Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

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.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.


Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

  • 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 proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may 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.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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. ClimategateClimatic 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

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

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
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|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.
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.

Current list

May 21

Republic of Malaysia

Redirect should be deleted because Malaysia is not a republic and never was a republic. It is constitutional monarchy that is a sultanate. Otis the Texan (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. It might make sense to target an article discussing republican movements in Malaysia, however we have no such article that I can find and based on google results it doesn't seem to be a significant topic in Malaysian politics - less significant even than in Norway (c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Norway). Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. It's a very plausible error, since Malaysians elect people to represent them in the Parliament of Malaysia. I myself was surprised in my early Wikipedian days to learn that the British don't consider themselves to have a republican government. As per Republic, "In American English, the definition of a republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body." So while I can completely respect that countries with monarchs will not call themselves republics under such circumstances, we must assume American readers, if no one else, could make such mistakes. And at the risk of venturing too far into WP:WAX territory, we tend to keep other incorrect redirects for countries and their governments, such as Prime Minister of the United States or Republic of Japan. In fact, the latter's RfD has discussion that bolsters my point. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD, considering BDD found one of the very past discussions for keeping such redirects that I was attempting to find myself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Field hockey at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's tournament

Way too early for this redirect to even exist. No information exists about the event (at least for now). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

May 20


Does not appear to refer to target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Cyecwu City

Does not seem to be a valid spelling in any language or a Korean romanization, could not see evidence of usage - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


This spelling variation of "crazy" seems like a WP:MADEUP neologism. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Helen Hunt (Fiske) Jackson

Due to the odd formatting of this redirect, specifically the parentheses, this redirect is unlikely and confusing as a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Fiske appears to be her maiden name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - People aren't going to search like this. We don't have 'Julia (Louis) Dreyfus', 'Barack (Hussein) Obama', and 'Charles (Nelson) Riley'. This seems like a clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @CoffeeWithMarkets: Those are examples of middle names not maiden names. Middle names in this format are indeed implausible as search, but maiden names less so as a Jane Smith née Jane Jones could be listed as Jane (Jones) Smith or Jane Smith (Jones) in various places, although (at least in the UK) the latter is more common. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that these generally aren't helpful, but I don't see how this can be confusing — it is hyper-specific and will take anybody directly to the appropriate target, where it is immediately clear what her name is and was. I don't want to create a precedent for these sort of redirects, but it's been around untouched since 2004, so I don't see the harm. ~ Amory (utc) 14:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahmed Matan

Not currently mentioned in this (or apparently any other) article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Distinguishing right from wrong

This doesn't seem right, but I'm not sure where to redirect this. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps redirect to Morality instead?? etothepi 👽 (u)(t) 15:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Toad from the video game mario

No one would type out the title of the page when they can use something shorter. See CSD R3. Nigos ([email protected] Contribs) 06:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Longest article

Crossnamespace redirect from mainspace to special. (Note: Redirects to the special namespace don't work and are effectively soft redirects.) — JJMC89(T·C) 02:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 19


Per the redirect policy, “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. ” Last I checked Korean was not the majority language in Iceland. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Gal Gun 2

This is a highly misleading redirect since a game titled Gal*Gun 2 was released this year, which doesn't have an article. There is also no franchise article to point this redirect to so a redlink serves the reader better. Xezbeth (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the article says it's a sequel to Gal Gun, so if it isn't, it should go redirect to Gal Gun and have the original one cover the franchise. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking online confirms that there is an actual Gal Gun 2 that came out internationally this year so it should not redirect to the Vita game.-- (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

2010 North Korean nuclear test

Hoax. There was no test in 2010. This RD has been used as a hoax: [1] – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

D-ascorbic acid

No mention of D-ascorbic acid in article and D-ascorbic acid is not the same as Vitamin C witch is L-ascorbic acid Abote2 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. There is a mention at Ascorbic acid (molecular aspects)#Industrial preparation but it's not a huge mention and goes way over my head. I'll ping WikiProject Chemicals as some subject understanding would clearly be of benefit to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ascorbic acid (molecular aspects) based on where topic is discussed, per previous comments. That was actually where it was originally intended to point, but was mis-changed during some page-moves a few years ago. The problem is that Ascorbic acid is the generic name (not specifying D or L), but in a WP:COMMONNAME sense, it refers specifically to the L form. And the target actually had been ascorbic acid (meaning the chemical not the vitamin). When[2] User:Doc James reasonably moved our article about the chemical to Ascorbic acid (molecular aspects) and then redirected Ascorbic acid to Vitamin C, the D-ascorbic acid redirect got changed to point to Vitamin C rather (automatic fix of double-redirect) rather than changing to follow where the former ascorbic acid article had actually gone.
Likewise, I changed the C₆H₈O₆ redirect from → Vitamin C to → Ascorbic acid (molecular aspects). DMacks (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Wikipedia:JOKE, most Wikipedia space shortcuts to Category:Wikipedia humor were retargeted to Wikipedia:Humor. However, I was not able to make heads or tails of this one. The closest I can come up with is Wikipedia:Redirect (the target of WP:RDR), but even that seems a bit far-fetched. Since it has never been used, I recommend to delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete; I'm assuming it's a reference to this very old Simpsons joke, wherein "RDRR" sounds like "ha de ha ha", as in laughter. Does not strike me as in any way helpful as a redirect, though. ~ mazca talk 23:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • keep or redirect This is, surprisingly, getting a steady stream of views, and isn't harming anything or likely to be confused with anything else so WP:CHEAP firmly applies here - especially as the page history shows that people have been maintaining it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 01:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


This is tough. "Eutheism" concept isn't mentioned at the target article, though perhaps it could be. It's not explicitly mentioned at the article for its opposite, Dystheism, nor at Summum bonum, where it originally pointed. It is mentioned at Misotheism#Terminology, which has become a sort of collection point for several related terms. "Eutheist" already redirects to Misotheism; I'll add it since we will want them to go to the same place. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  • here, the solution is to briefly mention "eutheism" as the antonym of "dystheism" in the Dystheism article. Then point it at Dystheism. "Eutheism" is a real term (barely), but it is only ever used in contrast with "dystheism", so the redirect point there. Eutheism is the belief in a benevolent god or gods, but not necessarily in "omnibenevolence", and pointing the redirect there does nothing. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do the same thing to both. I don't really have an opinion about what the best course of action for these redirects is, but if one exists they other should and if they do exist they should target the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 03:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Opera Software Inc

Wrongful redirects. Invalid company name, such a company doesn't exist. Even a Google search ("Opera+Software+Inc") does not yield any meaningful result.

Note: A company did exist with the name of Opera Software Inc. but there is nothing connecting it to the redirect target and was dissolved long before the creation of these redirects. (See Also: All companies that were related to Opera Software - Annual Report 2014, pg. 162). Gotitbro (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Very plausible error. Tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • As seen from a Google search the error hardly appears anywhere. It doesn't seem to be a plausible error to me. Gotitbro (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I can see that there is usage here for example, so it's not all that implausible, methinks. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 18

Instant grat download

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty on making this, as it's essentially a free music download that comes with pre-ordering an album. A simple Google search should tell that an instant grat track/download is such, so, IMO, should be kept on music download, or added as a redirect to pre-order incentive. I'd actually prefer the latter. --Aleccat 22:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a redirect, yea or nay?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Online music store rather than Music download as part of how it is marketed. Music download would just be about the download itself, whereas music store could discuss it as a gimmick of giving the customer some tracks ahead of time for pre-ordering the album. But the section should be expanded to discuss this. iTunes is also a candidate since they used the term, but it's not clear if they originated "instant grat" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC) updated 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added instant grat to the online music store history/2000s section. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In event of moon disaster

In Event of Moon Disaster redirects to Apollo 11#Lunar ascent and return. Jc86035 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment but it's discussed more specifically at the target. Maybe the In Event of Moon Disaster needs retargeting? Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Also it is here [3] in Wikisource Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding In Event of Moon Disaster to decide which target of the two is better.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Apollo 11#Lunar ascent and return which mentions the speech. Richard0612 08:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Both to Safire, which is where the speech/memo is shown and discussed in more detail. It's peripheral to the mission, more personal to its writer. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split pretty evenly here, it'd be nice to get some agreement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Unlikely, WP:COSTLY redirect due to its formatting. Also, a related redirect, Intuition (philosophy), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - The odd formatting of this makes me think that it's rather useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The double-dash formatting is used in library catalogues for subject headings, so the redirect is not completely useless. – Uanfala (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uanfala. There doesn't appear to be anything costly about this harmless redirect - it's not inaccurate or obstructing anything else and there is no more maintenance overhead than any other redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can a source be provided where this formatting is used? -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Camera (conventional)

Though the word "conventional" is mentioned in the target article, it is unclear what the word "conventional" as a disambiguator is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete since it has no incoming article links and no apparent use. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Refine to Camera#Photographic camera. Google results are unequivocal about what the term "conventional camera" means and this is exactly how someone familiar with how we title articles would search for an article about it. I'm surprised we don't have a separate article about it (Digital camera is an article, Analog camera is a redirect) but we currently don't. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or refine?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sit out

