10 years ago. There should be a better/more useful target for this ... but where? Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

American Mental Health Counselors Association[edit]

Wikipedia:DUP[edit]

Both should target the same page/location/section. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect both to the WP:MERGE section. The proposed-mergers process page doesn't even mention the word duplicate (or duplication, etc.) except inasmuch as some people's ephemeral comments there contain it. The #1 point at the information-page section, however, is "Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope", so this is clearly the more appropriate target.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror on the wall[edit]

Erde[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

As the closer of the previous discussion, I'd like to bring it back for further review. After closing, I decided to read Betty's article and noticed that "Erde" didn't become part of her name until her late 70's, and her time in the spotlight occurred many decades prior. I filed a requested move to have the article changed to her WP:COMMONNAME, and it passed. My concern is that I highly doubt someone searching "Erde" is looking for Betty Skelton, especially since it's a common word in German, meaning Earth. Erde is a WP:PTM for several articles, such as Freie Erde, Stadion Rote Erde, etc. Therefore, I feel the best option for our readers is to delete this redirect in favor of search results, noting that Betty Skelton will be a prominent result via the redirect Betty Skelton Erde. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning delete, and in case anyone makes the suggestion, I oppose retargeting to earth. I agree with Tavix's rationale, above. FYI, there is a scientific journal called Die Erde, which may worthy of its own article in this encyclopedia (it is published by Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, and it is mentioned in that article). If anyone does create an article for Die Erde, then we may want to make it the target for Erde. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose retarget to Earth per WP:FORRED and the previous discussion. I'm neutral regarding the rest of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since we seem to be heading towards a different consensus than last time, I think it would help to get a few more comments on this case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has no clear referent in English, and none of the PTM hits are what we would put on a DAB page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Maggie (prime minister)[edit]

Yowsers[edit]

Delete, this is not what "yowsers" mean and I can't find a compelling target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

retarget to WP:SURPRISE, of course, User:Tavix :). Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Weak redirect to Dance, Dance, Dance (Yowsah, Yowsah, Yowsah). Narky Blert (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ford Gum [52] [53] [54] Yowser Yowser Yowser is a song by Gyratory System but the latter doesn't have a page. And the catchphrase from Inspector Gadget is Wowsers! not Yowsers, so that could be used as a hatnote/see also.. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I also found a Yowza! Animation but that's going quite off track. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just an alternative spelling of "yowza", a slangish exclamation for which we have no article, per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. "Yowzers" (or anything like it) is not mentioned at Ford Gum, so we would not redirect there. They did make some gum products under the brand name "Yowzer" but they don't appear to be notable by themselves. I would redirect this only if the Ford Gum article were updated with material on the various product lines, including that one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's just a synonym of "ouch", which would be a good redirect to Pain if it didn't have a lot of alternate meanings. Lacking alternate meanings for "Yowsers", let's keep it as the redirect to the only article for which it's relevant. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Cf. what I just said above: "a slangish exclamation ... WP:NOT#DICTIONARY."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the English language, there hundreds (perhaps thousands) of exclamations for pain or surprise. I don't think we should be in the business of creating (or keeping) redirects for such exclamations, unless there are other plausible title matches (see, e.g., Yeehaw). We could potentially disambiguate between the items suggested in this discussion, but given that they involve alternative spellings, I think it's best if we let readers navigate through the search function. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

SLMSUNG[edit]

Samsung Group - 삼성그룹[edit]

Template:R from honorific[edit]

An honorific is not exactly a non-neutral name, consider Ms. Trump, President Trump etc, these are all common names, nobody would argue that they are not neutral. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It's more accurate to say that an honorific is not always a non-neutral name, but they can be - particularly some of the east Asian honorifics. Perhaps template:R from other name would be a better target? @Paine Ellsworth: is always worth pinging regarding R cats. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Mr. and Mrs. are honorifics per WP:HONOR. President is more of the occupational title MOS:JOBTITLES so that could get {{R from name with title}} instead, unless it's apparent from that job title that it is honorific as stated there: Her Majesty, His Holiness. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of rcat template redirects like this exist, to "funnel" various cases into a small set of generalized rcat templates. If they are removed, then people will fork actual new rcat templates to cover the cases they encounter; we've been merging these when possible rather than forking them, to reduce the number of maintenance categories and rcat templates. Even if there were something questionable about this redir, it would be retargeted to {{R from alternative name}} (to which {{R from other name}} redirects), not deleted. I would argue against that, since the redir in question isn't about alternate names (like Buster Poindexter for David Johansen) but about honorific titles being prefixed or suffixed to names, and undesirable article titles constructed with them, e.g. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. WP does consider it a neutrality problem to tack these appellations onto names. They are signs of particular groups' respect for or recognition of the individual in question, and it is not universal. The previous commenter is correct that WP:HONOR includes even "Mr." and "M[r]s."; it's not RfD's job to second-guess that. Also correct that President Trump is a {{R from name with title}}, because it's an occupational epithet not an honorific one. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, it's perfectly fine for someone who encounters a redirect from something that might be classified as an honorific, but which doesn't seem present a neutrality issue (I can't think of an example), to use some different rcat template than this one. There is no WP rule that {{R from honorific}} must be used for any redir that anyone might classify as an honorific. The template redir exists because the vast majority of honorific titles will in fact qualify as non-neutral names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget. Template:R from honorific → Template:R from name with title – Thank you for the ping, Thryduulf! Assuming that the creator of this rcat meant for this to be used as a short form of {{R from honorific with name}}, I think that to redirect it to its present target, {{R from non-neutral name}} misrepresents the original meaning and usage of that target rcat and its Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. An honorific is a specific type of "title" used to address a person, usually with respect and "honor" (rather than mere occupational, as noted by SMcCandlish above). So these should fit much better in Category:Redirects from names with title than in the present target's category. Another rcat that would be used on such redirects is {{R from unsuitable title}} (a secondary alternative target?), since such titles would not be used to name articles.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I'm neutral on Paine Ellsworth's retargeting proposal. This is for situations like His Majesty King Fahd or (nonexistent) His Holiness Pope Francis, where the title isn't exactly a neutral descriptor for the person. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Should the title be kept at non-neutral name, the description should be updated to include honorifics since right now it's focused on just the negative and pejorative ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Paine. "Non-neutral" usually means pejorative, so the correct target could be somewhat of a surprise. Paine's suggestion mitigates that quite nicely. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Non-neutral does not usually mean pejorative, it means non-neutral, whether pro or con.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I know what the definition is, but I'm referring to general usage in my experience. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Home credit[edit]

January 23[edit]

MridangamLessons[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donation header[edit]

Rather surprising redirect. Note: This redirect is a {{R from history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Does not have an article[edit]

Shouldn't this target Wikipedia:Red link? Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Doctors' mess[edit]

Wikipedia:Distributed Language translation[edit]

Wikipedia:Disabling[edit]

Is there a better/more helpful target for this than a long-historical page? Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I can't find a better target, but it's not doing any harm pointing where it is. user:OneGuy formulated the proposal at the target, so they may have an opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2016-12#Redirect request: Mr. Margaret Thatcher / Mr Margaret Thatcher / Mister Margaret Thatcher. --Nevé–selbert 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 29#Mrs Denis Thatcher. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the use of the term in the official Hansard record at the AfC/R link in the nom, which should have led the decliner to accept the creation of the redirects. I would also create the other two redlinks there for the same reason. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Quick question Patar knight. Just to preface, I was joking when I wrote back in July that "Mr Margaret Thatcher" should be a redirect. What is this redirect referring to, anyway? Thatcher or her husband? Has anyone ever referred to her using the male courtesy title, without being sarcastic? I am unconvinced the nom at AfC/R was serious in making the request.--Nevé–selbert 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Just checked the link at the nomination, and I am pretty certain that the "Mr." was a typographical error on the part of Hansard. Take this document from the very same website linked at AfC/R, using the correct form "Mrs. Margaret Thatcher".--Nevé–selbert 17:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's also used in the official Hansard [55], and it's also reproduced as recently as 2010 in some British [56] and Indian government sources. [57]. None of these are sarcastic, and if they are mistakes, their existence means that deletion would be undesirable, since it would be a plausible mistake. I wouldn't mind pointing this to Denis Thatcher or having a page directing readers to both pages, since the marriage field in infobox is prominent, but I wouldn't support deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Defunct WikiProject Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia:Definition of famous[edit]

At this moment, this redirect is a WP:CNR to an article talk page. I'm thinking this needs to be retargeted to some sort of guideline related to WP:GNG. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia:FAMOUS currently targets Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New Age (Kylie Minogue album)[edit]

Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/[edit]

Wikipedia:JUDGE[edit]

Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election[edit]

These are both obviously out of date, the next Australian federal election likely being in 2018 or 2019. There is a section about a pendulum for the next election, Next Australian federal election#Marginal seat pendulum, but I don't know enough about Australian politics to know if this is a good target or not? I will ping WikiProject Australia about this and the discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is that there will be redistributions between now and the next election so the exact pendulum is not yet in existence. At the moment, it's probably fair to redirect it to Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2016 since at this point in time they are identical. Once redistributions are finalised a new page can be created. Frickeg (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Winter of 2010[edit]

WP:XY as we also have Winter of 2010–11 in Europe, 2009–10 North American winter, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Winter of 2010 and 2010 winter are needed as useful short easily-remembered redirect names for typing in by people who cannot be expected to remember a lot of long page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless it's the title of some media, we don't have dabs or articles for "winter year" and it messes with MOS:SEASON so the redirect isn't helpful. Letting the user type in "winter of 2010" and picking from the suggested search options which list both 2009-10 and 2010-11 possibilities is more useful. Similarly typing in 2010 Winter will give lots of possibilities including "2010 Winter Olympics" which would be what I'd look for instead of weather in Europe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - this is a useful search term, and as such should not be deleted, but could be either of two winters so we need to resolve the ambiguity. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. This is a reasonable, but ambiguous search term. In addition to the three articles listed by Tavix, we should probably add Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia to the dab list.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 00:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have started the page as a draft here:

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That dab might be useful. I just don't know if that means we should start adding (season) (year) dab articles in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed kpop music videos[edit]

The redirect is not needed at all; there is no longer a section regarding "YouTube Views" for the K-pop section since that was a trivial metric in the first place. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the headsup. Only just noticed that that section was removed on Christmas Day, and if the article stays the same way, there is no need for this redirect. I don't know if anyone will feel strongly enough to restore the section, it was removed on the basis of OR rather than being merely trivial, so if anyone is willing to do the work to source it, and there probably is enough third party sources for Gangnam Style at the very least, it should by the removing editor's criteria still merit its own section. I'd say give it a week or maybe two, enough time for the people who have invested their time trying to keep that section updated to notice that its missing, realise why its missing, and come up with a response; if after that period of grace there isn't a target for the redirect, then yes please do delete this.-KTo288 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The table has remained in the article since it was re-added but it is tagged as "original research?"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Candidates of the next Australian federal election[edit]

This is redirect from a move left over after the date of the then next election became known. However, the 2016 election has been and gone, so it's no longer I think appropriate to keep it pointing where it currently is. There is an article Next Australian federal election but, perhaps unsurprisingly for an election not expected to happen until August 2018 at the earliest, there is no information in that articles about candidates yet so I'm unsure if that should be the target? Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Next Australian federal election for now. This is basically a placeholder until the election is close enough that the article would not be pointless, and saves deleting and recreating it every time. Having the next election article as a target at least communicates the fact that it's far enough away not to be terribly detailed yet. Frickeg (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What Frickeg said. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect implies there is information regarding candidates for the next Australian federal election. Since that information doesn't exist, the only logical way to solve this would be via deletion of the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't believe that this is useful and worth keeping in the long run. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Next Australian federal election until more information becomes available for the same reasons as User:Frickeg. --SwiftyPeep (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. That information doesn't currently exist. This redirect will lead to information that isn't "candidates of the next Australian federal election", regardless of where it targets, for a period of time after each election takes place in a perpetual cycle.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

Proposing to delete the redirect as implausible - there has been no official intervention of Israel in the Syrian War to date (see community consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel) and it can barely be even described as "involvement" (there has been some spillover well described at Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War article and several unclear explosion incidents possibly associated with Israel by external sources, which is already listed at Iran-Israel proxy conflict and Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War articles) GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - The distinction between 'intervention' and 'involvement' is a fine one, and redirects don't have to be strictly accurate to be useful. Whether or not the Israeli actions in Syria are properly called 'involvement' and if they're justified is an ethical and legal question that's beyond the scope of this discussion process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - accuracy is not necessary for a redirect. It simply has to take the searcher where there is information for which they are likely to be looking. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Home Credit[edit]

Mr. Trump[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_12#Mr._Trump, Mr Trump was newly created, I suggest retargeting back to Donald Trump due to the PTOPIC, but I guess the outcome will be influenced by the discussion on Talk:Trump. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for adding those, BDD. I think Ms./Mrs. Trump is more ambiguous than Mr. Trump, and should also point to Trump (surname). It could easily refer to different people. Even thinking WP:RECENT-ly (which you shouldn't), Ivanka Trump has received quite a lot of media attention. - Eureka Lott 22:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I could not find an instance where Ivanka is referred to as either of those names, surely Melania is the primary topic, I would prefer outright deletion to retargeting to the surname page, though. Compare Mrs. Obama, although Ms. Obama is red. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Transport delay[edit]

No hint of this term once a searcher lands on the dab page. There must be some better target for this redirect. If we can't find one, let's just delete it. — Gorthian (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Amending my nomination to propose retargeting to schedule delay, which would cover all the meanings discussed so far. @Thryduulf and Notecardforfree: would you accept this proposal instead?— Gorthian (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

President Business[edit]

Ste.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

Joh.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

Ph.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

  • Not sure about Ph., but I would note that it can be used to refer to a King Philip (i.e. Philip II of Spain) --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Ph. as there is clearly no primary topic for this, but kings Philip to the dab. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It could be used to refer to a King Philip, but is it? If there is evidence of it's use, then we should add King Philip to the dab page, but otherwise, it's not beneficial to add things we imagine might be abbreviated "Ph."—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: @Ketiltrout: The English regnal year for 1554: 1 Mar. 1 – 1 Ph. & M.--Nevé–selbert 10:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ja.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

  • Not sure about Ja., but I would note that it can be used to various King Jameses respectively. --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Ja. but add Kings James to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, and add King James (disambiguation) to the dab page.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ann.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

  • Ann. to Anne, Queen of Great Britain (based on 14 Will. 3 – 1 Ann. 1 for the year 1702) --Nevé–selbert 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would dabify Vict. It's used in various contexts to mean Queen Victoria or the Victorian era, and it's the standard abbreviation for Kirouac in botany. Kirouac wouldn't be appropriate on the Victoria dab. "Ann." might be similar, though Liebigs Annalen might be OK at Ann. Cnilep (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for "Ann." All incoming links to the redirect are intended for the journal Liebigs Annalen, so it is the primary topic. ChemNerd (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Ann per ChemNerd, but add a hatnote to the dab page at Ann and list the queen there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Retarget to Ann. "Ann." is the ISO 4 standard abbreviation for "Annal", "Annals", "Annelen", &c., which means it appears in the abbreviations of a lot of scholarly journals (although WP:PTM should prevent the majority of these from appearing on a dab page). If kept, we should add a hatnote to Ann on Liebigs Annalen and, in either case, add Queen Anne to the dab page.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep the current arrangement or apply disambiguation V8rik (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Vict.[edit]