Not mentioned in target article. Also, per third-party search engines, this phrase seems to more refer to such concepts as "not participating". Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - the target article now contains multiple references for the use of the term. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – the correct term is hyphenated sit-out; make a redirect from that if you have use for it. This one is unused. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The Pageviews Analysis tool on WMFLabs shows low but steady use of the redirect, so it is not unused. Having non-hyphenated redirects for hyphenated terms is a perfectly acceptable and common practice. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary or Dabify? Sit-out seems to refer to a porch. Sitting out means not participating. Wiktionary can be added for sit out. There's also a PTM for several wrestling moves that include the word sitout. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That is not correct. The term is mentioned at the target, with multiple reliable sources to back it up. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Music

Per the related TfD the project has decided that this banner should not be used, and instead, genre-specific banners should be used (for example here). redirecting to a single sub-project or task force is problematic, since there are many. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Deprecate - i.e. replace it with a page that basically says "Don't use this template because <reason>, use a template from <list or category> instead." and possibly puts it in a category that can be tracked. It's very likely that people will continue to try an use this template so it's best to be helpful and direct people to what they should be using instead. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous TfD, closed as delete. It doesn't make sense to "deprecate" something that was just created, that isn't enough time for it to become an established practice. -- Tavix (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It is something that people expect to exist though - so why not be helpful and educate them rather? It costs us nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Because it is something the project itself does not want. -- Tavix (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jax 0677: I know you enjoy spamming that essay everywhere at RfD, but that is a broad statement about redirects in general, it does not help at all why this particular redirect should or should not be deleted. Yes, I know that redirects are cheap. They can also be WP:COSTLY, so instead of namedropping an essay at me with no other context or explanation, please offer explanations why this particular redirect should be kept. I appreciate you had begun to do so below. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: I have explained twice the benefits of my proposed solution. I have yet to see a coherent argument in favour of making things harder for anybody when we gain nothing by doing so. WP:COSTLY is a minority viewpoint and fundamentally wrong far more often that it is of any relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You only need to explain your position once. Please don't brag about the fact that you explained it twice, like it makes me any more apt to agree with you... -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Bragging!? What on earth are you on about? I was simply pointing out why I don't need to explain my reasoning again in response to your request for explanation of the benefits of anything at this title, while pointing out that you have not presented anything that supports your position. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, well my response was to Jax, not you. That's probably where the disconnect happened. Thanks, though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, consensus can change, but the original deletion of the template was preceded by a discussion at the WikiProject. The proper course of action, therefore, would be to initiate a discussion to see if this is something they want now. I am not going to judge whether or not the target should exist, but I agree that the target shouldn't be a sub−page. I believe the easiest solution would be to rename it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have posted links to this discussion at the template talk page as well as the WikiProject talk page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are too many subprojects of WP:Music to have a single redirect. Any transclusions of deleted banners are quickly found and fixed via the associated weekly database report; so no need to deprecate it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Century Tower (Chicago)/version 2

This is a completely implausible redirect with no page views in the last month. Dolotta (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Move without redirect to a more useful title to preserve the history currently at that title. Century Tower Condominiums is available, for example. -- Tavix (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Implausible typo. No word in the English language uses three consecutive repetitions of the same letter. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - very unlikely misspelling. PKT(alk) 12:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, and goes where it should. -- Tavix (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say it's a very plausible typo, and redirects are cheap after all. Richard0612 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ding (Ding)

It doesn't tell us which "ding" it links to. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher

Seems that both of these tools are used in both pedicures and manicures, but for some reason, redirect to two different articles and are not identified in either article other than being mentioned as a tool used in both procedures. Unless there is a good retargeting option for these redirects, delete both per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The List of tools might be good if only to get them off the two articles. I just wonder if it will be rather stub-like, unless it's done like a glossary. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Foot file

Not mentioned in target article. Also, Nail file may be a viable retargeting option, but I'm not sold on the two subjects being the same per search results in third-party search engines. It seems that a "foot file" may be a tool that rubs off access skin from the bottom of one's foot. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment you mean Callus shaver? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • A foot file is actually traditionally a wooden device that has a material like sandpaper on one or both sides. A callus shaver ... a tool I'm familiar with ... is just, as the tool is named, for the temporary shaving of calluses. Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think it can stay where it is, since Pedicure seems to cover feet care activities in general and not just the nails. I'm seeing verbiage about foot baths and scrubs. It's barely mentioned in the "types of pedicures" section under regular pedicure AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Foot file could be covered in the current target article, so keeping it per WP:CHEAP is probably best.- MrX 🖋 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Toe separater

Huh? I mean, I get that working on toes is part of a pedicure, but the term "separater" is both unclear in how it relates to a pedicure, as well as misspelled (separator). Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, after looking through third party search engines, seems that a "toe separator" is a tool of sorts to separate toes, probably during applying nail polish or something of the such. However, it does not seem as though the subject is identified in the target article; in effect, besides being a misspelling, this redirect may qualify for WP:REDLINK if an appropriate target is not found. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If it were spelled correctly, it might have some utility. As it is, it does not.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other crap exists

Unnecessarily abusive and insulting to the article creators and editors of the article that this redirect is used to refer to Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, I cannot see this being used in a positive manner. Labeling other Wikipedians' work as "shit" and "crap" is completely counter to the WP:CIVILITY policy. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect is used, and the uses I spot checked do not show it being used in a problematic manner. If someone does use it inappropriately then deal with the editor not the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ive seen it often used in an aggressive manner at AFD and having the redirect gives tacit approval to abuse Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-established and used link. Not everything is puppies and rainbows. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
and not everything is crap and shit ... Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep "Other Crap" is part of the English vernacular and can convey a levity; it is not necessarily rude. If editors are not going to adhere to WP:CIVILITY this re-direct will have no influence. There are ways of dealing with uncivil editors that do not include deleting a re-direct. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I dont expect you would think it a levity if your articles were described as crap Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Atlantic306, I have had some edits called worse than crap, and seen worse insults thrown at other editors' work that don't include slang or bad language. "Other crap like this exists" is not insulting to me at all, and as I pointed out, it is part of the English vernacular. If editors get upset by this phrase they need to get a thicker skin. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only serves to promote battleground mentality without any real upside. We could use more puppies and rainbows (and unicorns!). - MrX 🖋 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a civility violation. wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This one is most often used tongue in cheek, whereas WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS wasn't. Agree with deletion of the latter, but let's keep the former. — JFG talk 07:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's too bad because when used judiciously I think it can communicate some valuable aspects of Wikipedia culture (not taking ourselves too seriously, etc.), but I don't feel we remotely have an adequate mechanism for dealing with editors who use it abusively, so better not to give official cover to that. I trust all others will find sufficient ways to communicate what needs communicating. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Target section does not exist. None of these are mentioned in the target article (though the Etymology section mentions a "Paraskevi" as the Greek translation). –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting one. Parasceve in modern usage is the day before the Jewish sabbath, and is also Latin for Friday (it took on the meaning of Good Friday in ecclesiastical Latin). Prosabbaton is Greek for 'the day before the sabbath' (quite literally 'pre-sabbath'). I would retarget Parasceve to Friday (no section), and retarget Prosabbaton to shabbat, and tag both with {{R with possibilities}}. Prosábbaton, the inflected version, can be deleted as an unlikely search term. Richard0612 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 17

Government Act

Shouldn't this target Legislation? Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - This seems like it could go to a number of pages, including not just the above two articles but also 'bill (law)'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are many things this could mean and Search is probably better than trying to guess what the user meant: an action of government; various Government of India Acts and Local Government Acts, etc. In the UK, at least, statutes are Acts of Parliament and not of Government. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. "There are many things this could mean", and when excluding the partial title matches like "Local Government Acts" (which can be a single see also link to the list at Local Government Act) the list is not infinite. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


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

Former religion

This redirect as it is set up seems confusing and misleading. The target article seems to be about a subject where people are in a state where they renounce their former religion; the article is not about either something that was previously a religion or was a religion that turned into something not a religion, or a religion that was dissolved, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - This seems like something that somebody would search for, but it seems like it could be equally divided in between the three meanings of 'people who left their religion', 'areas/countries/other-non-living-entities that lost interest in a religion', and 'religions that no longer essentially exist'. Maybe a disambiguation page should be created? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't find an alternative target; there is not even a category of defunct religions or religious groups. There is Category:Religion in ancient history but not all of the contents there are "former". So, I can't see any scope to make a disambiguation page. That leaves Delete, since the current targeting is not WP:NPOV. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Former county

Due to lack of explanation of the redirect at the target, this redirect seems like a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

GEM Peapod

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Town Sports

this may be a too general a term to link to one article. Lawson Tama Stadium was known as the "Town Sports ground". "Frome Town Sports" is a team in Mid-Somerset Football League. Grimsby Town F.C. was known as "Grimsby Town Sports" Dom from Paris (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Are you suggesting the page be disambiguated? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sports teams are partial title matches and if necessary the stadium can be referred to in a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as one of the names of the company investor FAQ "Does Town Sports have publicly traded common stock?" A dab page can be created, but the business seems to be primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Half runner