Recommend retargeting the following redirect, based on Regnal years of English monarchs:

No. Vict. is the standard botanical abbreviation by which the botanist Marie-Victorin Kirouac is cited. See, for example, Purdiaea. If there is another meaning, then by all means convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. To retarget, as though your regnal years are the only legitimate use, is not appropriate.
Vict. is the only one of the above that I've looked at, but presumably they all have legitimate targets.
Hesperian 02:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Vict. could mean a lot of things, so a redirect to Victoria sounds better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for "Vict." This is the standard botanical abbreviation, appearing in taxoboxes where this person was the author. If it's ambiguous, then as Hesperian says, create a disambiguation page. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would dabify Vict. It's used in various contexts to mean Queen Victoria or the Victorian era, and it's the standard abbreviation for Kirouac in botany. Kirouac wouldn't be appropriate on the Victoria dab. Cnilep (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig Vict, in addition to the uses above it's used frequently to refer to Victoria (Australia) and the Victoria International Container Terminal (which should probably get a mention in the Port of Melbourne article). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As this is quickly becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, I have decided to boldly split this nomination. Please feel free to clarify any remarks that might need clarifying. -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Cnilep and Thryduulf.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Has incoming links intending the botanist and likely will continue to attract incoming links for the botanist. Dab page will ensure that links (eventually) get pointed to the right place. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Favouritism[edit]

It seems odd that different spellings of the same word should have different targets. Originally (circa 2005) both pointed to Elitism, but User:Tim bates retargeted the American spelling to Ingroup in 2011, noting "populists are routinely convicted of favoritism". Elitism is probably not the best target, but I'm not certain what is. Perhaps Favourite (companion of a ruler) or Favorite (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think Ingroups and outgroups works best, for both spellings. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ditto I think Ingroups and outgroups works best for both spellings. Did a check to see if people use favouritism to mean elitism and it doesn't seem to be common (i couldn't find an example). The companion of a ruler page is too specific, IMHO. So I think favouritism should redirect to ingroups and outgroups, until someone makes a favouritism disambiguation page if more reasonable alternatives emerge Tim bates (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
There's also In-group favoritism which seems to be a hatnoted article from the Ingroups and outgroups page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to favorite, add the in-groups and such as See Alsos or hatnote. Note "Favored" goes to Favor. Also note "preferential treatment" doesn't redirect anywhere either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi: To favour is to prefer - I favour democracy. Favouritism is preferring one's own over other kinds. So I think either favo[u]ritism need its own page, or should stay redirected to in-group out-group. Probably the best answer is its own page, with brief notes on usage. I worry that if everything goes to favorite, along with favorite icecream, favoritism (which one doesn't show to ice-cream) will be lost and not readily re-found. Tim bates (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • How about a retarget both to In-group favoritism? As AngusWOOF notes, that article features a hatnote to Ingroups and outgroups, which in turn features a 'Main article' link to In-group favoritism. Cnilep (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Or alternately, this (though I still think I prefer retarget to 'In-group favoritism'). Cnilep (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to in-group favoritism, which seems the most likely subject. When people think of royal favourites, they're not generally doing so with the word "favouritism". It's not really synonymous with elitism (many elites does not favo[u]r each other but are in competition, they just happen to have a lot of money/power).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a business listing[edit]

Server 2008 and others[edit]

Ambiguous for most significant word is left out, this can also refer to SQL Server 2008, either of those two can be abbreviated "Server 2008" after the full name is introduced, and we don't need a DAB because of the WP:PTM issue. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Added Server 2012 and Server 2016. Either can also be a PTM for the corresponding versions of SQL Server - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig. Yes they are all partial title matches, but that is irrelevant as they all referred to by the partial title and so the search term is ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I would not support disambiguation for there are exactly only two titles that these can refer to, search results are still the best option, while I would not oppose a hatnote. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I do no think search results are good solution here because there are many irrelevant articles brought up that it's not easy to find the article about what people are likely to be looking for. There is no rule that requires three ambiguous titles before a disambiguation page is required - only that there be two or more uses without a primary topic, which is exactly what we have here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all as ambiguous. Other companies also produced servers in these years, so I think those are potential targets as well (see, e.g., macOS Server). I think the best solution is to let readers sort this out through the search function. FYI, I also added four related redirects to this discussion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Notecardforfree: fine in theory, but the search results include so many irrelevant results that it's very difficult for readers to sort it out that way. Our goal is to make it easier for people to navigate the encyclopaedia not harder. If other articles are also known by this phrase then the correct thing to do is add them to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, I'm not opposed to the idea of disambiguation in principle, but I'm not sure how you would feasibly accomplish disambiguation here. Would you create a List of servers? We have List of display servers and List of FTP server software, though I don't know enough about computer servers to determine whether either would be an appropriate place to disambiguate these topics. Alternatively, would you disambiguate all servers made in 2008, 2003, etc.? I'm keeping an open mind about this, and if a good disambiguation page/pages is/are possible, then I would be okay with that. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. My search overwhelmingly came up with results for Windows, so I think it's safe to say this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

希望[edit]

Virtual transmission[edit]

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME Plus![edit]

Wikipedia:Database error[edit]

Wikipedia:Database download)[edit]

BRV[edit]

Cultural exchange[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Cultural exchange

@POTUS[edit]

Search engine test[edit]

Wikipedia:Danotable[edit]

DILLIGAD[edit]

Unnecessary list-entry redirects when no other acronyms redirect to this page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as precursors to stubs, especially DILLIGAF, which Kevin Bloody Wilson has embraced by using it to title his biography, album, tour, and merchandise. I would like to see the deleted article Dilligaf, as well.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, "delete per WP:REDLINK" seems like a good course of action. Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943: the only links that exist for acronyms in these lists are for those acronyms notable enough to have either articles or disambiguation pages at their titles. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilligaf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. With an eye toward creating a stub article, what content (if any) was there at Dilligaf before it became a redirect, and at its entries at the now-deleted List of internet slang and the now-redirect List of Internet slang?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the only non-vandalism, non-spam versions of Diligaf have been a dictionary definition and a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Tone deleted the latter and replaced it with the current salted page, without discussion I can find. A 2005 AfD closed as redirect to List of internet slang, a page that has evolved into the prose article Internet slang. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note Any content at this title (any capitalisation) needs to be semi-protected because it will attract vandalism otherwise (based on the history), but this is not a reason for or against any course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now - Added two sources to the list near the entries. However, before this discussion, statistics say that both are the least searched acronyms. If kept, protection might be needed. If deleted, the pages might be re-created over and over. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Engaeus affinis[edit]

Orissa Brahmins[edit]

Kshatriya caste in orissa[edit]

Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air[edit]

This is not covered at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air closed as "merge to Fatigue (material)" in 2013. An edit summary by user:Yaksar shortly afterwards stated that the "content is there", presumably Fatigue (material) so they redirected it. It is unclear to me if material was or was not actually merged. The relevant content in the target article seems to have been deleted in this edit by user:John in November 2015 removing material that had been tagged as unreferenced since June 2013. This is not my field at all, but it looks the sort of information (but prosified) that would be encyclopaedic to include somewhere if it can be referenced (and I suspect it could be). This redirect would make a useful search term to the content if we have it somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The question of how object strength changes based on the environment is an interesting one, but this is a clunky sort of wording that I don't think is that helpful to have in a redirect. As well, maybe the related article on fatigue needs to be changed. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Louis Raymond (garden & landscape designer & writer)[edit]