None of these terms are mentioned in the target article. Thus, the connection between the redirects and the target is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment runner is mentioned, and there seems to be an article on the runner bean Phaseolus coccineus. Perhaps this can be solved by adding a statement about what a half-runner bean is (a mix of bush and pole types) [4] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Naruto Info

Unnecessary redirect. Obviously, every page on Wikipedia is going to contain "info". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - The fact that its capitalized as "Info" makes this seem even more inappropriate. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Naruto headbands

Crufty redirects that aren't relevant or mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as remnants of Ninja World article deletion/redirect. Someone looking for what symbols and colors are on the headbands would not find any useful information here. Perhaps there's a way to redirect them to the Naruto Wikia for external links? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: Allowing soft redirects to Wikia would be the best thing in these situations, but they would require consensus in favour before being introduced. I can't immediately find any prior discussion of the idea, but this surprises me so there may be something I'm not finding. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It depends if the wikia meets WP:ELNO #12. If it's stable enough then it can be added as an external link. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


WP:XY. Cooking is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a cooking guide, anyways. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine to Boiling#In cooking. This is a {{R from subpage}} and {{R with old history}} as it was the original location of the "boiling" article back when Wikipedia used that naming convention. It's doing no harm, and nobody is going to use this to find the "cooking" article so WP:XY doesn't apply. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC) The "In cooking" section is exactly what someone searching for this will be looking for - the use of boiling as a method of cooking. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • FWIW, {{R from subpage}} doesn't apply to pages in the "(article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, see the second bullet "If this redirect is in mainspace, then it will populate the Redirects with old history category bold-linked above;" Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • ...Which means that the {{R from subpage}} tag is redundant and unnecessary since on "(article)" namespace pages, {{R with old history}} should be used instead. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it just means that using both tags is unnecessary - {{R from subpage}} is just more specific. We don't say that {{R from American spelling}} is redundant since {{R from other spelling}} exists. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Actually, per the first sentence of Wikipedia:Subpages, subpages technically don't exist in the "(article)" namespace here. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
              • But the point is that they used to, and these redirects exist to avoid breaking links from outside Wikipedia made during that time. We really should not break those links without a very good reason - and not simply not quite fitting into a neat box for editors is a very bad reason. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
                • ...Which is the purpose of {{R with old history}}. I do believe that this is about to turn into a circular conversation, so I must now walk away from this discussion tangent. Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, these are different topics. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Furunculosis of external auditory canal

Seems a little too WP:PRECISE to where the subject of the redirect is not in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 16

Chinese word "weiji"

Implausible search term. Weiji already exists and points to the same target. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - While I guess this is harmless, I also can't see it as being useful either, particularly when people are just going to search "weiji" by itself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Move article to Weiji as primary topic so as to get rid of having to make "Chinese word for ..." redirects. Here's the look from: All pages beginning with "Chinese word" which shows this isn't a major search method we need to cover. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • delete. Whether the article should be moved is a separate issue, but in either case an implausible search term, not a useful construction for a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
We just don't have any "Chinese word X" articles besides this one. Chinese word sea goes to Zhonghua Zihai. So might as well deal with that issue without starting another RM AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


deletion: DFSMShsm is only one piece of DFSMS, and not the most important. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

keep: Rather than a redirect the DFSMS page should be a list of all pieces of DFSMS, with links where appropriste.

DFSMS consists of one z/OS element (DFSMSdfp) and four z/OS features (DFSMSdss, DFSMShsm, DFSMSrmm, and DFSMStvs).

Peter Flass (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging the nominator: "DFSMS" is listed in the nomination twice. Is this an error, or did you intend to nominate something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Modern Mathematics