This disambiguator is much too unwieldy to be useful. Stats are negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as harmless, unless user:Pollard&coppice (the person who created the article at this title) indicates they want it deleted (i.e. a G7) then I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not a synonym for the article though, it's an unusually long disambiguator that may help people find the article via search engines if they use these search terms (e.g. Louis Raymond garden writer) as "horticulturalist" (a word my spellcheck doesn't recognise) isn't necessarily going to be one everybody knows or associates with him. Above all I don't see what harm it is doing. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The disambiguator is so WP:PRECISE that it is quite vulnerable to having WP:XY problems. Might as well get rid of this now. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: I really don't understand how something can be bother precise and be WP:XY - XY is entirely about not being specific enough to identify a single topic, whereas this is about a single person who designs and writes about gardens and landscapes. Unless there is someone else called Louis Raymond who does these things (in which case we'd create a dab page if one wasn't primary) then it's far less likely to have XY issues than the much broader term "horticulturalist" is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • My point here is that though this redirect may be a valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, this redirect has a good chance of eventually having a WP:XY issue if another article comes along with a subject by this name that is notable for one of the aspects of the three terms in the disambiguator. In most cases, I would opt to "keep" such redirects, but this one uses three separate terms in its disambiguator, leaving it unwieldy and unlikely. Also, it almost reminds me of recently-deleted page Drake (singer/rapper). Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename to Louis Raymond (landscape designer), which is the occupation at that target page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Louis Raymond (landscape designer) per AngusWOOF, without leaving a redirect behind. It's extremely implausible as a search term and seems to be the remnant of a move from the article's first title (where it spent the first 10 days of its existence back in 2012) – apparently created by a novice editor who was not completely acquainted with the naming conventions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Studiengang[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - This looks like an open-and-shut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization[edit]

Draft:Carbon Ranches - Working List[edit]

Draft:List of carbon ranches (2)[edit]

Extraordinary Incident[edit]

Montrose Railway[edit]

Terry Duffy (disambiguation)[edit]

Double redirect. Disambiguation not necessary — Iadmc♫talk  09:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Bayman-Bet[edit]

Double redirect. No mention of redirect in final target — Iadmc♫talk  09:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Baymam-Bet[edit]

No mention of redirect in target — Iadmc♫talk  09:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Latin name[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Latin name

Politics of Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Politics of Taiwan

File:KPKK logo.jpg[edit]

Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Secaucus Junction (IRT Flushing Line)

January 19[edit]

Netanyahu (disambiguation)[edit]

LÖVE[edit]

Rock anthem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Rock anthem

80's Hits[edit]

Rock standard[edit]

1980 in rock[edit]

Rock, metal and punk[edit]

The Zap Gun![edit]

Rockmusic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Rockmusic

List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic[edit]

American War[edit]

Too vague to be useful. List of wars involving the United States would be a better target, but the term implies a specific war, and I don't think any one conflict is best known as "American War" in English—and note that more plausible search terms like American wars already redirect there. The lowercase variant started as an article asserting that the Vietnamese call (what we call) the Vietnam War the "American War", which makes sense, though retargeting there would WP:SURPRISE. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment there's also List of conflicts in the United States to go along with the List of wars involving the United States. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Iazyges: your bolded !vote is "delete" but you appear to be arguing for a "disambiguate" outcome. Please could you clarify, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      Hm, I think I must have wrote it wrong, changed the contradiction. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • we have enough different pages of wars, conflicts, interventions, etc. is also confusing - enough for what? There is no limit to the number of pages on any given subject, so it's irrelevant how many already exist - if another redirect or disambiguation page is needed it should exist, regardless of what otherstuff exists. Whether it should exist or not depends only on whether it is a useful search term. On the other hand you could equally mean that we have enough articles to support a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I don't support deletion since the Vietnam War was definitely also known as the "American War". I'd support a retarget there, but I'm afraid it may be a surprise for someone looking for another war in which the United States was involved. Therefore, I believe disambiguation to be the most elegant solution. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

From-rum merger[edit]

Robo-R&B[edit]

Queen Elizabeth of England[edit]

Wikipedia:Moradabad[edit]

Bush Quayle[edit]

Ambiguous, could also refer to the 1988 campaign, not suitable for a disambiguation page, but we have Bush campaign, so I suppose retargeting there could be pretty reasonable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wilmo[edit]

Holiday tree[edit]

The Billionaires' Tea Party[edit]

Rock(music)[edit]

Ben Richardson[edit]

January 18[edit]

Wikipedia:LZD[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D5 as nonsense. FWIW: LZD redirects to an airport in Connecticut. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've removed that line from the table as it incorrectly makes it seem like the project has their own deletion sorting category, which is misleading because they don't. On a WikiProject level as specific as a single band, the proper way to set this up would be via article alerts. If the project wasn't defunct, I'd be interested in setting that up for them, but I don't really see the need currently. What's interesting about this shortcut is it wouldn't even cover most of Led Zeppelin anyway. If the band or one of the members were up for deletion via AfD, then it'd be listed there. But if any of their albums or songs were listed, it'd go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. It's a bit of an WP:XY issue. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is part of a series of several WP:LZx redirects to pages relevant to the Led Zeppelin project, e.g. WP:LZA, WP:LZP, WP:LZT, etc. (all the ones at User:Scott/Notes/Shortcut table/uppercase starting with LZ) and it's getting uses so unless there is something more prominent or more expected at this shortcut I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not getting use via the Led Zeppelin WikIProject because it has been marked as defunct. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: stats show it has hrrrrrad 69 hit over the last year so it's definitely in use, and if there's nothing better we want to use the TLA for then no reason to delete. (WP:R#D5 is irrelevant because it is not nonsense. User:UanfalaZ explained is basis.) Amisom (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You just used what I call the "page view fallacy". You can't assume that something is automatically useful because it has a certain number of page views. We don't know who is using it, whether they are using it deliberately, and if someone using it is satisfied with where they end up. Seeing as it's an incorrect and misleading shortcut from a defunct WikiProject, I think it's a safe bet that those page views are not coming via people wanting to see if this particular band or their members are being nominated for deletion via AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
We can never know why people are using a redirect, all we can know is that they are using it. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo (in this case you) to show that the change will be beneficial. We know people are using it, and we haven't identified anything else they could be looking for, so why must we assume that it is not useful without any evidence to support that? Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that I know why it was created, I've laid out the problem with the redirect in my response to Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Weak keep Since there isn't a page of Led Zeppelin-related deletions, anyone who does know the significance of this is likely to be disappointed. I would expect that most days, the target page would have nothing related to the band. However... the obscurity of the term gives me pause. Surely no one is expecting a project page about the little airport. It's certainly possible editors interested in music-related deletions has gotten into the habit of using this without any specific expectation of Led Zeppelin content. Given that this is extremely low-value real estate, I'm inclined to just let it slide absent direct evidence of confusion or harm.
As a measure of how weak my vote is, I actually changed it from "weak delete" mid-writing. I'd also like to stress that this is just concerning "LZD"; I haven't looked into uses of the other LZx redirects, and may feel differently about some of them. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@BDD: The confusion that I see is that there would be multiple deletion sorts related to the band. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians and there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. There's also other deletion methods besides AfD that isn't covered by deletion sorting. How do we know what someone is looking for? -- Tavix (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... that's definitely something. And putting a hatnote to accommodate this shortcut would not be appropriate. I note that the redirect was created in December 2007; at that point, both delsorts already existed. And if anything, I'd expect "Albums and songs" to have more entries relevant to Led Zeppelin. "Bands and musicians" may get an LZ cover band or two, but more relevant AfDs would probably come from songs of borderline notability. Wonder what the other keep voters make of this XY situation... --BDD (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Fusion (music)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Fusion (music)

List of jazz albums[edit]

No such list at target article. Also, the redirect was nominated for WP:AFD as an article in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of jazz albums - closed to "no consensus") and was redirected to its current target in March 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It's probably best to restore the list per WP:BLAR as there was never any consensus to delete the list in any form. I'll note that Category:Lists of albums by genre has several other genres. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore article per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Classical blues[edit]

Blues and soul jazz[edit]

WP:XY between Blues and Soul jazz. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Brian Harmon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Brian Harmon

Template:Excessive citations[edit]

46 DC EA D3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#46 DC EA D3

Template:Cquote (redirects)[edit]

Wikipedia:LAWYERS[edit]

Ambiguous with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (shortcut LAWYER). Currently points to a failed proposal, although it has many links from content and deletion discussions which would need to be corrected. I created WP:NLAWYER as a typical notability guideline redirect to replace this. Suggest either retarget to the Wikilawyering essay or delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep and add any necessary hatnotes. If a shortcut "has many links from content and deletion discussions" then we need a very good reason to change it as new links will continue to be made. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep  If anything should be changed, it is WP:LAWYER.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Notability (law). It's preferable to have WP:LAWYER and WP:LAWYERS be consistent. I also consider this commonly referenced essay to have medium precedence over a failed proposal. Only approximately 35 existing links (which could easily be remedied). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, and retarget WP:LAWYER per Unscintillating. I imagine that will require a separate discussion, though. Notability policies are much more important than pejorative jargon. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@BDD: I would perhaps agree, except that WP:LAWYER already has over 1000 links. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Wikipedia:LAWYER to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both as is and link with hatnotes. It's not ideal for them to point at different targets but both are established as they are and the problems caused by breaking old links significantly outweigh the benefits of standardisation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both as is, as above. WP:LAWYER has seen wide use as it is, and there's little reason to think it won't continue being used.. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget so they're both at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I don't think it's wise to point to a failed proposal when there's a better target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If it wouldn't result in breaking established usage and links from old discussions to the extent that retargetting either of these will I would agree with Tavix, however given that breakage will occur I continue to oppose retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to state continued opposition to something. Your comment from earlier is sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I started to respond with: You don't have to remind editors of such things, because it probably won't stop them from adding stressful or overly stressful comments in the future; however, I realize that I don't have to state that. Happy New Year to all!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: it's true that I don't have to, but in this case you made a valid point after my comment that probably contributed to Deryck Chan seeking more input into the discussion. To aid whomever next comes to close this in a week or so to reach a decision, I felt that responding to your comment acknowleding it but noting that the recommendation I made before you commented still represents my view would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you imagine if everyone who already participated in a discussion did that after a relist or comment? It would quickly become unwieldy. I'm sure the closer can figure out that you still hold the same view unless you note otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnotes to both. –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both as they appear to be established as shortcuts. Although I sympathise with the desire for having them point to the same target, I don't think the use of these shortcuts in context is likely to lead to confusion. You can say that some editor is WP:WIKILAWYERING or that they're trying to be a WP:LAWYER, but I can't imagine a context where the plural could be called for. Confusion could arise in the case of the notability proposal as the use of either the singular or the plural seems plausible, but that would only be an argument for retargetting WP:LAWYER, and that's not going to happen as it's the shortcut more strongly established in current use. – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hispânico[edit]

Ayan 2[edit]

Category:Jeet Visual Arts[edit]

Sheepland[edit]

Naruto (season 6)[edit]

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 6th–9th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 6, that could be Shippuden S1, which followed Naruto S5, and Shippuden S6, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 6). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Ugh, no. The Shippuden series is named as such in Japan and restarts with series 1, does not continue numbering where it left off. It certainly does not need ones beyond 5. If you want to keep season 6 that'd be fine, but delete everything above that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 6", etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I still think that retargetting is best. AngusWOOF's reasoning seems to be based on an assumption that everybody looking for this will know and remember the numbering restarted. While some people will, I do not think that we can rely on everybody doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Naruto (season 10)[edit]

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. It redirects to Part 2 of the series instead of the original. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 10th–15th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 10, that could be Shippuden S5, which followed Naruto S5 and Shippuden S1–4, and Shippuden S10, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 10). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all as with the 6-9, there is no continuation of numbering for the original Naruto seasons in Japan or in Viz Media (English version), so this would be confusing. Japan treats Naruto Shippuden as a separate series, and even if it were combined, it wouldn't start with season 10 pointing to NS season 1 but season 6 pointing to season 1. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 10", etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Per Patar knight's comments here and my additional comments above, I still think retargetting is best. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Aye karumba[edit]

Mis-spelling of "Ay, caramba!" - I highly doubt anyone will ever search for this. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an {{R from move}} and 64 people used the redirect last year. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The page was originally moved to Ay-carumba (another mis-spelling) which now redirects to ¡Ay, caramba!. Google corrects "Aye karumba" to "Ay caramba" as well, so even if 64 people stumbled upon this redirect (hardly anything to write home about, that's just over one per week) it isn't really necessary as they would've been able to find the correct spelling using Google. WP doesn't need to get cluttered with redirects for phonetic mis-spellings of foreign-language terms.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral on whether or not it should be kept, but if it is kept, it should be retargeted to ¡Ay, caramba!. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix as the original expression. Bart Simpson might have popularized it, but it isn't his original trademarked catchphrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I support a retarget change over to ¡Ay, caramba! as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above users. If someone is actually searching for Bart Simpson this way, they'll find him linked on the ¡Ay, caramba! page anyway. Daß Wölf 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Mirage (Aladdin TV Series)[edit]

Possibly confusing disambiguator. The subject is an Aladdin character, not a TV series. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep – Given there isn't actually a TV series about Aladdin by the name "Mirage", I don't see an actual potential for confusion.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 23:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep people using this are looking for Mirage from the Aladdin TV series, not an Aladdin TV series titled "Mirage". Per Newbiepedian, there is no likelihood of confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm sympathetic to the potential for confusion. It's safe to say this is unused as it registered only 8 pageviews in all of 2016. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf as a search term that is sensible, if not much used. – Uanfala (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Sultan[edit]

Agrabah[edit]

Alexandra Bartee[edit]

South Koreans[edit]

Possible suggest a disambiguation page or the relevant sections in Koreans etc. We have similar dabs for other countries, I'm a bit surprised that it is not the case here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. In the absence of separate articles differentiating language and demography from nationhood (as for Danish language, Danish people → Danes, etc) these seem really the best targets. Am I missing something here? Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @SimonTrew: Note that they point to the country article rather than one about a specific topic like the examples you just linked. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget "South Koreans", "North Koreans" and "North Korean people" to Koreans. Retarget the others to Korean (a disambig). Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete North Korean people, Retarget all others per Thryduulf Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonTrew; there is nothing requiring repair here. bd2412 T 23:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: It's just the same reason and the targets in the previous vote. (hmm, you might referring to WP:PERX?). KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@KGirlTrucker81: no, nothing to do with PERX, just it was unclear which suggestion you were endorsing given there have been more than one above comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Per AngusWOOF or Uanfala, retarget "North Korean" and "South Korean" to dabpages. Also, retarget "North Koreans" and "South Koreans" to either "Demographics of <something> Korea" or Koreans. If neither is suitable, then dabpage for now. Same for "<something> Korean people" pages, including one that I added. George Ho (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Prisencolin. Used to refer to people, "North Korean" and "South Korean" are nationalities, not ethnicities. People like the Americans in North Korea could accurately be called North Koreans, even though they're not ethnically Korean (ok, one of them is, incidentally). --BDD (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In case it isn't immediately clear by looking at the discussion: 2–3 different article target sets have been suggested by commenters above who have stated "Retarget". For this reason, relisting again to give consensus a chance to form to clarify which set of articles these redirects should target. Or, does a WP:SIA of some sort need to be created?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonTrew, but Retarget North Korean people to Koreans for consistency. Ceosad (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move North Korean (disambiguation) and South Korean (disambiguation) to their respective base titles. Retarget the redirects related to North Korea to North Korean (disambiguation) and retarget the redirects related to South Korea to South Korean (disambiguation). I'm in agreement with Uanfala, but I'm a bit more affirmative that it's best to have the disambiguation occupy the base title. As Champion pointed out, most other country-level demonyms are disambiguations. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Hourihane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Elizabeth Hourihane