Misleading redirect, as "modern mathematics" has nothing to do with the pedagogical motivation of New Math. I don't know if there's a clear retarget choice here, either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Basic concept of modern mathematics (first edition 1961):
  • Concepts of Modern Mathematics (first edition 1975): From the original intro to the book: "Some years ago, "new math" took the country's classrooms by storm. Based on the abstract, general style of mathematical exposition favored by research mathematicians, its goal was to teach students not just to manipulate numbers and formulas, but to grasp the underlying mathematical concepts. The result, at least at first, was a great deal of confusion among teachers, students, and parents. Since then, the negative aspects of "new math" have been eliminated and its positive elements assimilated into classroom instruction. In this charming volume, a noted English mathematician uses humor and anecdote to illuminate the concepts underlying "new math": groups, sets, subsets, topology, Boolean algebra, and more. According to Professor Stewart, an understanding of these concepts offers the best route to grasping the true nature of mathematics, in particular the power, beauty, and utility of pure mathematics. No advanced mathematical background is needed (a smattering of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry is helpful) to follow the author's lucid and thought-provoking discussions of such topics as functions, symmetry, axiomatics, counting, topology, hyperspace, linear algebra, real analysis, probability, computers, applications of modern mathematics, and much more. By the time readers have finished this book, they'll have a much clearer grasp of how modern mathematicians look at figures, functions, and formulas and how a firm grasp of the ideas underlying "new math" leads toward a genuine comprehension of the nature of mathematics itself."
  • Why Johnny Can't Add (1973) - the seminal book on the topic, read it here: It starts: "For many generations the United States maintained a rather fixed mathematics curriculum at the elementary and high school levels. This curriculum, which we shall refer to as the traditional one, is still taught in fifty to sixty per cent of the American schools. During the past fifteen years a new curriculum for the elementary and high schools has been fashioned and has gained rather wide acceptance. It is called the modern mathematics or new mathematics curriculum." And further in the book: "The origin of the term modern mathematics is relevant. Even before the members of the Commission on Mathematics had determined just what they were going to recommend, they gave addresses to large groups of teachers. Their main message was that mathematics education had failed because the traditional curriculum offered antiquated mathematics, by which they meant mathematics created before 1700. Implicit in this contention was the assumption that young people were aware õf this fact and therefore refused to learn the material. Wou1d you, argued these educators, go to a lawyer or a physician whose knowledge of his profession was limited to what was known before 1700? Though these speakers were presumably informed in mathematics they ignored completely the fact that mathematics is a cumulative development and that it is practically impossible to learn the newer creations if one does not know the older ones. Nevertheless, the Commission contended that we must drop the traditional subject matter in favor of such newer fields as abstract algebra, topology, symbolic logic, set theory, and Boolean algebra. The slogan of reform became "modern mathematics".
You can find more references yourself, I am sure. Mikus (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Quick side note: the title of the redirect is inappropriately capitalized; even the passages given above aren't referring to a proper noun. In any case, none of the above is relevant. "Modern math(ematics)" is a generic phrase referring to the field of mathematics as it is studied in the modern day. For every reference you can dig up that refers to it in the context of New Math, one can find thousands more that don't. And even then, most of the passages above are still using the phrase fairly generically, not as a synonym for New Math. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It is capitalized because it identifies Modern Mathematics as a movement, not modern mathematics in more general sense. Like, um, windows and Windows, or apple and Apple. Mikus (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a notification of this listing at WT:WPM.Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • delete both. To me "modern maths/mathematics" is just the maths taught and studied today, i.e. Mathematics. but we don’t need redirects for "modern mathematics", or "current mathematics", or "today’s mathematics", or with any other unnecessary prefix that just indicates the topic as it is considered now. Otherwise the same would be needed for all other fields and topics. Readers should just search for and use "Mathematics".--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget, simply to Mathematics. The references given above are at best references to a "new" math curriculum/syllabus for laying elementary foundations to access "modern mathematics" (i.e., contemporary math), these teachers' toys gathering all their "fame" under the coinage "New Math". In my perception there is no technical term "Modern Mathematics" with usefully confined meaning, there are just teaching styles, eager to to be perceived as modern. In no way there is a meaningful connection of "modern mathematics" with "New Math". Hopefully, a lucky reader, searching for "modern&math" is sufficiently inspired and guided onwards by the Mathematics article. Purgy (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The two terms are too generic to warrant an entry. Paul August 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
But see conditional keep below. Paul August 10:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget. Redirecting "Modern Mathematics" to "New Math" is absurd and stupid. "New Math" was a redesign of school mathematics curricula. Modern mathematics, in any reasonable sense of that word, has nothing to do with that. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Next time read the quotations first before rushing to the keyboard. Mikus (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete/Have an article I can actually see an encyclopedic treatment of this topic: perhaps the focus can be history. There does exist a significant difference between modern mathematics and classical mathematics; e.g., the former emphasizing structures and logical while the latter has an aspect of mysticism (like the matter of the existence of infinity and that of God). -- Taku (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The meaning of "modern math" is time dependent as is any topic who's name starts with modern. Let time pass and what was considered modern is no longer modern, so what may have been considered modern in its time can not be so considered today. On the other hand, "New Math" refers to a very specific change in the curriculum of the 60's and 70's. At the time, the New Math may have been talked about as modern math to distinguish it from the traditional study, but this was only valid for a limited time and was not considered a synonym. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or Disambiguate. Here is a quotation from Ian Stewarts book, from the 1994 edition, which places the book slightly outside the New Math period. Ian Stewart writes: "Concepts of Modern Mathematics began as an extramural course, taught in Warwick University in 1971. Several dozen citizens of Coventry, ranging from school students to a retired automotive engineer, gathered for two hours every week to grapple with what was then called 'Modern Mathematics' in Britain and 'New Math' in the United States. What was new about this particular style of mathematics was not its content - most of it was at least a century old - but the fact that it was being taught in schools." Mikus (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Conditional keep: If the term "Modern Mathematics" can be shown to be a notable alternative British term for "New Math" (as the Stewart quote above suggests, but does not establish), then that term should be added to the article New Math, and "modern mathematics" should be a disabiguation page (with two entries, the first linking to mathematics, the second to New Math), and Modern Mathematics and Modern Math should be redirects to that disambiguation page. Paul August 10:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
If kept, and a disambiguation page "modern mathematics" is created as suggested above, than I'm happy with the first entry linking to History of mathematics as suggested below by power~enwiki. Paul August 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Ian Stewart’s Concept of Modern Mathematics was written in 1975, over 40 years ago. Since then at least in the UK mathematics teaching has changed massively, and what was once so novel it needed a book to explain it is now mainstream. There is no longer a separate "modern mathematics" to contrast with "traditional mathematics", as there might have been in 1975. There’s just mathematics.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well probably much the same could be said for the term "New Math". That doesn't mean that the term is not still notable. Paul August 11:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne, you seem to have missed the fact that the quote is from 1995 edition. Also, as Ian Stewart wrote, and as I keep repeating, it was called "Modern Mathematics" at THAT time, therefore disambiguation page or mention on New Math page would look something like: New Math as it was known in the U.S., or Modern Mathematics as it was known in Britain at that time. There is a link to timeframe right there. Mikus (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep there seems to be enough coverage of this as a name for the New Math ([5] [6]), though the New Math article should describe how/when "Modern Mathematics" was used. If retargeted, I think History of mathematics would be the redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to History of mathematics (or possibly disambiguate only if the New Math article is expanded to actually mention the historic use of the alternate phrase). I think all the sources that use "modern mathematics" to refer to the educational movement in New Math are from the 70s, except Stuart which is from the 90s edition of a 70s book. Further, several of them are not even using it as a title but as an adjective - lots of things were called modern in the 70s that we do not call modern now. There are many sources from the 80s onwards which use "Modern mathematics" to mean either what we already have in History_of_mathematics#Modern (i.e. Maths from Gauss, Boole etc onwards), or the more recent computerisation and ultra-specialisation. An example source: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics edited by William Aspray, Philip Kitcher, 1988. --Qetuth (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment The term Modern Mathematics has very specific meaning regarding TEACHING of mathematics in elem/secondary school. It means less drill and more understanding of the same basic arithmetic that has been taught for at least 300 years. It also means very specific new topics like set theory, boolean algebra, linear algebra, statistics, theory of probability -- all the good stuff that finally became relevant for AI and ML development. Mikus (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If "Modern Mathematics" only means what you say in one specific field, and means something else outside that field (such as in history of maths, tertiary education, etc) then I think you would still need to find consensus that this usage is the primary meaning overall for the redirect to make sense.
But, to focus on just the primary/secondary teaching field, I think there is a good reason that the term is not used that way in New Math, nor in Mathematics education in the United Kingdom, nor Mathematics education (in fact in the latter "modern" is used several times to mean something completely different). Our article Modern elementary mathematics seems to be talking about a broader philosophy which New Math might have been considered an example of. There are numerous textbooks from this century which use "Modern Mathematics" in their title or subtitle in a similar way - a pedagogy based on recent developments in education research and psychology, more prominent cross-discipline links, and the use of multimedia in teaching. Even though the term has been used to refer to New Math in the past, New Math is the overwhelmingly widely recognised term for one specific (and outdated) example of the implementation of a broader concept, what "Modern" educators would call "Modern Mathematics Education". Thus is an inappropriate target for redirect even were the educational context the most common use of the phrase. --Qetuth (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A further comment looking more closely at the 4 sources that you provided:
- The Hafstrom book is a tertiary textbook which uses uncapitalised "modern mathematics" in its blurb in a general sense, not as the name of an educational movement, and appears to have nothing to do with "New Math". This supports my interpretation perfectly.
- The original Stewart foreword is extremely clear that the educational movement is called "New Math", and uses uncapitalised "applications of modern mathematics" and "modern mathematicians" in a general sense. This also seems consistent with my reading.
- The revised Stewart foreword does say that "Modern Mathematics" was the name of the movement in Britain then (implying it is not called that any more?). This source supports your position.
- The Johnny source has quite a detailed history and was a very interesting read. It uses the term specifically many times, but never capitalized or emphasized outside of chapter titles, and in most instances it is part of the larger terms "the modern mathematics curriculum" or "the modern mathematics movement". It uses "new mathematics" just as frequently. It says that the phrase "modern mathematics" was already in use as propaganda for the perceived need to modernize curricula, before it was decided what it would mean. It also frequently uses phrases like "modern texts" and "modern mathematicians", and points out that the basis of the argument is the modern vs traditional dichotomy. A recurring theme is that there is a disconnect between the poorly named "modern mathematics curriculum" (which was just a new way to teach old maths) and actual modern mathematics, showing the use of modern as an adjective being just as valid as in the name of a movement. I think overall as a source it shows that "modern mathematics" was used to describe an era of educational reform (and perhaps should get a mention in New Math), but that this is not the only meaning of the term as "modern" is a broader concept. I definitely don't think it shows that the capitalized "Modern Mathematics" specifically should be redirected to "New Math".
--Qetuth (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "New Math" is more time-specific term that a more generic "Modern Mathematics", so having a disambiguation page would probably be the best choice. While we are at it, I tried introducing "Modern Mathematics" twice as an alternative term to "New Math", and my edits were reverted both times. So, let us agree here, that adding something of the sorts "...or Modern Mathematics as it was also known at that time, especially in Great Britain" would not be reverted. Also, regarding modern "modern mathematics", it is often called, somewhat derogatory, New New Math. Mikus (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to History of mathematics or Mathematics The typical use of the term "modern mathematics" refers to mathematics as it developed in the late 19th century. There is extensive study of this major shift in mathematics in such books as Plato's Ghost. It is a historical movement, so redirecting to the History of mathematics article makes the most sense. However, because it also describes how mathematics is done today, "Modern mathematics" could simply be a redirect to the Mathematics article. "Modern mathematics" should not redirect to "New math". "New Math" is the historical event of the 1960s which attempted to incorporate some of the developments of modern mathematics into the American school curriculum. This is quite distinct from "modern mathematics" as a whole. If a couple of authors have referred to New Math as "modern mathematics", it is simply because the New Math was an attempt to bring modern math into American schools (and to a lesser extent, European schools). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seberle (talkcontribs) 13:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget - I agree that "modern mathematics" is fundamentally a more generic term than the specific-sounding neologism "new math", and it looks as if going to either 'history of mathematics' or a section within it makes the most sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Retarget to Special:NewPagesFeed Wikipedia:Page Curation#New Pages Feed. The redirect would be much better used as the proposed target than the current one and also "not public figure" is not even mentioned in the heading of the subsection and it's usage is not wide. WP:UNKNOWNPEOPLE is a better redirect for the current target. I also don't think anyone is going to lookup WP:NPF to find the subsection on BLP, AFC/NPF reviewers would use this redirect more. KingAndGod 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, considering that this redirect has 500+ incoming links. Changing the target would break a lot of talk pages. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    It can be resolved easily with AWB. If that's your main concern then it's really not helpful in the purpose of this discussion, which is to improve the experience for editors. KingAndGod 17:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    AWB can't fix any possible links to this redirect that are present in edit summaries; in fact, no one can. The potential for this redirect to be present in edit summaries is quite high, given that the redirect has existed for over 11 years. I'd say it's best to leave things as is, and create Wikipedia:NPF (disambiguation) as a {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} if necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    I doubt anyone is going to have a hard time finding the right page after clicking on WP:NPF from an edit summary and even if they did, it wouldn't matter because helping reviewers get to NPF conveniently is probably more important than random readers not finding a policy section which they are unlikely to even look for especially from an edit summary that is in the history of a page where not many people would care to check. Besides, the term NPF in the community to mean "new pages feed" is probably more widely used than "not public figure". KingAndGod 18:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    I just added a hatnote to the top of the target page explaining possible confusion with using "WP:NPF" and arriving at the current target page. Either way, I cannot support this proposal since any redirect to the "Special:" namespace is forced to be a soft redirect. In addition, one cannot assume that an editor is trying to find Special:NewPagesFeed over Special:NewPages, two different pages in the "Special:" namespace; forwarding readers to Wikipedia:Page Curation to decide where they want to go is a better option than a soft redirect to the "Special:" namespace, especially considering that even which page in the "Special:" namespace which an editor is trying to find is not for sure. (So, I guess this also makes me "very weak retarget to Wikipedia:Page Curation", though I am "very weak" since "keep" is preferred due to the fact that the redirect has targeted where it has for over 11 years, as mentioned previously.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Wow, I didn't know that redirects to the Special namespace will not work like normal. That leaves WP:Page Curation as the best alternative. KingAndGod 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is, rightly, a very high bar for changing the targets of shortcut redirect to avoid breaking the context of original uses, and AWB should absolutely not be used to edit the contents of archived discussions as suggested. A long-established and well-used shortcut like this one will continue to acquire new uses for the original meaning, even after a retargetting, as long as the target remains relevant (which it certainly is here). Hatnotes to alternative uses are the only viable option here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bubblegum rap