Overrated fat shit[edit]

List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members

List of platforms Linux is ported for[edit]

Taka-Toolo[edit]

Template:LISD[edit]

This needs to be either a notice of disambiguation or deleted. There are multiple Texas school districts called "LISD" so the template name could be potentially used for any of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW while Template:UISD (for United ISD) may also be ambiguous between two school districts, one of them only has one high school (and therefore no basis for a template) so I don't know if this counts too. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It looks like "LISD" is used as an abbreviation for "Laredo Independent School District." The schools in that district are listed in this template. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to Template:Laredo Independent School District as there's significant history. "LISD" could also refer to most of List of school districts in Texas#L, so the shortcut as it stands is more than useless. -- Tavix (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Tavix's suggestion seems good, except I don't think there's really any history we need to preserve here. It's not used anywhere, and it looks like the navbox is going to remain organized by county rather than school district. Even if the remaining redlinks were filled in, it wouldn't be too large. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:Webb County, Texas Schools was recently created by merging several templates, one of which was Template:LISD. I'd say that meets the preservation requirements of WP:MAD. Even if it didn't, I don't see the harm in preserving it in case there is future consensus to split the templates or perhaps someone might want to add more to the Webb county template from the LISD template. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Not sure what I was looking at, but I didn't see the actual page history. Move without redirect per you. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Doesn't appear to have a lot of usage, delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep; whether or not something gets usage isn't hugely relevant to retaining old titles. Nothing wrong with it, and as was previously noted at RFD, this is a permitted nickname based on the old name for this page, "Votes for deletion". Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • keep per Nyttend and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Ugh, this is just awful. Who in their right mind thought this redirect was humourous, let alone appropriate. I'm sorry, but I can not and will not tolerate a redirect that promotes Wikipedia's processes as "violent". Just read WP:VIOLENCE to figure out that violence on Wikipedia is a real problem, and we should not diminish this by laughing it off with "humourous" redirects like this. That issue aside, if someone finds it appropriate to label one of our fora as violent, there's a case to be made about all of them, so it's technically ambiguous. Please don't marginalize this important issue. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This redirect was created in 2005 by User:Radiant!, who has not edited in several years, as a backronym for the target's then name of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I disagree completely that humour of this sort does anything to promote or encourage real world threats of harm, particularly when "violent" here is being used to mean "passionate" or "strident". Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • You're not going to get me to back down from this, it's a matter I take very seriously. I hope your cheap laugh was worth it, because violence is not a laughing matter for me. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • It's not my "cheap laugh" and I really rather resent the implication you make that I am laughing at violence. Violence is not a laughing matter, but this is not violence, it is not promoting violence, it is not encouraging violence, it is not trivialising or normalising violence (I'd be aruging delete if it were any of those things) it is simply a very old backronym created for presumably humorous reasons that happens to use the word "violence". Failing to make the distinction between the word and the action does the cause of making Wikipedia a better place more harm than it does good in my opinion - fighting battles over harmless trivia such as this reidrect distract attention and effort from fighting the battles that actually need fighting such as that against harassment (of all sorts and against all targets). We may have to agree to disagree about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
          • If you really want to take a stand against violence, then !vote for the deletion of this redirect. Violence takes many forms, one of which that is popular on Internet sites like this one is Cyberbullying. If even one person sees this redirect and they even think for one second that AfD is a place where they could be cyberbullied or any other form of violence, then this redirect simply isn't worth it. It's that simple. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
            • I really do not think it is remotely credible that someone will see this redirect and come to the conclusion that you seem to think they will, even in the extremely unlikely event that they come across the redirect out of all context with no prior knowledge of what AfD is. I'm sorry but I simply cannot the legitimising of reductio ad absurdum as reasons for deletion. I will defend to the hilt all constructive attempts to eradicate harassment in all its forms, but I will not condone the tilting at things two steps removed from windmills on the offchance that someone somewhere might find a way to be offended by it if they squint hard enough. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
              • On the other hand, "it's a funny joke, lol" is not a reason for keeping a redirect that labels a discussion forum as violent. That is NOT something we should be standing up for, and the fact that you are digging in your heels and calling my argument absurd for something like this is frankly ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
                • Except it doesn't label a discussion forum as violent because it's a joke. It deliberately exaggerates the sometimes heated discussions that were more commonplace in 2005 than perhaps they are now (it's a while since I frequented AfD) for the sake of a backronym. You may like or not like the joke, it may be a good joke or a bad joke, but whichever it is does not change that I find your characterisation of it as supporting violence to be absurd. If I found the argument that this was harmful to the project and/or it's users credible then I would be supporting deletion (I have done so for at least one redirect in the past) but I simply do not. You have the right to your opinion, and I have an equal right to think that it is way off base (just as you do with my opinion). Unless you have new arguments to present it's probably bests to leave it here as I don't think it likely that we will agree on whether this is, as I believe, a harmless in-joke from earlier times (in which case it should be kept) or an inexcusable promotion of a Wikipedia process as haven of violence, as my interpretation of your arguments implies is your belief (in which case it should be deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect and mark as {{historical}} - @Tavix and Thryduulf: I think a good compromise here would be to treat this like WP:STALK, WP:VANITY, and WP:AN/K. It is potentially confusing, especially as the target is now named AFD not VFD, another reason why deprecation is a good way to go. A {{humor}} tag could also be considered.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We do that for redirects that get use and have a lot of links that would be broken. This redirect isn't like that and it isn't worth that trouble, just delete it and remove all official connections between this redirect and AfD. This is not an issue I will compromise on. The only way this will be solved is via deletion. - Tavix (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with either the soft redirect idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this necessarily merits deletion, but the concerns Tavix brings up are real if users are redirected without any explanation. I feel that soft redirecting and tagging as historical is a sufficient solution, though I wouldn't be opposed to deletion, since it's not linked much. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Okay, but that still leaves an official connection between a redirect that labels one of our discussion boards as violent. Do you really think that's a good idea to have that connection? -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that a redirect, even if not explicitly marked as humorous, puts any "official" labels on its target. – Uanfala (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure it does. Anyone typing "Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate" will be taken to AfD. Why is that a good idea? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thruduulf's comments above. Moreover comparisons to "wikistalking" terminology is invalid, because that term was formerly very widely used, but this redirect has only five incoming links. By the time anyone finds it, they will likely be an experienced user who understands the humor, not (as with STALK) a frightenable newbie. BethNaught (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you think labeling AfD as violent is humorous? -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly it is a joke. Whether it is humorous is a matter of personal taste. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect and tag as humour. A bit of dark humour is allowed, okay? Deryck C. 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I was going to say soft redirect and tag as historical, but... five incoming links, really? That's one link from here, one from the previous RfD, and one RfD notification on the user's talk page. No one even uses this! No wonder: the "humor" or allusion is obscure, since we haven't had "Votes for deletion" in many years, and the acronym itself seems pretty tortured. I don't share Tavix's concerns that this will promote real violence, and I have no problems with WP:ROPE, but honestly, this is just a trivial little thing that one person thought of one day. Some people will vote to keep anything! --BDD (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    WP:MADEUP is a content guideline, so it only applies to articles. Also, redirects are cheap. BethNaught (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    I know the context of MADEUP, but I believe the same spirit applies here. Every sort of meme is "made up" at some point, but we usually only call it such when it doesn't catch on, as was the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I find Tavix' reasoning that this "simply isn't worth it" convincing, although I will note that their linked page VIOLENCE doesn't really say much about the extent of violent behaviour on Wikipedia. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Our responsibility for maintaining a civil environment is far more than doing any less than deleting it. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an old in-joke from years and years ago. It's not doing anybody any harm, nor is it inciting or promoting violence. This, and a recent spate of RFD nominations to delete old, harmless in-jokes strike me as extremely POINTy and ridiculous. Aren't there some more important things that need doing? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - harmless joke. No benefits from deletion so the default is to keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd imagine in 2005 it wasn't a very big place like it is today so it's no wonder it's not linked anywhere, We should preserve everything around the 2005 era - not delete it, There's no benefits to deleting something that's been here for well over 10 years. –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:COSTLY There is no need to redirect from obscure terms, which this is, keeping this just encourages creation of other similar redirects, I simply don't see how this could be useful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, The redirect isn't hurting anyone and as I said we should preserve things like this - Deleting this just means we're deleting a part of history - This may well have been widely used when VFD was around but either way it should be preserved. –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This may well have been widely used when VFD was around. FWIW: it wasn't. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I said "This may well have been widely used when VFD was around" - Ofcourse it's not going to be linked now because VFD doesn't exist however my point was it could've been widely used when VFD was around, On the otherhand it may not of been used at all, No one knows really. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Upon further reflection, I think I understand what you were getting at. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