the subject is not mentioned in the target. the timelines for Rap music and bubblegum pop do not seem to have overlapped and a search on the web does not seem to show a connection between the 2 subjects Dom from Paris (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Retarget to Trap_music#Influence_and_cross-pollination. Bubblegum rap is a notable term and it is used widely in pop music"bubblegum+rap"&num=50&tbm=nws. Maybe a section can be added to Trap music and redirect there. KingAndGod 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it may be a notable term but it has nothing to do with the target of the redirect. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It aids search and bubblegum pop is often associated with rap music so the term is relevant as well - Lil Yachty, Camila Cabello, Bhad Bhabie, Gucci Mane. KingAndGod 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • But it redirects to a subject that has nothing to do with any of the above pages. You need to find a better target than Bubblegum pop. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
        • As I said, a section can be added to either article for this to redirect there. KingAndGod 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Then do that then! I am not saying that it is not a notable term or that people will not search it but if they do they certainly will not be looking for bubblegum pop. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
            I've added a section Bubblegum_pop#2010s:_Bubblegum_rap. Retarget there. KingAndGod 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
              • I don't mean to be picky but you have written in bubblegum pop that Bubblegum rap is also known as trap rap and the page Trap rap redirects to Trap music wouldn't it be more logical to have a section in trap music that deals with trap rap and bubblegum rap rather than it point to a genre of music that disappeared 40 years ago just because it starts with the same word? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                I guess you're right. Trap music is the better location for bubblegum rap. KingAndGod 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we're talking about music that mixes traditional happy-sounding commercial pop with hip-hop styles (MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice both come to mind), wouldn't the more general article 'pop rap' be a better place to go? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You Could Could Be Born Again

Unlikely repetition of the second word. Nothing links here, it was not the result of a page move, and the target is itself an obscure topic. Reyk YO! 10:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as housekeeping. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete useless redirect --Lenticel (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The two uses this year prior to the nomination and 7 uses in the entirety of last year are consistent with misidentified bot activity given the implausibility of the term, no incomming internal links, and no hits on google unrelated to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fast attack

fast attack is not limited to submarines Dom from Paris (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've combined the two entries "Fast attack" and "Fast-attack" to this one RFD AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Disambiguate If there are other uses, should it not be turned into a disambiguation? 'Fast attack' itself (as a noun, without submarine appended) is used colloquially to mean a nuclear attack submarine. The lead section of Attack submarine itself even says so. If this does not qualify as "Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title" (the first purpose of redirects described in WP:R) then I don't know what does. -Cake~talk 10:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment a quick search for fast attack on google throws up first Fast attack craft this seems a much more appropriate target. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't find any usage of 'fast attack' as a shortening of 'fast attack craft', but if such usage does exist, then a disambiguation would be best in my opinion. In the context of submarines however, I can find usages of 'fast attack' that omit 'submarine'. Here are 3 such examples: [7] [8] [9] -Cake~talk 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's one that is used by a manufacturer [10]. But there are other uses of fast attack and it seems to be widely used in fire fighting [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Dom from Paris (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 for disambiguation -Cake~talk 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

List of ongoing disputes

Redirect does not specify what kind of disputes. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: potentially misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. This is a well used phrase, and every time it is used the context is clear. However that context is roughly equally territorial disputes of one kind or another; and industrial relations disputes. If it was just the former then the redirect would be a good one and should be kept. However, the second category is huge, possibly nebulous, and only a small subset are encyclopaedic (even fewer have a standalone article) - I'm also not aware that those we do have coverage of are tracked anywhere so there is no good target for a disambiguation entry. Finally there are other disputes, that while less common than the preceding to, do still get used - principally (but not exclusively) intellectual property disputes. Intellectual property disputes have much the same issues as industrial relations ones, with the added disadvantage that our coverage of tends to be appalling (as one example, the very notable SCO–Linux disputes is a sprawling mess of many different articles, none of which seem to be up-to-date). Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tailed beasts

Overly vague redirect, could apply to real life "beasts" with tails. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Too vague, lots of beasts have tails. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Naruto ninja ranks

Fancrufty redirect; unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as leftover Ninja World type of information. The main article mentions a Chunin Exam and the leadership position of Hokage, and that's about it. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Naruto (fox demon)

Pretty non-standard disambiguation that is unnecessary and rarely gets any hits. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't this go to Naruto Uzumaki as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The disambiguation is so unnecessary that it's not worth keeping. R from unnecessary disambiguation is more for things like Naruto (character) (If the article was entitled Naruto).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This got 54 hits this year prior to the RfD nomination, which is not "rarely" at all. Assuming that the disambiguation is correct (which seems plausible from the article) then it is exactly the sort of thing {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is for - disambugators that people use unnecessarily. The bottom line is that this is harmless and well used so there is no reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • 54 hits in a year is pretty rare to me. Most likely they are people for whom this link came up in search suggestions when they typed Naruto and not people who would seriously type it of their own volition. As for your harmless argument, see WP:COSTLY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Non notable fan slang term that is not mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Naruto songs

There's no list of songs in the target article, nor in List of Naruto media. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment this originally redirected to the CDs section, but has been since been renamed to Music, so I changed the target to that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Edward Mordake

WP:UPG violation. 10Eleventeen 05:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Considering that WP:RD1 is about revision deletion, Template:Copyvio-revdel seems to be a more suitable target. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

May 15


Not mentioned in text, but listed in the external links. Delete as possible spam and/or to make way for an article if it is notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete or weak retarget to Crystal Clear which is a disambiguation and can handle any organizations that might slap these two words together like that as there is no primary topic for the combined string. the CrystalClear external link on the solar page is out of date and general searches point to some pool cleaning product. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Crystal Clear as a plausible misspelling/ name variant --Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yehova'nın şahitleri

Delete per WP:FORRED since per my limited knowledge of the target, its subject does not have affinity to the Turkish language. (Feel free to correct me though.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Delete while the organisation does have a presence in Turkey, it is not limited to activities in a particular language. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Millennial Dawnists

Not mention in the body of the article. (It is mentioned in the referenced.) If this is not resolved, readers would be better served if this redirect were deleted or retargeted to Studies in the Scriptures since Millennial Dawn targets there. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation)

There doesn't seem to be such a WP:PRECISE list at the target article, nor does this seem like a likely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very unlikely anyone is ever going to be searching for this title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems this was originally a combination of a list of external links and encyclopaedic rant that was cut-and-paste moved to at least one other title and properly moved from there a couple of times. That content was been speedily deleted five times in two days in May 2005 (see the history at Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses) so there is no reason to keep this around for attribution purposes. The other titles this had were more plausible search terms and now redirect to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, so I don't see a need to delete any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Opposing views on Jehovah's Witnesses

I had originally considered retargeting this to Jehovah's Witnesses#Opposition, but that section is in regards to opposition to the concept itself, and not exclusive to opposing "views"; for example, the section includes persecution. Due to this and since the concept of "opposing views" is ambiguous due to the various alternative Christian views, I'd say it's best to delete this due to its unsolvable ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses Websites

No such list at target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The body of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses has no specific information regarding the subject of this redirect. The only location which this information is located is in the "External links" section, but that doesn't seem helpful as I have never seen any precedence for redirecting to an "External links" section in an article. Unless such information is added to the body of the article, I'm still in the opinion that the best result for this redirect to help our readers is deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I have no major objection to delete it, but if it is to redirect anywhere, the article I have indicated is conceptually the best target even if it does not specifically match the title of the redirect. Wikipedia isn't a directory, so if people are just looking for a list of websites about JWs (negative, positive or otherwise), they're at the wrong site.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Fails WP:NPOV Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 04:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Drafting a disambiguation page for this title may assist with forming consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


This is a useless shortcut as it is not short and therefore not useful. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete and WP:DAFTify, it is an extremely implausible search term since there are 32 R's. And it sounds like someone shivering. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per badger mushroom, Wooooooo, and Gooooogle AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Regretful delete, though this is amusing and accurate enough that I would support recreation with a saner number of R's (perhaps WP:BRRRRRRRRRRD with only ten?). Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. As silly as this redirect is, might as well have it target something equally as silly. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete nice joke but I don't think it's particularly useful to the wiki --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Boom/Can I Get A (Single)

Delete, unnecessary and non-standard disambiguation for a non-notable topic (the standard disambiguation being "song", not "single"). This is not plausible as a search term and Boom/Can I Get A and Boom/Can I Get a (both with history) already exist. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete (Single) as unnecessary caps disambiguation as followup to the previous RFD. There's an unreferenced section of album singles on Wow... The Story, of which Boom was released as both a B-side and an A-side, so (single) is plausible, unless such singles are shown not to exist. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @AngusWOOF: Per WP:DABSONG: If possible, avoid using other terms like "(single)", "(cassette)" or "(CD single)", etc... -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: that is an article titling guideline for editors, not something we should (or even can) expect readers to know and remember before they are allowed to look for content. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am aware what I linked to and am aware of your thoughts on the matter, per your !vote below. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep both as a plausible search terms. We don't require readers to be intimately familiar with our article titling conventions in order to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Chucky: Stealth Killers

Redirect is completely unrelated to its target. The1337gamer (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per RFD #5 "The redirect makes no sense" and if possible, CSD A11 "obviously invented". Neologism. Chucky series has nothing to do with Tenchu. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm presuming the etymology of this is that "shadow assassins" are "stealth killers" (which is logical enough) who use nunchucks with "chucky" being a slang term for these. However, I can't find any evidence of "Chucky" being used in this way and even if it was the colon would be superfluous at best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target. Symbol (chemistry) mentions it but claims that it is an erroneous discovery of radium. Since no other articles mention "masrium", delete. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Symbol (chemistry) where it is mentioned (as nominator noted). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • retarget per Shhnotsoloud. Someone searching for this will find information about what they are looking for at that target, so we should direct them to it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


No affinity for Polish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. While it is perfectly plausible in theory that this transliteration could be used in English language sources, in practice it seems to be exclusively used in Polish language contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is not just name in Polish language. Please see d:Q18808. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • So this subject of the redirect, as referenced in the Wikidata entry, is spelled like this in multiple languages? That's an even stronger case for WP:FORRED since none of those languages are English or Korean. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should be deleted per WP:FORRED. This is a non-English transliteration used in several languages, none of which are particularly relevant to Korea (although German is a world language; but I don't think we keep all redirects from German spelling to geographical features, do we). In English-language context this transliteration would be simply wrong (it follows no standard nor is it established by common usage). On the other hand, it's a plausible search term evidenced by the fact that, at the time of writing, two mainspace articles link there. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, considering that this spelling is present in several languages ... but none of them are English or Korean. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 14

Boom/Can I Get a and Boom/Can I Get A

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

Template:Update needed

Retarget to Template:Update inline. When someone types {{update needed}} or {{dated info}}, they probably mean to immediately place a "needs update" notice, rather than to place one at some point in the future as {{update after}} does.

Note the redirects currently have 95 existing transclusions that would need to be updated, either to use {{update after}} directly or to pass the date via |date= instead of |1= and |2=. Anomie 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Template:Really. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Limulus darwini

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Circular bluelinks like this are a pest. Readers and editors are respectively befuddled into thinking that there's an article worth reading or that no article needs writing. Narky Blert (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Changing vote to keep and unlink having considered the arguments by User:Animalparty and User:Tavix. Redlinks and circular bluelinks in mainspace to articles which are unlikely ever to get written are pointless. Redirects are another matter: they can help with searching or linking. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a long-standing convention at WikiProject Palaeontology (although like most everything else on Wikipedia, it's a guideline, not a rule) of covering the genus rather than individual species when there is little to be written about individual species. For a good example, the four species of Allosaurus and seventeen species of Psittacosaurus are all deftly handled in their respective genus articles, with each species a redirect. While some pedantic wiki-splitters might want to make a distinct article for every named species, subspecies, and geographic race, a level of common sense is in order. Regarding Limulus, the paleo guideline is a bit murky since one of the species is still living, and has a vast amount of literature coverage, while the others are most confined to primary literature and dusty paleontology tomes. I believe sometimes in cases like this, the extinct congeners of sole-surviving species are covered briefly in an "evolution" or "taxonomic history" section of the focal species. I personally don't think the reader is well served by a plethora of stubs saying "X darwini is a species of X described by Joe Smith in 18XX. It is found in Asia." That said, I really don't care about the fate of this trivial redirect. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I endorse this comment by Animalparty, without offering a solution. I have seen articles about extinct families which contain little more than redlinks to extinct genera. (And in some of those, I suspect that serious revision may be in order, because I have found cases where no-one seems properly to have looked at those taxa since C19, and there may well be synonyms.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do we know there is enough to write an article about this species? If not, it may be better to simly remove the link from Limulus, which would resolve the circular blue link issue. -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: The creator of this redirect, Animalparty, tagged the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} when they created it, so I'd say they would be a good editor to ask. However, Animalparty already commented above, so I'm not sure if they have more to add. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I actually find the non-!vote comments instructive enough to suggest that keeping would be beneficial, so let's get some more input, especially as regards practice vs REDLINK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I think we should keep redirects if there are really limited existing material to work it into an article. At least the reader knows that IRL knowledge is actually limited on the subject --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Glamour (Charmed)

This redirect is unclear; the target has nothing specific to do with the series Charmed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect to disambig page which has an entry specifically for the Charmed use of glamour. I would have thought the magic use of the word was a common enough trope in fantasy literature to have its own page, but until then it is a dot point on the disambig page. --Qetuth (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it sounds like Glamour (presentation) was unseated recently as the primary topic for the term? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Glamour where the "magical" use of the word is discusssed --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Evil imperialism

Seems to violate NPOV and is unclear which country it refers to in the target article. Seems unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see how this would be an NPOV violation even if that was relevant to redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL) but the term is not used in the article, nor based on google is it particularly associated with any one topic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Boyapati Srinu project

...Now that the edit history formerly at this page has been moved to Jaya Janaki Nayaka (film), delete this redirect since the target now has a title. Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

...Well, the edit history is now at Jaya Janaki Nayaka as the result of a edit history merge to fix an old cut-and-paste move. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Malaysia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 21#Republic of Malaysia

May 13

Design error

Too generic to refer specifically to postage stamp design. May be discouraging creation of one or more standalone articles about design. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Disambig or write an article. This is the result of a 2005 page move, and gets quite a few hits. We seem to have quite a lot of articles that are about various design errors in specific circumstances, but nothing generic - although such would be useful. I'm unsure whether a separate disambiguation page or the general Error (disambiguation) page is the best location for the disambiguation though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to product defect, which is also where design flaw redirects to.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to product defect per Zxcvbnm's suggestion. That article has information on when products don't work the way they were intended, for whatever it be defects in quality or by design. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

List of botanical cryptids

No such list at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably true. It could be expanded with a section on plants, as long as they are sourced properly as cryptids. That way everything would be in the same place. The problem is that it could get large depending on the number of plants that would be added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to be notable enough to keep. It just needs to be expanded and have all pieces of information given proper citations from reliable sources.--Paleface Jack 16:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I initially closed this as no consensus, but a good-faith request was made to reopen this, so I am relisting it for a full discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete While there is one plant currently on the list (the Umdhlebi), it doesn't appear to be "notable within cryptozoology" and so isn't actually within the scope of the list. It's clearly a legendary creature - the primary source is The Religious System of the Amazulu. I can see cryptobotany redirecting to cryptozoology given that there is essentially no cryptobotany, but there's no need for a redirect of a list based on that.--tronvillain (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to list of cryptids, where botanical cryptids should be listed. It has been noted that Umdhlebi is listed, and I have added man-eating tree per CWM's request so there is actually some semblance of a list now. Some of the other retargeting options above are close, but I feel those other entities should be added to list of cryptids if they are actually cited as such. I oppose keeping this as-is because there is no such list at the current target, and would prefer deletion over keeping as-is if it helps form consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Man-eating tree is similarly not notable within cryptozoology, and the only mention of cryptobotany on that page is in the literature and film section in the title of a book on science-fiction and fantasy. --tronvillain (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
My research shows otherwise, there seems to be plenty of sources depicting the man-eating tree within the context of cryptozoology. With so many entries there without sources, I'm not sure why this one is being singled out. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
My research shows no such thing, but if you've found something better than a reprint of Wikipedia articles, let's take a look. And that there are currently articles on the list outside of its scope is not an argument for adding more. --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a "list of cryptids", any notable cryptid would and should be included, and man-eating tree is one of them. I'm not saying there are currently articles on the list outside of its scope. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
And I'm saying they aren't notable within cryptozoology (as bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster clearly are), which is the scope of the list. It's not "list of anything ever called a cryptid by anyone" or "list of things that seem like a cryptid to me", but we should probably have this discussion on one of those two pages rather than here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a discussion at Talk:List of cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Not mentioned at target; should be deleted to make room for a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. This originally targeted Linguistic prescription, which while not using the term "grammatical error" does discuss the concept. Would that make a better target? Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Error#Human behavior in which the second paragraph discusses deviations of grammar as errors. Also okay with deleting as error is a common word. Only used in a handful of articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Buddhist New Year

There is no such thing as a "Buddhist New Year". Southeast and South Asia has its own New Year traditions, and so does East Asia. Neither of those have Buddhist roots, nor do Buddhists consider it a religious festival. E.g. Thai Songkran, the Thai New Year, isn't seen by the Thai people as a Buddhist celebration, but rather a "worldly" celebration with different roots. Legends about its origins do not feature any Buddhist elements. Should for some reason be decided that the page is kept, it should certainly not link to Vesak, which has nothing to do with New Year celebrations. In calculating consensus, please take into account this editor's opinion too. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete: Buddhist celebrations of new Year festivals are unrelated to Vesak. JimRenge (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Buddhist calendar#New Year's Day, where detail of any celebrations can be added or linked. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget according to Thryduulf's suggestion. Vesak Day is not a Buddhist new year, in no culture do they mark Vesak day as a Buddhist new year, Buddhist cultures typically have thier own new years i.e. Songkran, but those are unrelated to Vesak and dont even appear on the same date. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Buddhist calendar#New Year's Day per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Alrosa Villa