國慶節[edit]

These are interchangeable terms that can refer to either topic, both simply mean "national day" and should not be pointing to different targets. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep 國慶日, because the zh:wp article about the ROC day is entitled zh:國慶日 (中華民國). Not sure about 國慶節, because those three characters don't appear consecutively in the corresponding PRC article, zh:中华人民共和国国庆节. The characters in the ROC article's title don't appear in the PRC article, aside from a see-also link to the ROC article. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nyttend:No the two terms are interchangeable, for they mean the same thing, and FYI "国庆节" is the simplified form of "國慶節". The fact the zhwiki prefers whatever term is no business for us here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Delete - why is this even an Afd (article for discussion)? If I cannot decipher it then it aint even approximating English. I would say to both Nyttend and Champion to take your somewhat elitest love of symbolism to another place - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. MarkDask 03:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Are either of you aware that we routinely keep foreign-language names for articles when those names are the local names for the subjects of those articles? See WP:FORRED for information. If 國慶日 is not the local name for the ROC holiday, convince zh:wp editors to change the name of their article; don't attempt to convince everyone else that the existence of a synonym is reason to get rid of the local name. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am fully aware, but I am just making a point, independent from what is described at WP:FORRED, I'm not going to start a lengthy discussion on zh.wp, for politically-related debates usually get nowhere over there, I am just saying that either of those names can refer to either two topics and therefore there is no redirects. PS, either of these can also refer to National Day (Singapore). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • retarget to National Day of China which is a disambiguation page between the national days of the ROC and PRC. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are Chinese-speaking regions outside the ROC and PRC, so that probably isn't the best of ideas. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • If they use this term as well then a separate disambiguation is probably best. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought this reminded me of a recent discussion, but I guess it wasn't that recent. National Day of China seems redundant to the dab 国庆节. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep both or retarget both to 国庆日 dab. This is a case where I think WP:SMALLDETAILS can work, but given the fact that the dab already exists we can target there too. Deletion wouldn't help. Deryck C. 17:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not as useful as Chinese language redirects about Chinese persons and places (e.g. 蔣中正 & 汕頭).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 国庆日 which should solve any ambiguities inherent in the current set-up. -- Tavix (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 国庆日 per Deryk C. Considering the Chinese terms are ambiguous, this seems to be the best solution. Daß Wölf 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussion forums[edit]

Goelhisar[edit]

Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE[edit]

Fox War Channel[edit]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This seems to be a pejorative term for the target and the redirect does get uses, and someone encountering this term will understand what it is referring to when they use this redirect. We have {{R from non-neutral name}} for these sorts of redirects and so I'll tag it as such without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I'm seeing this turn up in use by a bunch of different publications, such as in this opinion article and this book, and while the wording is totally pejorative... yes, I agree that the redirect seems helpful. I'm not sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That may be true but I'm not changing my vote until this is actually mentioned in the target because it is unlikely to be helpful to readers. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not every pejorative alternative name needs to be, or should be, mentioned in the article. Someone using this will have encountered the name and will just be looking to see what it is referring to and this redirect will therefore be exactly what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment My first thought was War Stories with Oliver North, a program that airs on Fox News Channel. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The uses I'm finding in search results are all for the channel as a whole not a specific program on it, so retargetting to that would be confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I haven't suggested to retarget there. I'm just saying that Fox News does have war programming. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ear Prosthesis[edit]

A.V. Software[edit]

Ambiguous, in IT, the abbreviation A.V. can also refer to audiovisual, and note we don't have AV software itself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Rename to AV software and keep pointing to Antivirus software which is the primary topic. Hatnote to AV (disambiguation) for other cases. I don't see any articles that refer to it with the periods. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete given the ambiguity with audiovisual. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix, even if the antivirus meaning is probably the most likely. – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to AV, where many software options for "AV" are listed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The periods are pretty much wrong for either "audiovisual" or "anti-virus", and the term isn't formatted as "AV (software)" or something else that makes pointing to a disambiguation page the logical thing to do. If anything, this looks like a proper name, like that of a specific company. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Given the ambiguity, I'd rather just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Searching this gives none of the suggested possible targets in this RfD or the listed entries at AV. You can try it yourself. It literally helps nobody. At least keeping would give someone searching this a likely topic and a hatnote (if AngusWOOF's suggestion is adopted). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename and hatnote per AngusWOOF. Per Patar knight straight deletion would be harmful here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris O'Connell (tennis)[edit]

Lost (TV Series)[edit]

January 16[edit]

Galvonic corrosion[edit]

'Tis the season[edit]

Affectors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 28#Affectors

Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11[edit]