This redirect should be deleted, and the page returned to a redlink. I believe that the topic is some sort of semi-famous nightclub / concert venue, and it serves no purpose to redirect to a page about a musician who was shot and killed there. Natg 19 (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep or create article - If there is no higher purpose for this redirect, keep it, or create an article about the establishment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The article about the Alrosa Villa was deleted after Afd and speedy deleted when recreated. You know this because you !voted So "create an article" doesn't seem like a great suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article was deleted and speedy deleted when recreated. The redirect is doing more than a redlink would and the place certainly hasn't become more notable than the last 2 times the article was deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

May 12


I'm not sure what to do with these. Some of the examples of dystheism, such as trickster gods, aren't all evil. There are very few uses of the term on Wikipedia. One option might be retargeting to Omnibenevolence as {{R from antonym}}, but frankly, I'm not too fond of those except for when it really is as simple as saying "X is the opposite of Y". --BDD (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with redirecting rare terms to terminology sections even if they are just briefly mentioned there. It's a different matter if people try to create standalone entries on such terms.
I would strongly advise against just deleting these. The reason is that if there is no redirect, sooner or later people will be tempted to create stub entries, which will generally be so worthless as to just create work merge/deleting them, whereas if the term is already a redirect, people will be pointed to a related topic where they can actually contribute to an existing, and hopefully coherent, presentation of the topic. --dab (𒁳) 19:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
They're pretty obscure terms. Is there really a danger of repeated recreation? If someone is interested enough to do so, they might be interested in explaining the concept somewhere on Wikipedia too. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sons and Daughters of Liberty

No redirection without disambiguation between Sons of Liberty and Daughters of Liberty since, due to the gender gap back then, it could refer to either secret society. ToThAc (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:XY then, unless there was (or is) such a combined organization? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, after taking another look at the Daughters of Liberty page, I think it might be worthy of a merge. ToThAc (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig There are many sources, at least some which appear reliable, that discus the two groups together (e.g. [17]) so it's a very plausible for them to be searched for together. If the articles are not merged (I have no opinion on that) then there should be a disambiguation (or set index if the dab page restrictions don't allow it) that notes they are/were separate organisations and links to the articles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY, these are similar but separate groups. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
    • But which are very frequently referred to together in ways that mean it is very likely that someone will not know they are separate, especially if they are unfamiliar with the topic. The groups were founded at around the same time, for the same cause, and have had similar histories. Deletion would be a major disservice to our readers - guidelines like XY must always be subservient to the goal of improving the encyclopaedia for its readers. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Deletion would give way to search results, in which both groups are prominently listed—separately, because they were separate organizations. The reports of disservice have been greatly exaggerated. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
        • As I've repeatedly explained over the years, search results are not reliable (what is seen for one person today cannot be assumed to appear for someone else tomorrow), not always seen (depending on platform, account privileges, method used to arrive at Wikipedia, and possibly other things) and always more inconvenient than a page linking direct - this is why disambiguation pages exist in the first place and we don't just tell users to search for other articles. Sending someone to search results is only ever appropriate when we don't know what they are looking for - absolutely not the case here. There isn't even any befit to editors from deletion (not that this should ever outweigh what is beneficial to readers) as watching a disambig page is no more costly in editorial time than watching for recreation of a deleted page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Neither "Sons of Liberty" nor "Daughters of Liberty" were ever known as "Sons and Daughters of Liberty", so a disambiguation page is wholly inappropriate. "Sons and Daughters of Liberty" closely matches both "Sons of Liberty" and "Daughters of Liberty" so they will both be featured prominently, because that's how search engines work. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
            • You are assuming search engines always work, that when they do they always work in the same way, that people always see search results, and that there wont be any other results that get in the way - none of this is true. Whether it is called a disambiguation page or not, a page listing these two organisations that are frequently spoken of, written about and thought of together that notes they are two not one organisation and links to the articles about them is what will best serve our readers. I genuinely cannot understand why you seem to think either that search results results would be better and/or that we should not do the best for readers? Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm not assuming, it's literally how search engines work. Here is some reading for you: WP:SEARCH says "Wikipedia uses a powerful search engine, with a search box on every page. The search box will navigate directly to a given page name upon an exact match. But, you can force it to show you a page of search results instead, to see what else Wikipedia has that includes your search string.. -- Tavix (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                • You've just missed one of the points I was making and ignored the rest. If there is an exact match that page is displayed but you can override that if you want. However, if there is no exact match you might get search results, you might get invited to search, you might get invited to create a page, or to view why the page was deleted, or get an error message, or something else depending how you arrived at the title without a page, what device you are using, what was at the page previously (if anything), what privs your account (if you're logged in) has and possibly other factors. Even for the subset of people who do get to the search engine when the search engine is working and giving results, it not possible to guarantee what results they will see. Even if they get taken directly to working search results that display the two articles at the top of the results (the best possible scenario if this is deleted) it is still more inconvenient for them than if there was a page listing them as they have to figure out from the snippet shown (what this is is not predictable) which one they want when they were quite likely expecting an article about a single organisation given the context in which they read/heard/saw about them - if they knew they were separate organisations they would have searched for one individually. In contrast a short page can link directly to both with an explanation that they are separate, educating them (the fundamental goal of Wikipedia) without hassle. Why is this hard to grasp? Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • The search function is an integral feature of Wikipedia, everyone who uses Wikipedia has access to it, per my previous link. Someone will be able to find what they are looking for, and in an easier fashion than a redirect that links to just one of them. Again, "Sons and Daughters of Liberty" is not a single organization, so a page, disambiguation or not, is inappropriate. A redlink better conveys that fact than a page of error. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • That's two points you missed this time (and there are still others you're ignoring). Everyone can access the search engine (when it is working) but they often have to actively look for it - with a page they will find the answer straight away. I've never argued that the redirect should point to only one organisation - that would indeed be wrong - however there should be a page (whether called a disambiguation page or something else) that links to both - our purpose is to educate people by informing them that their misconception is a misconception, and educate them about what is correct. A redlink is just unhelpfully saying "We don't have an article by that name." It could mean they got the spelling wrong, that we don't have an article yet but want one, that we don't have an article and don't want one, or possibly other things - it is directly contrary to our goal. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • I'm not "missing points", I'm disagreeing with you. That's two totally separate things you're conflating. Since we're now going in circles, I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
                        • You are clearly disagreeing with me, and that's fine, but the arguments you are using in your replies to back up your opinions do not relate to the arguments that I have been making and so do not refute (or support) them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
                        • @Tavix: I'm going to have to agree with Thryduulf here, and besides, pageviews still indicate that this page is better off kept. ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XY. You can't disambiguate here. "'Sons and Daughters of Liberty' may refer to 'Sons of Liberty' and 'Daughters of Liberty'?" Nonsense! --BDD (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been a good (and heated!) discussion here; I read the arguments as leaning slightly toward delete, but we've had this for 12.5 years, so a few more participants would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @BDD: A useful page for the reader (and after 12.5 years there will very likely be plenty of incomming links to attract them) will offer a bit more than that but even if it didn't then that plain disambiguation will be vastly more useful than a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Mythical being

I'm fairly certain that the redirect is not exclusive or has affinity with its current target, or even the term "cryptid". I'd say there has to either be a clearer/better target out there somewhere, or this redirect probably qualifies for deletion per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Mythology would be a far better place to redirect. --tronvillain (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig The current target, Mythology, Legendary creature, List of mythological creatures, Category:Mythological peoples and possibly others could be what is being looked for. Lists of deities might be appropriate as well, (possibly as a see also). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Mythology, which would be the overarching article that encompasses "mythical beings". No need to disambiguate when it is covered by a single article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. The Mythology article has little on mythical beings save through the long list of links in its see also section. --Qetuth (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment/opinion: Thus far, of the options presented, "Retarget to Mythology" seems to be the most helpful option for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Directing Mythology related pages to Cryptozoology seem like an attempt to delegitimatized WikiProject Cryptozoology. It really doesn't fit with that particular project and it's notable enough to be its own article. All it needs is some cleaning up and, expanding, given proper citations.--Paleface Jack 16:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    Keep? The page mythical being has redirected to cryptozoology since it was created in 2005. This is about changing that. --tronvillain (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Paleface Jack: Could you clarify? Your comment seems like you're opposed to keeping? Or did you mean "deleting" instead of "directing?" ~ Amory (utc) 21:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 21:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I say Keep.--Paleface Jack 21:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Duplicate vote: Paleface Jack (talkcontribs) has already cast a vote above. Oops, didn't mean to look like this was me voting twice. It was a reply to Amorymeltzer. I was meaning KEEP since it's notable enough, all it needs is some cleaning up and possible clarification.--Paleface Jack 19:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig by far the best option. Too many potential targets, from mythical creatures to deities, none of them a clear primary topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Legendary creature. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig "Being" is overly vague and does not necessarily refer to mythical creature. It can be disambiguated between deities, creatures, etc.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Opera Software Inc