According to the discussion from June 2006, "Bush Knew" is unsuitable. However, this redirect was created in 2003 as a double-redirect to the now-deleted "Bush Knew". Therefore, newer discussion on the "Bush knew" (sentence case version) is needed. George Ho (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Added two, BDD. George Ho (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional information I've gathered: On Wikipedia, "Bush knocked down the towers" is only mentioned at Bin Laden (song); "Bush did 9/11" at Humor based on the September 11 attacks and Tay (bot); in the context of 9/11, "Bush knew" only appears in the names of references, at Cynthia McKinney and Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories. "Bush did 9/11" is the only one I was really familiar with—it's a bit of a meme—and is alluded to at Killing of Harambe#Fall-out and Internet memes with "Bush did Harambe". --BDD (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all - These are rather awkward, and I feel like it's best to just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Search for these terms on Google, and you'll see that these phrases, when used as discrete phrase, almost exclusively refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Except for the controversial song lyric, which has prominent links to 9/11 conspiracy theories, these redirects are taking people to where they want to go. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete first two, but keep "Bush did 9/11" – The first is virtually unknown and the second is applicable to numerous topics; but "Bush did 9/11" is a pretty common expression regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories: Google shows about 17 million hits. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is supposed to collate human knowledge, not provide a reflection of google activity. "Bush did 9/11" has no place as a title in an encylcopedia, and when deleted, jumping to that title will invoke the internal search engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?itle=Special:Search&search=Bush+did+9%2F11&fulltext=Search). The search results contain the related topics in the first few hits, including the current redirect target. No reasonable reader should expect a Wikipedia article on this titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all WP:CRYSTAL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • 9/11 conspiracy theories aren't future events (which CRYSTAL covers). If you have concerns about the verifiability about the existence of these conspiracy theories, feel free to AfD the target articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep "Bush did 9/11" per BDD and the 2000 page views it received last year. Delete the others as essentially unused and per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep "Bush did 9/11" as it's probable that people would be searching for that, although it might not be compliant with WP:NPOVVIEW, also, see the deletion log for Jews did WTC. Also, change the redirect of "Bush knocked down the towers" to "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", and "Bush knew" to redirect to"September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 16:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm. September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories would seem to be a better fit for "Bush knew"—i.e., he knew the attacks were happening but didn't stop them for some reason–but the other two would probably be better pointed at one of the more general pages, since the implication is that he actually had them carried out. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete All Wikipedia is not the place for crackpot theories started by raving lunatics. KoshVorlon} 16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no Wikipedia policy (I could find) regarding what you're implying, if that was true, every article on this list would have to be deleted (which IMO, having articles about conspiracy theories contradicts WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL), if you consider having Wikipedia articles about speculated, verifiable (that the conspiracy theory exists) content to be against WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL, you need to get outside, according to WP:N "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article..". Obviously there are notable conspiracy theories such as 9/11 and birther, but. Also, lunatics wouldn't be able to search for such articles, as there is no Internet nor humans on the Moon. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If you truly don't think the target articles should exist, AfD them, and these redirects would go as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • To make my leanings official: keep "Bush did 9/11" in some form. It seems to have enough cultural cachet that it shouldn't be deleted, but I don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to. Delete the other two as unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "don't care very strongly as to which of this constellation of silly articles it points to" should mean you support either invoking the search function, or a disambiguation page, either to list the most likely articles desired by the reader. A redirect assumes only one likely desired article, or excessive hatnoting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not a bad idea in general, but search results also sort of sends the message "we don't quite understand what you're looking for, but..." I think that's an appropriate response to "Bush knew" and "Bush knocked...", but not "Bush did 9/11". --BDD (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • delete as unencyclopaedic; they are too general and ambiguous to be useful (too many Bushes, too many situations), or if they are specifically related to 9/11 then they are not neutral and we are having to choose pages over another. Just cull them as not useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Bush Sr. wasn't president on 9/11, who else named "Bush" would people think "knew"? ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 12:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Doing Google Searches on these redirects shows that the only time they are used as discrete phrases are in the context of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you feel the target is unencyclopedic, take the target articles to Afd. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My preference is to:
  • Hopefully just one more thing to add about "Bush did 9/11" from me: I only said it was "a bit of a meme", but it actually has its own page on Know Your Meme. It does a good job of tracking the phrase's origins and longevity. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I endorse Patar knight's comment. September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories adequately addresses whether or not "Bush knew" about the attacks (he didn't), "Bush knocked down the tower" is referred to in Bin Laden (song), and while I'm not too picky where "Bush did 9/11" goes, the main conspiracy theory article makes sense. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse PatarKnight's Recommendation - it is correct for the correct reasons. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here, but I'm more than a little confused by a number of "delete" votes that predicate their position on the fact that it's a crackpot notion to believe there was government conspiracy in the attacks. The fact that these clearly are crackpot theories seems more like an argument for having redirects or piping (or just naked internal links) to articles which present the consensus view that these are unabashed lunatic fringe conspiracy theory. If editors wish to object to even having mention of these theories in a given article, they should raise the issue over the prose at the talk pages for those articles. But their !votes to delete here seem to run in a completely counter-intuitive angle to the aim they are explicitly supporting here, in a way that I'm not sure they have thought through; to the extent that the editors of a given article decide to include reference to conspiracy theories, surely it only helps to point out that these are in fact conspiracy theories, not mainstream views. Again, am I missing something obvious here? And note that I recognize that only a minority of delete votes hinge on this issue; others are more pragmatic in my view. Snow let's rap 02:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    It can be difficult to disentangle one's personal feelings from matters of policy and procedure. I ran into that a lot at the AfD for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. And I've certainly been guilty of this too. And I suppose I don't want to just completely dismiss this. There's a fine line between "This is a crackpot theory" and "Doing X will result in Wikipedia promoting a crackpot theory". But when we just report on what's said elsewhere, we rarely have to worry about the latter. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per WP:BLP. I cannot think of a hard redirect target that doesn't imply that Wikipedia concurs with the opinion. Soft redirects may avoid that problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Arthur Rubin: Please see WP:RNEUTRAL. Redirects do not imply anything about Wikipedia's position on the matter - non-neutral search terms taking people to neutral articles is a Good Thing as it means we don't get articles at the non-neutral titles. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Paint chips[edit]

Ra`s[edit]

Elena (video game character)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Elena (video game character)

Draft:MNYNMS[edit]

The Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto[edit]

Criticism of Grand Theft Auto[edit]

Grand Theft Auto wanted star system[edit]

Grand Theft Auto(series)[edit]

Capitalistic democracy[edit]

Los Santos, San Andreas[edit]

Liberty City (future)[edit]

Maibatsu Sentinel[edit]

GTA VI[edit]

All gta games[edit]

Ammu-Nation[edit]

Collars & Cuffs[edit]

Complete the Look[edit]

Eris (Grand Theft Auto)[edit]

Events concerning the Grand Theft Auto series in 2004[edit]

GTAGaming[edit]

Grand Theft Auto Serials[edit]

Heat 'Q'[edit]

List of GTA games[edit]

List of Grand Theft Auto characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 31#List of Grand Theft Auto characters

Pay 'n spray[edit]

Unique Stunt Jump[edit]

Well Stacked Pizza Co.[edit]

A Bunch Of Tools[edit]

Maggie (prime minister)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 24#Maggie (prime minister)

Mr. Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Mr. Margaret Thatcher

Plo Koon (Jedi Master[edit]

Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 23#Israeli intervention in the Syrian Civil War

Make America White Again[edit]

Template:Source[edit]

The template is misused. I corrected the errors done by other editors. Not sure what to do with transclusions in non-mainspace pages. Also, we don't know which "source" refers to. Does it refer to template:refimprove, template:citation needed, template:citation, or what else? Otherwise, if the template is unneeded, then... change it to template:code or something in other pages, and delete. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC); edited. 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Per Steel1943, I'll concede to converting the page to an error template and then deprecating it. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete after orphaning, due to ambiguity, or could refer to {{reference}}, which redirects to {{reflist}} and other redirects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Syntaxhighlight (see original 2011 discussion at Template_talk:Code#Display problem). That target is a template wrapper for <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> AKA <source>...</source>, so having a template wrapper redirect at {{source}} makes sense. A large number of template names are potentially ambiguous to various people, but they are documented and that is sufficient; the article naming convention WP:PRECISE does not apply to the template namespace. We also don't delete templates or redirects to them on the basis that 5 or 6 people have used them incorrectly (otherwise we would have no templates left).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Mind if I fix the bolding, Stanton? George Ho (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. One downside of Chrome in Mac OS is that bold is barely distinct from regular text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Where do we stand with the current links and transclusions? How much work needs to be done for this to be retargeted? --BDD (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to {{citation needed}}. Similar redirects to {{cn}} include {{source?}} and {{fact}}, where this redirect would fit in. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Even with a re-target it is too ambiguous. And this redirect has a history of being misused. Avicennasis @ 07:04, 6 Tevet 5777 / 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate then delete. Enough people have been using this, thinking the template did something else, that we should avoid having a template redirect at this title. Deryck C. 17:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Or convert to error message and deprecate. Deryck C. 18:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Whatever the outcome, do not delete. It's a title that will be used by others trying to locate a template, but what template that is ... not sure. Maybe a landing page like {{IMDb}}, {{OTRS}} and {{R from real name}} is necessary here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and keep per Steel1943's proposal. If it's kept or retargeted, it will continue to be misused. If it's deleted, someone will recreate it and we're back where we started. We need a landing page that says "You're using the wrong template. Which of the following did you have in mind?" – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The lack of stagnation makes another relisting potentially productive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Deprecate" draft created. I have created a draft of how the page could appear if the "deprecate and keep/convert to error message" is established as consensus for this discussion. The "draft" has been created below the redirect. (Also, I have added appropriate "noinclude" tags to ensure that the draft doesn't affect current transclusions of this redirect. For non-technical folks, to enact this draft without breaking anything after this RFD is closed, restore this revision.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 11 #invoke:Navbox

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=763707764"