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 19#Opera Software Inc

Uranium and other radioactive substances

WP:XY: Other radioactive substances, such as radon or cobalt-60, have separate articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY, as well as the vague use of the word "other" in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the points Steel1943 made. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget. This redirect (which has existed as a redirect to the present target for 10½ years apart from its' first 20 minutes) is has been consistently getting 5-10 hits every month since November 2016 (and was getting up to 35-40 a month before that). There are no incoming links from article space so there is a very strong likelihood that deletion will break links from outside Wikipedia (see WP:LINKROT for why this is a bad thing). If retargeted then List of elements by stability of isotopes is probably the best target I've found as it contains a list of radioactive substances, a good prose introduction and several hatnotes to other possible topics. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Thryduulf's page view assessment which shows this is implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • What are you on about? My page view assessment demonstrates the exact opposite of implausibility! Five to ten people every month use this redirect and so benefit from its existence - deletion would be harmful to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Page views show the level of use, but they do nothing to prove whether those who use it are helped by where they end up. Uranium gets 2,500 hits per day, so the use from this redirect is negligible—hence my claim of implausibility. Keeping it, however, would be harmful as the nominator helpfully pointed out. -- Tavix (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The target not being ideal does not indicate implausibility - if the redirect were implausible it would be getting much less than half the traffic it does. The "other" in the title is not vague at all - it clearly refers to radioactive substances that are not uranium, so we know what people are looking for: The class of radioactive substances that includes uranium. The chances are very high that with this level of traffic the redirect would have been retargetted or discussed somewhere in the preceding 10½ years if it were not serving the needs of the people using it - but there is no evidence of that. The search results (should people be lucky enough to be taken straight to them rather than having to hunt them down) would not really be helpful here so deletion is the most harmful thing we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
          • The fact that a highly misleading redirect flew under the radar for so long is more evidence that it has not been well used, in case the page view statistics did not already make that abundantly clear. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I really don't understand where you are comming from with your comments regarding page views - they demonstrate that the redirect is well used not the opposite as you are claiming. You can say that people are getting where they want to go (I disagree, but there is rational discussion to be had) but when 5-10 people a month are using the redirect it is empirically well used and it is not credible to claim otherwise. It is also not "highly misleading" because people are searching for radioactive substances including uranium and get taken to an article about uranium that has links to other radioactive substances - nearly the exactly thing they are looking for. "Highly misleading" and "nearly matching the search term" are extremely far from being the synonyms you claim them to be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
              • It is your opinion that it is well used, just like it is my opinion that it is not well used. And yes, it's highly misleading to tell people the target is also about "other radioactive substances" when in fact the scope of the article is just "Uranium". -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    There's also no way of measuring the "curiosity factor", where a user sees a term suggested in the search box and follows it—not because it's what they were originally searching for, but because they wonder where it will lead. (This is how I came across Toad the fancy little mushroom from mario, when I was looking for Toad the Wet Sprocket.) Pageviews are an important metric, but can never tell us the whole story. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    People discovering articles they weren't necessarily looking for by being curious is a Good Thing. People will only indulge the curiosity when they have both the time and the inclination, so we are not depriving them of what they are looking for unless the redirect is in the way of something else (which this is not). At worst the redirect is entirely harmless, and at best it is beneficial to people finding content that educates them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well, yes, but if they see "Uranium and other radioactive substances", we don't really indulge their curiosity by simply taking them to uranium. If you'll indulge me a metaphor: if someone orders a burger and fries, you shouldn't only give them a burger because it's the most important part, and hey, they got food, why should they be upset? If you won't give them a burger with fries, "burger and fries" shouldn't be on your menu. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    What we offer isn't just a burger though, it's "here is your burger, when you want the fries just click the link." alternatively we could link to List of elements by stability of isotopes which offers burgers, fries and all the condiments they may want but didn't explicitly list. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simultaneously useless and misleading. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Per my comments above this is objectively useful and not necessarily misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Delete. "Operatives" are not exclusively unlawful combatants and the redirect is misleading. Changing target to Operative is not appropriate because none of the entries is used as a plural. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete An operative can be any worker, also used in computer terminology. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Prehaps the page 'operative' just needs to be expanded? I'm seeming plenty of news articles that use the term "operatives" in a general sense to mean "specialists of a certain field" such as this New Yorker story. And here's something about professional agitators going after Beyonce. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to an expanded disambiguation page at operative per CoffeeWithMarkets, especially as that includes at link to Wiktionary. "Operative" can mean any worker, not just a military or skilled one - see the results of this search for example. Years ago I did see a job advert for a "front-line used-resource recovery and transportation operative" as a euphemism for a waste collector. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Operative tactical

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

Mara Romero Borella

Not mentioned in target PRehse (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, nominator's statement is incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Crazy bad

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

May 11

Holy Empire

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

Wikipedia:Ironic pages

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 19#Wikipedia:RDRR

Toad the fancy little mushroom from mario

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


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

Pig ass

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

Real Economy

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

Folk Economics

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Folk economics

Bachelor in Economics

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to Bachelor of Economics

Career & business

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

Business and economics

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


Delete per WP:XY. Also, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Business and industry. Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget to Outline of business. This is a {{R with old history}}, dating from 19 February 2001 this is one of the oldest pages on the project, so the high liklihood of incomming links very strongly outweighs WP:XY. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. These are two different topics discussed at different articles. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • My suggested target links to both and serves as a way to avoid link rot, something that is far more helpful to readers than search results that may or may not be relevant and may or may not be easily found. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • If someone searches for "business and industry", the search engine will deliver that are relevant to that string. Check it out. The article for Business and the article for Industry appears prominently, along with organizations and other relevant results that cover both industry and business (which I feel would be closer to what someone might actually want). Giving someone a laundry list specific to business, of which Industry just happens to be one of the links is not helpful. Why not Outline of industry? It's so arbitrary... -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Gotta agree with Thryduulf on this — this has been around since 2001, so it's WP:CHEAP enough in case there are any incoming external links. The {{R from CamelCase}} will take care of adding unprintworthy, so I don't see any harm. I'm not opposed to the retarget suggestion, but this has been pointed at business for 15 years so I don't see a problem with keeping it, even given the XY name. ~ Amory (utc) 01:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 19#Eutheism


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Parasceve

May 6

Palace law

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

Doyle Lee Hamm

The word "Hamm" is mentioned in the references section, but is not mentioned in the article content itself. For this reason, on the article's current state, readers will either be confused and/or not find the information they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand article - Keep the cheap redirects, and expand the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:CHEAP doesn't apply when a redirect can be considered misleading. In cases like this, unhelpfulness supersedes WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose finding the name in the footnotes is sufficient for a keep, but if only some of the energy put into creating three redirects were diverted to giving the subject a shout-out in the article body. As for WP:CHEAP, wasting the time of several editors to discuss this, rather than doing the right thing in the first place, is WP:EXPENSIVE. Free human labor is Wikipedia's most valuable resource. wbm1058 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Footnotes mention isn't enough to warrant a redirect. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_24#Marilou_Danley. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all There is no content in the article related to the redirect.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States, Delete Lee Hamm based on news that his execution was supposedly botched up [18] [19] If Harcourt's involvement in the settlement is written in then it can be expanded there. Right now there isn't any Botched executions list. Delete Lee Hamm because the subject does not go by the middle name, and this would potentially implicate other Lee Hamms. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The retarget suggestion is not a good one as it will quickly go out of date. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 21:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hamm's entry is now on the List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States#List of offenders previously scheduled to be executed, so the redirects can point to there until removed from the listings. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And what happens once he's removed from the list? We end up right back here again in the future? That seems awfully pointless. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
In support of Tavix's statement, the only other redirect that targets List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States which is a person's name is Jeremiah J. Jackson. (Possibly RfD candidate?) Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Reply - There are lists of people executed in the United States to which his name can redirect. Otherwise, he will always be a part of List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States#List of offenders previously scheduled to be executed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's probably best to delete such redirects due to their lack of helpfulness. See WP:ONEEVENT. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget first two per AngusWOOF. It's where he's listed, and the list is (apparently) useful, so let's make use of the redirect. It will eventually be out of date once his status changes, but there's no date set, and redirects are easy enough to change. In the meantime, why remove helpful redirects? Delete the third one, middle name redirects not helpful. ~ Amory (utc) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Evil / The evil / Suck evil / Suck Evil

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

M22 graph

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

Untitled Blade Runner project

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete, unopposed; Keep Untitled Boyapati Srinu project and Untitled blink-182 album


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

Glamour (Charmed)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Glamour (Charmed)


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

Jeffrey Reinking

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

Unused redirects for Template:Stnlnk

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

Robbie Williams (band)

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

Modern Mathematics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 16#Modern Mathematics

Global language

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


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

Limulus darwini

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Limulus darwini

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA