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.
  • 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 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

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 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. stats.grok.se or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from so 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

I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Contents

Current list

May 29

Levko Koper

per WP:XY; previous precedent set for deleting these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (for creating hundreds of suspect ones to burnish his page creation count), this follows the pattern of many of them: an obscure NN hockey player redirected to a single incident in his career. Fails XY, in that this is no more likely a target than Spokane Chiefs (the amateur team for which he played five seasons and is in the top five of all-time career games played), University of Alberta, the college hockey program where the subject was a five-year starter, or the three pro teams for which he's played to date. Ravenswing 08:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Seyit as a nominee & A background story of the shot

This redirect makes no sense. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. We definitely don't need cross-namespace redirects to featured content nomination discussion pages. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Content forking

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 25#Content fork. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Easily confused words

There is a header on the target stating that the page "is not meant to be an encyclopedic article about such errors.", so a redirect (and linking, for that matter) from mainspace does not seem appropriate. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Fighting Championships

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

May 28

Biggest clock

The redirect refers to a more ambiguous subject that its target. The target article is exclusive to clock faces whereas the redirect could refer to the entire clock structure (which the clock face is only one part of the entire structure.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both - WP:REDLINK appears to apply here since what we need is an article called "List of the world's largest clocks" or something like that. And said article would include the entire device and not just the specific part that's the "clock face". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of clocks where all notable clocks, including those noted for their size, should be listed. I'll note that the see also has links to a couple lists, including the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Wikilinked

I'm not sure why this was created as redirect to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Office actions which seems like an inappropriate target. Temlate:Wikilink and Template:Wikilinking are red; Template:Wikilinks redirects to Template:Underlinked. Leaning towards deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Amounts to patent nonsense. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Daillou and others

[ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Redirects in question is apparently for a thing called "grounded videos", which is primarily made with GoAnimate where a section about this was added, without reliable sources. The section has been added before, and removed before. The section itself may or may not be notable, but the redirects in question (which are for a "cast list", which vary from video to video), is most certainly not, so the redirects should not exist as a result. SkyWarrior 01:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

May 27

Binary code compatibilityBinary compatible

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6

لنشيد الوطني الإماراتي

Delete - Implausible typo --93.169.191.252 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism redirects

Rest of the list (113 redirects)
Discussion

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 18#Hinduism in Djibouti. I went through and identified all "Hinduism in X" redirects in which the target doesn't mention Hinduism in the given country and I couldn't find a suitable target. As such, these are misleading as someone searching using these terms won't learn anything about the subject. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support all. I think it's great that you did this work. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep/Refine all as long as some sort of religious breakdown is mentioned in the target article. Unlike a lot of redirects, where the absence of the specific term in the target article means a reader learns nothing, the absence of any specific mention of Hinduism does impart information as long as there is a religious breakdown. If say Hinduism is not mentioned but "Other religions" or equivalents have percentage points in a religious breakdown, then the reader knows that Hinduism will not be higher than that percentage. However the redirects should be refined to the demographics/religion section in articles where they are not. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the hinduism in Iceland redirect as I added information about that in this edit. Abstain or Neutral for the rest of the redirects.--Snaevar (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll withdraw that one. This is a perfect example of why deletion is beneficial. If these redirects are red, it'd encourage people to add information on Hinduism in that particular country instead of assuming that information exists. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and unbundle into smaller groups. Per Patar Knight, most of these should be kept, refined or retargetted rather than deleted but there are too many to reasonably investigate individually. Taking the first one I selected at random, Hinduism in Benin, the reader would be better served by landing at Hinduism in Africa#West Africa than deletion, even though Hinduism in Benin is not explicitly mentioned there is relevant information there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hinduism in Africa#West Africa has the same problem as the current target! Some searching for Hinduism in Benin will learn nothing about Hinduism in Benin no matter where you put this redirect, so deletion is the only logical choice. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not true, they will learn that Hinduism is not significant in the region and that it's essentially only a few immigrants who subscribe to the faith. If there isn't anything to say about it we should tell people that, which that article does, rather than a redlink which would encourage the creation of an article about something that isn't notable while not giving anybody any information at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but the redirect is Hinduism in Benin, not Hinduism in West Africa. It's misleading to our readers to redirect them to a place that does not discuss Hinduism in Benin, and it's misleading for you to assume that little blurb of information applies to Benin. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Benin is unquestionably in West Africa, why would it not apply to Benin? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Benin may be in West Africa, but Benin isn't necessarily representative of West Africa as a whole. We shouldn't assume it applies unless we have actual information on Hinduism in Benin, as the redirect implies. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Norðmanna

At the very least these two redirects should point to the same place (they were created as-is about a minute apart by user:OnWikiNo in December), but I'm not convinced that either of the current targets are correct. From what I can work out, "Norðmanna" is Old English for "Norsemen" or loosely "Norwegian people", and modern Icelandic for "Norwegian" in much the same range of meanings and contexts as the English word is (Norwegian is a dab page). "Northmanna" seems to only be used as a transliteration of "Norðmanna" when ð is not available, Nordmanna (another plausible transliteration) has never existed. There are obviously a lot of ties between Iceland and Norway so I'm not certain that WP:FORRED applies. If kept (and I'm presently neutral about whether they are useful), I think that the disambiguation page at Norwegian is possibly the best target. I'll alert the Norwegian and Icelandic wikiprojects to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Noorwegen

Delete all per WP:FORRED as there is no strong affinity I have found between Norway and respectively Dutch, Spanish, French (accented and R without diacritics), German and Polish/Indonesian. Germany did occupy Norway during WWII but I don't think that makes it sufficiently likely that people will be using the German name to look up information about Norway in English. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Roisin Kelly

These are very old redirects, created in 2005 and 2008, of teachers' names, redirecting to a school. The school article was moved once and the redirects not updated, so this left me a little confused when I came across them, but I've now updated the redirects to reflect this. However, nothing links to these redirects, they have no history other than their creation and my edit, and the names are no longer mentioned in the article they redirect to. The redirect for "Roisin Kelly" has had a few more hits recently than normal but that's probably down to the fact that there is a TV character with that name (which already has disambiguated redirects). —anemoneprojectors— 10:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Link

Confusing redirect; has been used incorrectly as if it were {{Cite web}} and {{URL}}. I've replaced all transclusions (including several from link spammers who incorrectly replaced the "dead" in {{Dead link}}). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Deprecate. With such a name, this template is bound to see continuing attempts at use. I think it's best if 1) a template doc page is created listing the likely templates a user might have been looking for; and 2) the template's transcluded content is set to an error message telling editors not to use it, similar to what is done for Template:Requestforcomment (which was the outcome of a a discussion from earlier this year). – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Shade in Eragon

Per my comments on the previous AFD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_26#Eragon_.28book.29, I've moved this to Shade (Inheritance Cycle), but the old redirect still bugs me. The book series does not call characters or concepts "Shade in Eragon". It's just Shade. Shade (Eragon) would be acceptable too. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Third Kingdom of Norway

This seems to be a neologism, as it gets zero hits as an exact phrase in Google (for that matter "Second Kingdom of Norway" finds 2 results, neither relevant), nor can I find any sources that suggest numbering of Norweigian regimes is common (unlike the French republics) - the official name of the country is just "Kingdom of Norway". Looking at the History of Norway article, it doesn't seem obvious how the figure of the post 1905 (or possibly post 1945?) monarchy being the third monarchy was arrived at (different Kingdoms seem to have started or started including present-day Norway in at least 872, 1397, 1524, 1814, 1905 and 1945). Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 26

List of countries with ice rinks and ice hockey

Long-standing redirect created by a page move in 2015. List of countries without ice rinks and ice hockey was deleted by postdlf due to an unreferenced hockey-related junk article edit warning. Not only is there no ice rinks nor ice hockey exists in several countries. AaronWikia (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep the redirected article is giving the searcher what they are looking for. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The redirect is doing exactly what it should be. It is sending them to what they are looking for. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm not sure what the problem is. If the information in the redirect target is lacking or erroneous, then correct it. Ravenswing 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

UKofGBNI

Delete all as implausible redirects.

  • "UKofGBNI" gets exactly 3 independent hits on Google. The stats tool is refusing to give me any figures.
  • "U.-K." is a completely implausible mix of hyphens and full stops. It gets a trickle of hits that is borderline noise level.
  • "United Kingdom," has a trailing comma and past consensuses at RfD has always been that these are not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Regno Unito

.

Delete per WP:FORRED. There is no affinity between the United Kingdom and Italian, Spanish, French (incorrectly and correctly hyphenated), German or Dutch. The German and incorrectly hyphenated French redirects were discussed in August 2015, both discussions were closed as no consensus. The participants of those discussions were @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling: and SiTrew (who I will not ping as they are currently topic banned from RfD). I will also notify the UK Wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC) I forgot to sign first time, so those pings will not have worked, so trying again: @GZWDer, WilyD, Mathrick, Rubbish computer, Tavix, DGG, BDD, A D Monroe III, BU Rob13, Steel1943, and Just Chilling:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep because from time to time someone translates an article from German and leaves intact links that say something like this: [[Vereinigtes Königreich|GB]]. I cleaned up a number of those when I created that redirect, and just now I found two more that had been created and cleaned those up as well. That will probably recur from time to time. Maybe the WP:FORRED policy should be adjusted to take this into account. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • In that situation I would say that the redlink would indicate the presence of an error such that it would be cleaned up much quicker without misleading people that they can find information in German on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Blake Peake

Delete. It'd be silly to assume this is the most significant part of Blake Peake's career. According to HockeyDB, he played four years with American International College. He also went to the playoffs with the Okotoks Oilers and played for the Notre Dame Hounds and Battlefords North Stars. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (for creating hundreds of suspect ones to burnish his page creation count), this follows the pattern of many of them: an obscure NN hockey player (in this case, someone who never played hockey beyond a just-barely-Division I college school) redirected to a single tournament in which he played. Fails XY, in that this is certainly a more implausible target than American International College itself, the college hockey program where the subject was a four-year starter. (Come to that, I wager I'm the only editor around who's actually seen the AIC Yellow Jackets play home games). Ravenswing 02:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Britain (1801–present)

Where should this point? The current target is the general article about the country which has existed in its present form since 1922, although the article also deals with the two preceding states Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922). The History of the United Kingdom article also covers from 1707 to the present. History of the British Isles covers a broader geographical area prehistory to the present. The post-1800 history of Great Britain is covered in multiple articles with more limited span - Georgian era (1714 to 1830), Regency era (1795 to 1837), Victorian era (1837-1901), Edwardian era (1901-14), History of the United Kingdom during the First World War (1914-18), Home front during World War II#Britain (1939-45) and History of the United Kingdom (1945–present). Great Britain is primarily a geographical article and contains no information about post-1800 history, pointing to History of the United Kingdom.Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The article United Kingdom is a about a state which has existed since 1801. It was renamed when most of Ireland seceded, that's all. And even then, largely through precedence (though some titles were officially changed by an act in 1927). Idk why I created that redirect though, its pretty pointless. I'd favour just deleting it. Rob984 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Throw A Fit - EP

Delete: Contra-MOS markup (capital A vs. MOS:TMRULES/MOS:CAPS, dashed "EP" vs. WP:DASH and WP:OFFICIALNAME) and unnecessary disambiguation on a redirect, where the ambigous conterpart, Throw a Fit, does not even exist. Lordtobi () 16:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per my comments on the similar redirect below. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the album has a dash in it, this won't help anyone. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf's comments below, and WP:COMMONNAME. Hyphens are almost universally used, at least in en:us; dashes are a tiny minority in American English, which applies since this is an American musician. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Throw a Fit (EP)

Delete: Unnecessary disambiguation on a redirect, where the ambigous conterpart, Throw a Fit, does not even exist. Lordtobi () 16:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Daedelus catalog

Delete: Unnotable WP:CATALOG item. Lordtobi () 15:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep at least some. I don't think WP:CATALOG applies to redirects. If it did, we could feasibly delete every single redirect that has ever existed for something that is not an article. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and there is no valid reason to delete most of these. Ss112 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    Other than WP:CATALOG, a redirect would require that a user looking for the item he is searching for finds valuable information on the subject, but in all of these cases, we would redirect the reader to a page where it is only included in a list, maybe sealed with a release year, but nothing the reader would actually want to know (development, release, length, genre, etc.), which makes these redirects rather confusing. This reasoning was with a lot of good deletions recently. Lordtobi () 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    A user may actually create the article(s) in future, and I don't think the redirects are confusing anybody because it's directing readers to the artist who made it/them, i.e. a more general topic (the reason why Template:R from album exists to place on redirects, is it not?) There just seems to be no real point to deleting redirects when they only appear to help and not hinder. These redirects are like placeholders until/if somebody wishes to expand them beyond that. Ss112 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Keep those that are mentioned in the list. Generally, redirecting non-notable topics to a list in which they appear is encouraged (if there is no more in-depth coverage elsewhere) as it gives people some information and discourages the creation of articles on non-notable topics (see also {{R to list entry}}). It sounds to me that the best way to address your concerns is to add more information (e.g. length, genre) to the target list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's my mix: Delete Experience (Daedelus song). It's not mentioned at the target article, nor at any of his album articles. Keep the rest. If you were to follow WP:CATALOG, it would inform you that Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. There's no pricing at play here, so WP:CATALOG does not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time (band)

Delete: WP:XY, as made up of two artists and a label, it could redirect to Daedelus, Plug Research, or DJ Frosty. Lordtobi () 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Daedelus (musician) is a member of Adventure Time (band). [1] and Plug Research is the record label of the band. [2] Add {{R without mention}} until this can be resolved. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Band is mentioned. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Daedelus musician

Delete: Faulty disambiguation per some of yesterday's discussions. Lordtobi () 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Just for clarification, Thryduulf also recommended weakly keeping one of them. Do you also support that recommendation? -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm kind of neutral on the keywords scheme for searching: e.g. Daedelus musician. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington DC politics

Politics of Washington D.C. and Politics of the District of Columbia do not exist, not sure if it should be retargeted to Government of the District of Columbia or an article be created. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Retarget per BDD. I knew we had an article on the government of Washington DC, but I didn't realize we had anything of substance on the politics. We've got an exact match, so this should go there. Either way, there should be a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix, but hatnote per nom. DC is a major American city with municipal politics of its own. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Just found out Politics of Washington exists, should this point to there instead? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I would say no, per WP:TITLECON. Since "Washington" is an ambiguous term, "Politics of" is equally ambiguous (it could even refer to the politics of George Washington). Washington D.C. is unambiguous. bd2412 T 03:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Politics of Washington does have a link to the local governing of Washington DC so it would be two dabs. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article section "Government_of_the_District_of_Columbia#Politics" has a lot of related information there, and arguably it could be it's own separate page (or brought over to its own page and expanded). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Government of the District of Columbia#Politics. I can't believe we don't already have a single article on this! --BDD (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but hatnote Most people who don't live in the immediate DC area would be looking for information on national politics, but given the large population of the DC Metro area and the fact that most of those people would probably be looking for local politics, it's worth a hatnote. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    Tavix argued the same, but I'm skeptical of this. Sure, there's general talk in American politics about "fixing Washington" and the like, but I find it highly unlikely that readers would use a term like "Washington DC politics" over things like "American politics", "US politics", etc. Maybe there's no way to know for sure, but I'd think the more specific search term would mean something. If nothing else, I think it's a good principle not to assume a search term is erroneous unless there isn't a good alternative. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close the May 15th log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per BDD. All the other extant "politics of X" titles that definitely refer to national capitals (Berlin, London, and Tokyo) cover the local politics of the capital itself, not the politics of the country whose capitals they are. The only possible exception is "Politics of Skopje", but this is the result of the Macedonia naming dispute, under which the entirety of FYROM is called by the name of its capital city. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Derek Foam

Delete. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where someone can get any substantial information on the subject. He's mentioned exactly two places in Wikipedia: 2009 CHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament and 2011 Atlantic Hockey Tournament, both are game recaps where he scored a goal. -- Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY. Was created as a redirect in the first place.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: per WP:XY. This is one of the most egregious of the several hundred suspect redirects created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (to burnish his page creation count), and follows the pattern of many of them: an obscure NN hockey player from the low-minor leagues redirected to one of the teams for which he played ... in this case, just four games out of his career. A near farcically implausible target, given that he played for eight professional teams in the low- and semi-pro ranks, and was a four-year starter for his university team. Ravenswing 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Pandora s box

Delete. Very unlikely a user would type a space instead of the apostrophe. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Surprisingly this is getting significant use - 87 hits last year is an order of magnitude more than noise level. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I can't envision why anyone would use this, but since they definitely are, and since they're clearly planning to go to the current target, there's no reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Conservative Party politicians

Delete as vague. --Nevéselbert 08:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Namibia national ice hockey team

Long-standing redirect created by a page move in 2008. Alas, not only is there no national team for ice hockey in Namibia, there is no ice arena in our beautiful but hot country, and there is thus just nobody playing ice hockey, nothing to play it with, and nowhere to play it. I think this link should be red per WP:ASTONISH. --Pgallert (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added Pakistan national ice hockey team to this nomination; it's apparently virtually the same situation. Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I've completed that listing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking at the history of this page, the inline hockey (hockey on inline roller skates) organization is called the "Namibia Ice and InLine Hockey Association"; the link in the article is broken, though the NIIHA has a Facebook page that indicates it still goes by that name. I agree that it appears that there's never been a "Namibia national ice hockey team", nor even that there is one planned; the article Ice hockey in Africa basically notes that they have an inline team but not an ice hockey team, and that this redirect should be deleted. I also think that Namibia Ice and InLine Hockey Association and the national team article should be merged, but that's another action entirely. Mandsford 13:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hooray for Everything

Delete. Non-notable organization not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment This was originally a fictional group parodying Up With People mentioned in early seasons of The Simpsons.[3] It was then adopted as the name of a local a cappella group from Northwestern, and was later renamed Purple Haze and redirected to Northwestern. That group itself isn't notable. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Logan's Run (2010 film)

Delete. The remake did not come out in 2010 (and still isn't out). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete failed crystal. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - It would be one thing if there was a remake in 2010, but there isn't. Not sure WP:CRYSTAL really applies, since this is in the past, but definitely inaccurate. Onel5969 TT me 03:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Failed film release now becomed a unlikely search term. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Motion Picture Guide"

Delete. Very unlikely that the search is done with quotation marks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Quotes are not necessary, this isn't a particular brand known by it's quotation marks or a catchphrase. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hang them all

I don't think there is a significant enough connection between the redirect and the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I added these dabs to the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mdupont:ListOfNJHistoricPlaces

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

Countries that teach english as a foreign language

I can't find a suitable target that has information on this. I feel like it'd need to be a list. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete No such list. There's English as a second or foreign language but there's no list of countries so this doesn't serve anyone. And they even teach ESL in English-speaking countries. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of sovereign states, because English is probably taught as a foreign language basically everywhere. Yes, this is a joke :-) I actually agree with deletion because it probably embraces everything. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

इंग्रजी language

Delete: WP:RFOREIGN + mixed language. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 16:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 25

Messhof

Delete: Messhof also developed Flywrench, so WP:XY applies. Lordtobi () 23:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Is Messhof or Messhof Games notable enough to create an entry now that the company has created two games with Wikipedia articles and is planning a Nidhogg 2? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Essen

Delete: Mark Essen also created Flywrench, so WP:XY applies. Lordtobi () 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to whatever Messhof goes to as he is a key person of that company. He has no notability independent of his company. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Messhof should just be a disambig of the guy's games. Redirecting developer pages to one of their multiple works is not helpful, but I understand the redirect was created before Flywrench's release. As per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dejobaan Games, developers should have a degree of inherited notability such as WP:BAND, if only to aid in navigation. - hahnchen 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark "Messhof" Essen

Delete: Messhof is a company consisting of two people, registered under the laws of California as Messhof LLC. It is not a pseudonym of Mark Essen, and even if it was, the company also developed Flywrench, so WP:XY applies. Lordtobi () 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to whatever Mark Essen points to. Name is mentioned in multiple news articles from video gaming magazines and the Telegraph paper uses this nickname too. [4] [5] [6] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis(drug)

Delete. A couple redirects that are missing a space before the opening parenthesis. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Rabbit Hats

Delete. Unlikely misspelling of album name. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this is vague. Could refer to hats made of rabbit fur or Hat-trick (magic trick), hats with pictures of rabbits on them. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The top suggestions on google are actually neither of AngusWOOF's suggestions but hats shaped like rabbits and hats for rabbits. "Rabbit hat" (singular) appears on en.wp three times, in the context of a magic trick (either literally or as a metaphor) or hats worn by characters in anime (I'm not sure whether they were made from, have pictures of or resemble rabbits though). Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, interesting, hats that are shaped with bunny ears. This is getting to be an WP:XY now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Every Time I Feel the Spirit (song)

Delete - not mentioned in article. This edit by user:Ojorojo replaced the page content (unreferenced and unimproved for 5+ years) with a redirect to [[Spiritual (music)|spiritual]] but that target does not contain any mention of the phrase. Better left as a redlink to encourage article creation. Alternative action would to revert the blank-and-redirect edit and PROD or AfD the page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment A search turned up 24 article appearances of the song title.[7] Perhaps one of those would be a better redirect (e.g., Nat King Cole's album Every Time I Feel the Spirit). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage redlink. It looks like Nat King Cole and Little Richard Pray Along with Little Richard (Vol 2) have variants of this but with a common chorus. It's been covered by a number of artists. It may be that the album may have to move over for the song to be primary topic. Sister Rosetta Tharpe also has an album of the same name in 2016. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The Tharpe album was a posthumous compilation release. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Good find! I would recommend restoring of the article where it could then list popular cover versions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
In the five years since it was created, the article still consisted of two sentences: "Every Time I Feel the Spirit" (aka "Ev'ry Time I Feel the Spirit") is an African-American spiritual dating to before the US Civil War. The song has been frequently recorded by contemporary artists and gospel music groups.[1]" The dead AllMusic link probably showed that it was recorded by several artists.[8] There are thousands and thousands of songs that have been recorded by several artists. However, not all meet the notability requirements for a WP article: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This appears to be a WP:Permastub. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yu-71

Delete - the YU is a vehicle, not a concept. The redirect is meaningless as-is, and is sitting on a page that should be created. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq

Worth considering a retarget to Firdos Square statue destruction, which "marked the symbolic end" of Saddam. --Nevéselbert 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely search term. I could see "Overthrow of Saddam Hussein" or "Overthrow of Iraq", but "Overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq" seems overly specific for a redirect. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Retarget to Saddam_Hussein#Invasion_of_Iraq_in_2003, which keeps it focused on Hussein's article and has information concerning his trial and execution. Delete the "in Iraq" version as redundant and not helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ireland(country)

Delete per recent precedent that redirects that omit spaces between the title and disambiguator are not useful. In this case the redirect is a relic of an undiscussed page move in 2007 that was reverted 2 hours and 6 minutes later. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and generate a list of all redirects having a parenthetical without a space preceding it for similar review. bd2412 T 04:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Delete. These redirects actively impede navigation for users looking for articles about one of the dozens (hundreds?) of articles about universities that have such a Faculty. Better to let search do its job? . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Highway 39

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 19#Interstate 6: these are unused U.S. route numbers. They should be red to prevent confusion in case someone were to think they've been used at one point in the past or future. There's no mention of these numbers at the target article, which is also confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - Do not need redirects for highways that do not exist. Dough4872 11:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Interstate precedent.  V 13:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. bd2412 T 04:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 24

2017–18 World Rugby Sevens Series

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

Scotia major

Delete. These terms are Latin (I think Old Latin) and Latinised Koine Greek names for the island of Ireland (literally "Big Scotland" and "Little Britain" respectively) and are not in common use anywhere except in discussions of northwest Europe in the context of that era - the contemporary and Classical Latin name for Ireland is Hibernia. "Scotia major" is not used anywhere on Wikipedia other than this redirect, and "Mikra Britannia" is found only in the archives of Talk:British Isles. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:David Dao

Not a plausible search term since we already have a David Dao redirect to the target article. No one will search for a draft here since it is unlikely Dao will ever have his own article per the AfD and deletion review 173.3.76.2 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - If the history were intact, preservation in some way might be due, but it is not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ireland and Ulster

I think I understand the logic behind this redirect as Republic of Ireland + Northern Ireland → island of Ireland, but I am very unsure whether I think this is a good search term or not. "Ireland" and "Ulster" are both ambiguous (see Ireland (disambiguation) and Ulster (disambiguation)) and so this could also be a WP:XY for the island and a part of the island, or the country and a region that is partly in that country and partly not. I'm bringing this here for discussion not necessarily deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete because it is quite unlikely that anyone will search for this term, and the question of what it might refer to raises political tension. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ireland Ulster

Deleteper WP:XY as this could refer to at least Ulster (the 9-county province), the 3 counties of the province currently in the Republic of Ireland and Ulster Rugby. I presume this originated with Ireland and Ulster (see above), but imho this is clearly not a good search term for the whole island or any other single thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Ulster, as that is the thing that the user is probably trying to search for, and disambiguation can be handled at that page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ireland (region)

There is no region called "Ireland" It could refer to Ireland (the Island), Regions of Ireland (→ NUTS 3 statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland), Northern Ireland, Subdivisions of Ireland (→ Local government in the Republic of Ireland), Islands of the North Atlantic. Should it be deleted, disambiguated or retargetted to Ireland (disambiguation)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubi Soft Entertainment Ltd.

Delete: "Ubi Soft Entertainment Limited" (unabbreviated) was for seven years (Sep 1997–Dec 2003) the legal name of Ubisoft's UK operations, which makes it the least notable, behind the name before ("Ubi Soft Limited", July 1989—Sep 1997: 8 years), and the [current] name after ("Ubisoft Limited", Dec 2003—present: 13+ years) + WP:YELLOWPAGES. Lordtobi () 19:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep In UK law there is no difference between "Limited", "Ltd" and "Ltd." in any capitalisation, so a limited company is free to use any (or none) as it wants without restriction. Accordingly people who write about the company can and do use any version, whether that matches what the company (currently) uses or not. That a company has had multiple legal names is not relevant as there is no restriction on the number of redirects to an article so there is no need to determine which is most or least notable as there can (and likely should) be redirects from all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Please note that the name is the least notable of an already unnotable office of Ubisoft in the UK (Ubisoft itself is in France). There is not a single mention of it in the target article, and no source really covers it. There should not be any redirects of this kind. Lordtobi () 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    If someone is looking up this name then they will want to find information about Ubisoft, which they will find at the target article. It's a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    If they wanted to find out about Ubisoft, why would they search for [an outdated legal name of] an almost-unknown subsidiary in a different country than what we are redirecting to? In contrast, we could have redirects "Ubisoft Entertainment SA" and "Ubi Soft Entertainment Software" (the two legal names the actual Ubisoft bore), and logically assume that the user looking those up was looking for Ubisoft HQ, but not take e.g. "Ubisoft SARL" (which was the legal name of Ubisoft Casablanca in Morocco), and assume that the reader—obviously wanting to find out about Ubisoft Casablanca—was looking for Ubisoft in France. That's illogical. Lordtobi () 12:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubisoft Entertainment Inc

Delete: On the one hand, WP:YELLOWPAGES, on the other, there is no such company by that name: The French headquarters are "Ubisoft Entertainment SA", while the North American subsid is simply "Ubisoft, Inc.", the title at present does not exist in that variation. Lordtobi () 19:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

PROC

Retarget to Proc. I have never come across this as an alternative to PRC which is universally used. It’s not used in the article China, and is certainly not the primary topic - something like its use in programming would seem more likely. But no use is particularly common, so the dab page seems the best target. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. Lordtobi () 19:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab page at Proc per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom, which includes several entries for the all caps version as well as the People's Republic of China entry. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritika Mohan Singh

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: created

Ramadan Abedi

I don't think a redirect from the middle and last names of the perpetrator is advisable. In fact, his father's name is Ramadan Abedi, and the father is currently mentioned at Didsbury Mosque. But we've typically deleted such redirects in the past, and I don't see a good reason for this one. BDD (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I created this redirect at the same time as the one for Salman Ramadan Abedi, and had no idea that his father was called Ramadan Abedi. I'm fine with deleting it. Edwardx (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WWF The Xperience

Not mentioned in the target, needlessly confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Lordtobi () 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You Bastard

Seems a bit derogatory and only seems to be the name of a minor character. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I would associate the phrase more firmly with Kenny from South Park. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Usually that quote would be in plural and not capitalized—"You bastards" or "You bastards!"—which are present and sourced in the Kyle Broflovski (who usually replies to Stan Marsh's "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!") article, where however, ironically, the redirects do not exist but could be created and redirect to the relevant section in the mentioned article. Regardless of my prior statement, the way this redirect is presented (capitalized, singular), is not notable and should be deleted. Lordtobi () 16:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The redirect is pointless. I would prefer the entry to be reverted to the original actual definition (the minor character from Discworld). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's so generic a phrase as to make a pointless and misleading redirect (per WP:XY), and I rather doubt this minor character from Discworld is so prominent as to merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 16:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no notable primary topic for this. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

IJsland

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the Dutch name for the country, but I have not found any significant connection between the Netherlands or Dutch language and Iceland/Icelandic. This gets a lot of hits, but almost certainly driven by the link at Alphabetical order#Language-specific conventions which doesn't need to exist, as it could be piped to the country (although it's immediately followed by "(Iceland)") or IJ (digraph), linked to nl:IJsland, or unlinked. Thryduulf (talk)

  • Delete per nom. Lordtobi () 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral Why wait to pipe the IJsland link mentioned by the nominator to test that theory of how much traffic comes from it ? --Snaevar (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I've unlinked it, but being listed at RfD generates traffic so the effect of the unlinking will not be known before this discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Principaut de Monaco

Delete this is a misspelling of the French official name for Monaco (Principauté de Monaco) and as far as I can tell "Principaut" is not a word in any other language. It got 4 hits last year which is noise level so it doesn't seem to be a common misspelling in English and as the title is a redlink on fr.wp the implication is that it isn't a common misspelling in French either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Lordtobi () 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Principality and Diocese of Monaco

where should these point? Monaco - the article on the principality (country) or Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco - the article on the (arch)diocese (where Diocese of Monaco redirects)? "Principality and Diocese of Monaco" is the title of the article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and both got an above noise level of hits last year (13 and 49 respectively) so I don't favour deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing to Monaco. JASpencer (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see also WP:XY). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-C417

Product not mentioned in the target article. —Keφr 13:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Rare Coin-It

Delete: Not mentioned once in target article. Lordtobi () 10:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Stamper Brothers

Both, Chris and Tim Stamper, respectively founded Rare (company) and Ultimate Play the Game (if not even more), so it does not make sense to redirect them to either, as both were very notable companies, but neither has detailed information on the redirect subjects. I think delete would be the best option for most of these, maybe a disambiguation page for "Tim Stamper" to include "Tim Stamper, the co-founder of UPTG and Rare" and "Tim Stamper, MP, a fictional character from House of Cards" or redirect Tim Stamper and Chris Stamper to the Stamper disambiguation page. Lordtobi () 09:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: Tim Stamper was a disambiguation page up until this undiscussed edit by User:Czar, which should have been reverted immediately. bd2412 T 11:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the note. I looked a little further down the pages during cleanup, and I figured that, maybe instead of recreating the dab for Tim, we should redirect both primary redirects to the Stamper dab page, but yet delete all others (for being plain unnecesssary); this ha also been added above. Lordtobi () 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Redirecting "Tim Stamper" to Stamper will mislead and confuse readers; "Tim Stamper" is not a WP:INCOMPDAB case as it contains no parenthetical disambiguator, and is not merely synonymous with "Stamper". There are precisely two relevant senses of the term meeting WP:DABMENTION, and since they are equally obscure, the appropriate resolution is to have a disambiguation page at this title. A reader who searches for "Tim Stamper" is likely searching for one of these two options, and that is precisely what they should see. bd2412 T 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Rare (video game)

Delete: Target article's subject is not a video game. Lordtobi () 09:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Betteridge

Delete: Betteridge was with the company for just 3 years (Jan 2007-Mar 2010), and the target article holds no information on the subject apart from a mention and its affiliation with the target article's subject. Lordtobi () 09:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Is he notable enough to be included in key people? If not a founder or key person, the redirect probably doesn't need to stay around unless it attracts a bunch of redirects. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Lou Dimasi

WP:XY; previous precedent set to delete these types of redirects Joeykai (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Created by an editor subsequently placed under a community ban from creating new redirects (for creating hundreds of suspect ones to burnish his page creation count), this follows the pattern of many of them: an obscure NN hockey player from the low-minor leagues redirected to a single season of one of the leagues in which he played. Fails XY, in that this single minor league season's certainly a more implausible target than Norwich_University#Ice_hockey, the college hockey program where the subject was a four-year starter, or Saint_Michael's_College#Athletics, where he coached for several years. Ravenswing 11:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Ravenswing above. Lordtobi () 17:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Ravenswing sums it up how I would have. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above discussion --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

May 23

Notability (law)

The target article does not discuss notability in the context of law, so this redirect may be seen as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Could definitely be seen as confusing as the redirect currently redirects to an unrelated topic (with same name). If not delete, then I would have to say to retarget the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'Public figure' is about whether or not somebody is notable in a legal context, although said page needs a lot of work. Possible retarget option? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. At first, I thought we may want to retarget this to List of Latin phrases (B)#bona notabilia, but I after thinking about this further I think that could potentially cause further confusion. I also think there is potential for people to enter this term when looking for information about Judicial notice, so its probably best to not create red herrings. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Luchthaven JFK

YMCA (diving organization)

It seems misleading to label YMCA as a "diving organization". If disambiguation is desired, YMCA (organization) would be sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete so it has diving programs, doesn't mean the organization is based on diving. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete YMCA is not a diving based organization (per the above) and, therefore, this redirect does not make much sense. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Young Men's and

...and what? The name of the organization is "Young Men's Christian Association" so I'm not sure what the "and" would refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Brexit redirects

Well I have to admit, a lot of these redirects are very amusing indeed. But most if not all are not encyclopaedic, and should be deleted. --Nevéselbert 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no specific need for a redirect to be encyclopaedic, I can't see any that particularly breaks the RfD guidelines. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I was understating matters. Frankly, these redirects are absurd and totally unprintworthy.--Nevéselbert 02:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Brixit as WP:TNT, and add back only ones that are either mentioned in the article or are feasible from WP:RTYPO. This isn't a "What does IBM stand for" catchall for possible names of the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Brixit spelling is used regularly in news articles [9] [10] [11] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. They are individually and collectively notable enough for redirects Deku-shrub (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Brixit, BRIXIT and BrExit as old, harmless redirects that have been used and remain (no pun intended) at least somewhat plausible search terms. Retarget Brecession (which has been used off-wiki) to Economic effects of Brexit. No opinion on Bregsit, Brexitite or Brexitites. Delete the rest because 1) as search terms, they range from implausible to very implausible (Bremoaner is getting page views, but that's about it; and even Bremoaner is not explained in the target article) and 2) per the article Deku-shrub cited, they weren't even created to make the encyclopedia better, and treating mainspace as a plaything should always be discouraged. At best it's mass creation of cheap redirects, which should also be discouraged; the thing about cheap redirects is that they're costly but deleting them is also costly. Sideways713 (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Brixit, BRIXIT, BrExit, and Bregsit as all being maybe plausible mistakes (after all, a lot of non-English speakers use this website, and every single one of them phonetically matches to "Brexit"). I agree that Brecession should go to Economic effects of Brexit. I'd delete the rest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Brixit, as it is a plausible typographical error. Delete the rest. There is no need to capitalize “Brixit” (BRIXIT), “Bregsit” seems like a very unlikely typo, and I don’t see why anyone would just capitalize the “e” in “Brexit” (BrExit). PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep all. As most of the votes up above are split between keeping some and deleting some, I think a batch nomination was unwise. No complaint about the nominator, who probably didn't expect that everyone would split votes in different directions; that's just how things work sometimes. Please immediately renominate any redirect that you still wish to see deleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cake Day

Terminology is not unique to Reddit. It is occasionally used for standard birthdays as well as other websites such as Imgur. ReferenceIVORK Discuss 15:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget Cake day to List of food days which has a listing of a bunch of cake days including National Cake Day. Delete cakeday. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 13:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • None of these national food days are referred to as “Cake Day” alone. They are referred to as “National Pancake Day,” “National Chocolate Cake Day,” etc. PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It may be better to retarget to Cake#Special-purpose_cakes to cover multiple occasions. There are events when companies have a cake day for employees who celebrate a birthday in a month. [12] [13] or birthdays in general [14] [15] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of "cake day" at Imgur at present, so that is not a valid disambiguation page entry. Second, please don't remove the rfd notice while discussion is in process. olderwiser 20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As per my reference listed above in the main reasoning for RfD, that shows Imgur officially recognizes the term, however I didn't think it important enough to include in the article. — IVORK Discuss 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If the search were for "Reddit Cake Day" or "Imgur Cake Day" or "Corporate cake day", then it could go to the specific sections, but the general one should go to a general listing, so perhaps a dab page would be helpful as all of those versions seem to be PTM's now. Problem is that the particular Cake Day redirects would have to be created. I put in a starting dab list in the meantime. But without a primary topic, I don't know if it will be that helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Also note that cake day is not listed in the online Wiktionary or Merriam-Webster. [16] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Menv

Not sure what this is supposed to be, as the target article does not include this word even once. Lordtobi () 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's the name of an animation program. More information can be found at Tin Toy#Production and it's also briefly mention at Toy Story#Animation. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete Many hits for either a "Master of Environmental Science" degree or the Maryland Environmental Service. I'm dubious any of these are notable but an early Pixar animation program is not going to be what very many people are looking for. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of environmental degrees. It's very likely people will look up what this means when seen as postnominals or a degree type and it is mentioned in that list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 10:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the existence of several eligible targets necessitate the creation of a disambiguation page? – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Uanfala, the best option is a disambiguation page. There's an article for Marionette (software), the successor/alternate name of the Menv environment. Menv is also mentioned at Tin Toy, and there's this paper about the software. Diego (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Good find, Diego Moya. Marionette (software) seems like the best place to link to for the animation engine. But Menv will need to be mentioned there. Do you have any sources that say this is its predecessor? – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:System bias

Not useful Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 22

Famous web search engine

Google isn't the only famous web search engine. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Has anything changed since Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#Famous web search engine? I assume that Google Search is still missing information about the company's efforts to protect their trademarks, which is the section that would explain the relevance of this redirect. Flow234, the meaning isn't "this is the only search engine that happens to be famous". This is a nickname specifically for Google Search, from back in the days when their lawyers were desperately trying to stop people from saying that they "googled" stuff. So some sources struck back at them by refusing to name the search engine, and instead would say things like "A session with a famous web search engine shows that..." or "Queries to a famous web search engine reveal that..." If you search for the exact quoted phrase using the FWSE in question, you will find quite a few such instances. Other sources, such as this book, provide the nickname and then specify the brand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unless there's a web engine brand called Famous, but I don't see that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Angus, this isn't about a search engine that happens to be famous. This generic-sounding nickname is used very specifically and exclusively to mean Google Search in this news source, this book, and many other reliable sources. There are 24 hits at Google Scholar on the exact, quoted phrase. It would be nice if the article was expanded to include information about the trademark and the related disputes, but the incompleteness of the article doesn't change the verifiable facts.
      Also, we probably should have pinged everyone who participated in the previous discussion: Rubbish computer, Qwertyus, Ivanvector, Pahazzard, and Thryduulf, as anyone who participated last time might like to have their say again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep again per WhatamIdoin - this is/was not a descriptive name but a nickname specifically for Google (c.f. another place), the same reason it was kept last time. The only reason no to keep this as is would be if the phrase has since been used for other search engines besides google - and nobody seems to be suggesting that it has. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Cube

Not mentioned at page Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If redirect title/subject is not even mentioned within the target, then it clearly either needs to be deleted or redirected/retargeted to a more appropriate location. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GooOS

Could refer to Chrome OS or any other Google operating system Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no news articles that use this notation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, simply not useful in current form. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Die Hardest

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Relisting two items left over from a much larger RfD, which primarily contained redirects from proposed film projects to actors attached to them. These two titles do not fit into that general pattern. I actually thought that the third Die Hard film was promoted for a time as "Die Hardest", so I would keep these. bd2412 T 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't have a problem with Die Hardest being kept/retargeted if a certain film or films were promoted as such. They were included because they were created around the same time as those other redirects by Captain Assassin! and there was no mention of a film titled "Die Hardest" at the target. He has a history of creating dubious film redirects in order to claim "credit" when a redirect is overwritten with an article. In fact, Die Hardest was originally created as a redirect to Die Hard With a Vengeance (Die Hard 3) in 2010. Captain Assassin! moved that redirect to Die Hardest (2015 film) in anticipation of a film by that name being released in 2015, so he could get the credit for the "Die Hardest" film if it were to enter production instead of Sieckanddestroy. If this is to be kept, the original author should have the credit they deserve, so I undeleted the original edit from Die Hardest (2015 film) and history merged it into Die Hardest. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, they're looking for the next film in the franchise, this would help. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nyderlandai

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the Lithuanian for "Netherlands" but there is no significant connection between Dutch/the Netherlands and Lithuanian/Lithuania I have found. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Olanda

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the name for "Netherlands" in several languages - most prominently Italian, but also Romanian, Romani and several south east Asian languages (Tagalog, Aromanian, Pangasinan, Ilocano, Cebuano and Tetum). Italian is only noted as a foreign language in the Netherlands and as no other affinity I can find, the other languages have no connection at all I've found. This redirect is getting a very large number of uses, but this is almost certainly from the link at List of Italian films of 1955 (where this redirect is misleading), or the two user sandbox pages (1 a stale draft written in Romanian and the other which appears to be a work-in-progress translation of an Italian article). It is also a plausible misspelling of Oleander. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne City FC (W-League)/Template:Melbourne City W-League Current Squad

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

Choad

Disambiguate, I'm guessing. Not the only thing called this, not even the only song (Harshing My Mellow has one). At Perineum as a slang variation. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. According to wikt:choad, it can also be a slang term for a short and thick penis, or for a loser. I'd normally be inclined to ignore the song titles (are these dab-mentionworthy?) and just soft redirect to wiktionary. But people like including such songs on dab pages, so I guess disambiguating would be more in keeping with current practice. – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Secreted protein

Whoever created this redirect appears to have done so on the basis that one of its synonyms is "secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine" (SPARC). However, there are many, many secreted proteins in biology; the term is used synonymously with "secretory protein," for which there is a Wikipedia entry. That's where "Secretory protein" should redirect! Mikalra (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Northern Netherlands

there is no official region called "Northern Netherlands" nor does it seem to be used for any defineable area. The closest is North Netherlands, which is a NUTS 1 statistical division mentioned at List of regions of the Netherlands as comprising Groningen (province), Friesland and Drenthe but like all the other NUTS 1 regions in the country it has no article and there is no more information than that. I'm unsure whether I favour deletion or retargetting to the list of regions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands, (Dut/Hol)

This seems quite an implausible search term - I can't find any uses of "Dut/Hol" that don't originate with this redirect and the comma before the parenthetical disambiguation makes it even less likely to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wine and Dine

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Principles of the constitution

Redirect does not specify what constitution it refers to, also the word "principles" is vague. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • If we want to point this somewhere specific, then Constitution or Constitution#Principles of constitutional design might make viable targets. Wehther that is what I think should happen though I'm unsure. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to principles of constitutional design, as suggested. Current redirect is parochially 'Murican.Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget - I agree. I wouldn't object either to outright deletion, given the vagueness, but the above recommendation is fine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Labour leader

Retarget to Leader of the Labour Party per WP:DIFFCAPS, most likely primary topic. --Nevéselbert 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Winner (Jamie Foxx album)

Jamie Foxx does not have an album titled "Winner". -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that sometimes single releases are included in multi-song EP type things (or something in digital form that retains the A-Side/B-Side distinction), but that doesn't seem to be the case for the Foxx song. Does anybody see any information otherwise? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Someone typing in "Winner (Jamie Foxx" will see the song, so this isn't necessary. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete if the album does not exist, then there should not be a redirect in its name. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 21

Google Tube

Implausible redirect Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as the redirect does not make sense so should be deleted per criteria #5 listed on WP:RFD#DELETE. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 00:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - A commercial product exactly known as "Google Tube" exists, and it appears official (as far I can tell). I'm not sure what to do in terms of Wikipedia, though. The article List of Google products doesn't have much in the way of physical objects. I'm not that knowledgeable about the corporation, to be honest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not used in news articles or books, even as a nickname for YouTube. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as does not correspond to Youtube. It can be restored later as an article for the subject (Google Tube) if that ever becomes notable enough for its own page. Loopy30 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Opal card.svg

Delete this page to free it for real opal card image. Coekon (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 13:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Accidental Genius

Discussion

Here's the next batch of problematic film redirects (with a bonus TV series!). All of these target a director, actor, etc. that was rumored to be a part of a potential film. The problem, however, is that there is zero mention of such at the target, so anybody who wants to know more about these potential films will end up confused or disappointed. Most of these films are in development hell. They may or may not progress to production, and the director, actors, production studio, etc. could all change before then. Therefore, these redirects should be red, and if any of these enter production, then an article on the film should be created. Until then, these redirects aren't helpful. (Raw list available on talk page.) -- Tavix (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this type of redirect serves on enyclopedic purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all with lots of WP:TNT. Directors and actors shouldn't be the main redirect, only producers, authors and screenwriters. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The exception for this would be Pompeii (TV series) which should retarget to Pompeii_in_popular_culture#TV. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Moldovans in in Canada

Delete as implausible typo in title (double 'in'). Loopy30 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. It was at this title for just under the first two days of its existence in 2014. Incoming links are very unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --XXN, 14:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible typo of double in. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Madeline Mcan

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

Kidnapping of Lisa Irwin

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

May 20

Capitals of the Netherlands

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

Dutch inhabitants

I don't think this should point to the general article about the country, as someone searching for this is almost certainly looking for information about people. However, should it target Demographics of the Netherlands, Dutch people or something else? My preference at the moment is for the demographics article but this is very weak and I'd like other opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

AFRICAN-AMERICAN CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT

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

Dutch constellations

No evidence is presented that the term "Dutch constellations" is or was in use. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. See for example National Geographic Encyclopaedia of Space, University of Michigan Astronomy Department, possibly reliable website. Google also tells me it is in these three books, but previews are not available [17] [18] [19]. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - This term appears to specifically apply to constellations mapped out and codified by Dutch astronomers. The current situation isn't right, since the main 'Constellation' article isn't narrowed to any ethnicity and/or nationality, but maybe that page could be expanded or some spin-off article created. This website groups together twelve new constellations from Frederick de Houtman as such. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems to apply to specific constellations in the southern hemisphere that are not visible from the northern hemisphere and so were unknown to western astronomy untl the Dutch explorers mapped them; and to a superset including these. So the narrow grouping is not ethnicity or nationality based but geographic. We do have Category:Dutch constellations Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      • The latter is not relevant. If the redirect is to be deleted, so is the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
        • That doesn't necessarily follow. A redirect can target a category if that is the best target (and it might be here), and you will need to get consensus at CfD to delete the category. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Dutch explorers and celestial cartographers were undisputedly the first to systematically observe and chart the largely unknown far sounthern skies (more than 150 years before Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille's expedition). This was a milestone in the history of celestial cartography. For several centuries, these constellations (invented by the Dutch) were not so fairly called "Bayer's constellations". The Dutch contributions (including Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser, Frederick de Houtman, Petrus Plancius, and Jodocus Hondius) are so important, why can not we give them a name that accurately records? Zingvin (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Real gases

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

Huygens' lantern

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

Workers' Power (New Zealand)

The redirect has incoming links. The target is a DAB page, on which the only relevant entry is the redirect. I propose deletion, to encourage article creation (and to avoid annoying any reader who clicks on one of the incoming links). Narky Blert (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • An article would certainly be better here, I've left notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics and on the talk pages of the two users in the redirect's history. With any luck one or more of them will start one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've no preference. I don't know if there is enough material for an article. Secretlondon (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Archie Comics imprint publictions

Suggest deletion. Ridiculously improbable typo (note spelling mistake in "publictions". Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely typo. Someone typing for this term would find the properly-spelled one, so this isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lussemburgo

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the Italian for Luxembourg, and it is an immigrant language there, but one of many, and there is no otherwise significant connection I've found. The page does get quite a few hits, but as all the google results are clearly in an Italian context I think it is most likely that people are looking for the Italian Wikipedia article rather than the English one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Belgio

I believe these two redirects should be deleted per WP:FORRED. The first is the name in Italian, Venetian and Ligurian; the second is the name in Sicilian, Sardinian and Corsican. Italian is the only one of these languages to have any connection with Belgium that I have discovered, and that is weak - simply being a language spoken by around 2% of immigrants to the country. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on Belgio. It's a borderline case. Yet foreign relations between Belgium and Italy are a topic with some history behind it, with the Free Belgian forces specifically deployed against Italian fascists in North Africa. Both nations are now members of NATO and a wide variety of pan-European entities. As far as people of Italian descent in Belgium, they're a significant enough group that Elio Di Rupo became Prime Minister, gaining international media attention as the first openly gay leader in charge of a whole nation in modern history. Even if the ethnicity's numbers are around 5% or so of the overall population, that's still a huge number of people. There seems to be enough there to justify having an Italian language redirect. I'm alright, I suppose, with deleting Belgiu. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Quebec of Europe

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

Frakkland

These are redirects to France from Icelandic and Finnish respectively, languages that are not mentioned at France or Languages of France and which have no strong association with French or France that I have found. There was a nomination of many foreign language redirects to France last year, but these two do not appear to have been included in that discussion. I believe these should be deleted per WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Frencisc Cynewīse

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

These are redirects from translations of "French Republic" and "France" respectively into Old English - a language with no association to modern France. They were very briefly discussed as part of a a large batch nomination of many foreign language redirects to France - the only person to express an opinion about them was Uanfala who said "The Old English ones (Francland, Frencisc Cynewīse), if kept at all, had better be retargeted to a historically more appropriate article." I'm not sure what a historically more appropriate article would be as the historical connection between England and France is Anglo Norman not Anglo Saxon - the mixing of the Norman and Saxon languages produced Middle English not Old English. For these reasons I'm recommending delete.
The other participants in last year's discussion were Gorthian (the nominator) and AngusWOOF, it was closed by Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Frencisc Cynewīse as it appears to be found only in Anglo-Saxon dictionaries. Haven't looked into the second one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget bothFrancland to Francia which was known as Frankland. I think the Anglo-Saxon redirect is fine given the historic relationships between Francia and bordering Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that regarding "Frencisc Cynewīse" as that translates to "French Republic" - Francia was not a republic and so that would be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Missed that, thought it was just France. The first Frankland one should be retargeted though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Stanley B. Mulaik

Soft redirect to WikiSpecies, which disguises the fact that no article exists in Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Redirects also exist to aid searching (through the local search engine and otherwise), not just for linking within articles. That aside, I disagree that it looks better, and (again) that argument applies to all soft redirects in the mainspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Please discount my !vote if anyone specifically argues against a redirect to species:Stanley B. Mulaik. A discussion about Wikispecies soft redirects is due. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment by nom. @Godsy: I wholeheartedly agree that a broad discussion about soft redirects to Wikispecies could be useful, and would be happy to contribute. Notable Naturalist needs a Wiki article. Grad Student (who described one species, which turned out to be a junior synonym) almost certainly does not, even if they have a Wikispecies article. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The cross-wiki redirect is helpful for someone searching for him. A redlink doesn't help as the only results are for Stanley Mulaik, so someone won't be able to find anything on him that way. However, they will probably get the information they're looking for via WikiSpecies until an article can be created on him in Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage making the article if he's Wikipedia-notable. WikiSpecies may have different standards for notability. Here's an obituary from Deseret News [20] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom here. I opened this discussion to get a debate going. I haven't voted yet, but do so now. Delete, to encourage article creation. Inline redirects to sites like Wiktionary (this is what this word means) or Wikisource (here's the justification for this quote) are one thing. Properly used, they mean that an editor has decided that a topic will never be Wikinotable, and that readers will be best helped by pointing them off site. Hiding a species, or a perhaps notable individual, by an off-site pseudo-bluelink to WikiSpecies gets my goat. It's all about the readers. If something or someone is notable but has no article, that should be flagged by a redlink.
Sidenote: I recall finding one C19 naturalist linked in a Wiki article (as is, unfortunately, not uncommon) by only his surname. It took me a good half hour or so - but eventually I found not only him, but also the single paper he had written, describing just the one species. So: I removed the bad link, added the citation, and posted on the Talk Page saying why I thought he failed WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

May 18

Fabio Martinez Mesa

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

America-Freedom to Fascism

(eubot list 11). Generally I would keep these as {{R from other punctuation}} (not {{R from diacritics}} of course) but I am just doubting if the straight hyphen in "America-Freedom" may make this a bit WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Probably all right, with the rcat, but I wonder if America-Freedom may mean something different than a book title. It's probably OK. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • keep as a reasonable {{R from modification}}. Substituting a colon for a hyphen (with or without spaces) is far from uncommon, especially in environments were colons cause problems. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete most, see below I don't see any news searches that use the dash or hyphen like that. And a general search will get to the book using the colon. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Pretty harmless to switch out a colon for a hyphen. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not appear to be in use, and likely because of where the punctuation occurs that this will do strange things to search results. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has been whether or not using a hyphen or dash is appropriate here. Since that would apply to several other redirects to the target, I'm including them for completeness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Swapping out a colon for either dash or hyphen seems plausible enough, I suppose, even though the utility of these is probably marginal. I'm inclined to just leave them alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that more variants have been added to the RFD, so I will update my stance on this. The dashes and hyphens are not used in the news articles or websites, not even Japanese-styled titles like America ~Freedom to Facism~, which would definitely encourage using the dash/hyphen. They almost all use the colon. Some do not include the colon, and there was a foreign language site that used ellipses instead. So I would recommend:
    • Deleting the dashes and hyphens where there are no spaces between America and Freedom like America-Freedom, America-From Freedom
    • Delete double dashes, e.g. "America--Freedom", "America -- Freedom".
    • Delete ALL CAPS variants. This isn't helpful, otherwise you're setting a precedent to redirect every title in Wikipedia from all caps.
    • Keep single dash or single hyphen or ndash as long as there's a space between America and Freedom. This should satisfy those who are just searching by the cover title which displays no punctuation. Keep in mind that those who are looking up the title by search will receive options with the real title by then. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since more were added, delete all, same rationale as earlier. None have any significant activity: none have more than 1 hit in the last 30 days, most 0, one just gave an API error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Super joy

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

Staten Island route

No evidence that the ferry is the primary topic, "Foo route" could refer to any of a wide variety of subjects (rail lines, roadways, bus routes, etc). Thus, these redirects are confusing. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Bay Ridge route. As the google results (excluding Wikipedia) for this are all over the map. Keep the rest as it's abundantly clear from Google (excluding Wikipedia) that the New York ferries are the primary topic for these search terms, even if some are theoretically ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: There is likely recentism here with the Google results as the ferries launched yesterday. Rockaway route returns subway information as the third link, "Astoria route" is all over the map, . – Train2104 (t • c)
I don't see that with the Astoria route. And it doesn't really matter if it's recentism or not - what matters is that currently these are the targets people using these search terms are looking for. If that changes down the line then they can be reconsidered, but based on the information currently available to me (searching from the UK) only one of these redirects is pointing to the right place. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ZigZag (2015 video game)

Unnecessary disambiguation for another redirect (ZigZag (video game)). Was originally deleted but restored without reason. Lordtobi () 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Toyota V transmission

This redirect was recently created by this AFD WP:Articles_for_deletion/Toyota_V_transmission. While a specific model of an automobile transmission could be notable, most probably aren't including this one. A redirect to the manufacturer could be useful if this product was mentioned there, but this one is not. Furthermore, most of Getrag is a list of models they manufacture which is unsourced and should be removed as overly-detailed un-encyclopediac content. MB 13:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List_of_Toyota_transmissions#V-series. There wasn't enough information to spin out the article as with the other Toyota (letter) transmission, and the Getrag article doesn't specify the details like with the other articles, so go back to the master list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Gamaliel Harding

Delete as an obscure synonym. I can find no evidence that he was ever known as "Gamaliel Harding". -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. He was never AFAIK known as this, but it's a plausible enough search term for someone who thinks it's a double-barrelled surname, and it's not as if it's typing up a title that would be better served pointing somewhere else. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of someone with a compound surname deciding to initialize their first surname and primarily use their second one only, so I don't see why someone would be confused in this regard. Unless there's evidence somewhere of this happening? -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
H. Ross Perot, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, M. Night Shyamalan, J. Edgar Hoover, F. Scott Fitzgerald… ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. He didn't go by "W. Gamaliel Harding", he went by "Warren G. Harding". And none of those examples are double-barrelled surnames either. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a name that is actually ever used as a name of the subject. bd2412 T 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Iridescent. Most "middle name + last name" redirects should be deleted because 1) the target's middle name is rarely and infrequently used, 2) the middle name is not well known and of little to no encyclopedic value, and 3) there is high risk of confusion with other people, which may lead to BLP issues. None of those three apply here, so I'm okay with keeping this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I find it totally unbelievable that a reader familiar enough with Warren Harding to know his middle name would have trouble finding his article without this. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not seeing W. Gamaliel Harding used in news articles or books. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Deniz Efe Açıkgöz

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

Games created by Ketchapp

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

2 Cars

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete after G7 request.

Yvette Felarca

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

Solomon Curtis

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

Blood chemistry

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

Thagana

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

March Against Hate

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

Bella Thorne filmography

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

May 8

Tanya Adams

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

Mark (singer)

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

Fürst, Bibl. Jud.

Wew are not a concordance, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. When deleted as I strongly suggest there will be two redirects left to this very notable scholar, but not seven hundred variations that don't conform to WP:ARTICLETITLE. I know we don't have to for redirects, but we could maybe have a stab at it for making people to be able to find what they are looking for. less is more. Just, we are not a concordance, Talmud, Bible, Koran or otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Shalom, I have a feeling the author of User:Eubot was Jewish. Like User:Neelix was Christian. Neelix apologised for his sins and I think we all said you don't have to apologise to us you have to apologise to yourself, find your own peace. I feel the same with the author of this bot. I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The admins who let iUser:Eubot run after a trial of forty, yes, forty edits never got it wrong? You don't see them here apologising do you? They are probably still admins. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Take RfD today for "Fürst, Bibl. Jud". I will quote exactly what i said there:
I can be pissed off with the bot but I am not pissed off with he or she. They did what they thought right. That is what we all have to do. Sometimes we get it wrong. But that doesn't make you a bad person. I can have a go at the bot because it has no feelings. I would have a pint with the person who created them and say what were you thinking of? You're wrong but you're not bad. The creator only made about fifty edits. Dutch it seems from the name. Well, someone has to clear up the shit. Still, I would have a pint. I am never angry with a person. I am only angry with what they do. Those are different things. Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Julius Fuerst is a perfectly standard transliteration of a German name. The rest are all different ways he is cited in different sources and all likely search terms on their own, even without the WP:DIACRITICS reasons to keep those without. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep Julius Fuerst per Thryduulf. Keep Bibl. Jud. as the standard abbreviation for Bibliotheca Judaica, which redirects to the author. Delete the rest as implausible combinations of the two. -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Tavix: Every single one of these is used in sources, e.g. "Fürst, Bibl. Judaica" is used in [21], "Fuerst, Bibl. Judaica" is used in [22]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll switch to neutral on them. If anything, that looks to be a good reason to create Bibl. Judaica as they still look completely separate to me. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

P2008

Never seen this before. Also, might refer to a specific entry using a specialized nomenclature. Might also be used in coding. But I pay a lot of attention to my country's politics, and this is not something I've seen.

After doing research, I see this number primarily used in reference to a notable Italian aircraft vehicle, and a trouble code for a part in various vehicles. The only reference to the campaign/election is this site by Democracy in Action, a website (organization?) operated by the George Washington University. But the "p2008" seems to have been chosen for simplicity, and not because it is a common term. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These "abbreviations" are unattested and make no sense. I know many Wikipedians are British, but I'm American, and we don't even use any of these abbreviations over here. Just delete these ridiculous Redirects. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do what Champion said - per Champion. I also like Thryduulf's suggestion of creating a set index List of periodic comets discovered in 2004 which the dab at P2004 could link to as a see-also. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Ketiltrout's retargeting to periodic comets. Delete all the others. If only a specific group is using it for political years then that's not Wikipedia appropriate. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Second Sino-Indian War

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

🦔

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

Soul Special City

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

WP;RM

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

Wikipedia:NONPOV

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

Georgia State Route 393

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

May 7

Husbandries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Husbandries

Cease (law)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Cease (law)

Head III

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

File:More4.svg

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

William henry gates

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

Wikipedia:LATINPLEASE

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

Template:Cc-by-sa

Potentially inaccurate. There are many CC-BY-SA licenses ({{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). By using this redirect, an editor may accidentally assign version number 1, the least developed version, as the appropriate free license when they really intended to mark the image as free under a different license. This should ideally be deprecated and turned into an error message that encourages use of one of the other templates. Note that all existing transclusions must be migrated over to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} before converting this. ~ Rob13Talk 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Unless and until the nearly 500 transclusions (and any other links from file description pages and policies) are bypassed (and consensus should be sought for this before doing so) this needs to stay as it is. After that nominate it again and I'll consider other factors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13 and Thryduulf: Added four more very similar redirects to this nomination. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Godsy: my above comment holds exactly the same for these redirects as well, i.e. keep until all transclusions and references in policy, etc. have been updated by consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: I don't believe you're familiar with how things typically work surrounding template deletions/merges/etc. No-one is ever supposed to bypass template redirects, merge templates, etc. until there is consensus to do so. That consensus is typically developed at TfD. Here, it's being developed at RfD since these are redirects. In other words, this is the normal sort of venue for the consensus discussion you're asking for. The reason we do this is to avoid influencing the XfD process (e.g. Delete: No transclusions anyway, might as well). I personally volunteer to handle bypassing these redirects once consensus is developed here to do so, and I'll do it before the redirects are deleted. It's a very easy task with AWB. There's no other venue particularly suited for such a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't keep (edit conflict) - this is not a delete !vote, only an "action is required" comment. Thryduulf is correct that we shouldn't blanket-delete the template because it will break many licensing statements across the project. However BU Rob13 makes an urgent point with legal ramifications that this situation must be dealt with, as copyright is not a thing that we can get sort-of right, and many of these statements are already broken because they are legally ambiguous. Rob, is it safe to assume that transclusions of the template older than numbered versions of CC-BY-SA can be safely bypassed to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: Yes and no. Yes, that's what we should do. No, it's not "safe" any more than it's safe to apply this template in the first place. It won't harm anything further than already harmed to bypass to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, though. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) It's true I don't normally deal with TfD, but I do deal with with RfD daily and the convention is that we almost exclusively deal with redirects as they are, not as they might be in the future (certainly when nothing of that nature has been mentioned in the nomination). I don't see evidence of there having been any confusion about which license was intended either before or after the target was moved from this title to it's present location in 2013 so I'm inclined to keep it as is. However, I note that in January this year the equivalent template on Commons was changed from the redirect it had been since 2008 to a warning, effectively deprecating the tag. That descision was very contentious, but based on the relevant points made there I think we can say that files using this template fall into several categories.
        • Those first licensed before 25 May 2004 (the date the version 2.0 licenses were released [23]) can safely be assumed to be version 1.0 and migrated there.
        • Those directly uploaded to, and first licensed on, en.wp after 10 December 2004 (when the template was changed to explicitly mention 1.0 [24]) can be safely assumed to mean 1.0 and be migrated there.
        • All other files will need looking at individually to determine whether the correct license is 1.0, the latest version (as of the licensing date) or unspecified (which I think means the latest version as of the licensing date or any later version, but check that with a copyright specialist). This includes all those files not first licensed at en.wp.
        In any case, I think that after all the current transclusions have been migrated to an explicit license and all references in policies and upload forms, etc. have been updated that it would be better to deprecate (as Commons has done) rather than delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: As noted above, I encourage deprecation to a warning message rather than outright deletion. This is redirects for discussion, after all, so I considered this to still be the right venue. This puts me in a bind. Our community norms surrounding templates say I may not bypass any of these redirects to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} if I intend to bring this up for discussion in the future and that such discussions must be part of an XfD, so if this closes without consensus to accomplish a specific something, I effectively can't do anything with this template even though we all agree the current situation is very sketchy from a legal point-of-view. (As an aside, if no version number is specified after version numbers were introduced, we can't assume anything and the license is invalid entirely. There are some legally meaningful differences between versions, so we can't just guess. As a second aside, perhaps what should be happening here is that template redirects go to TfD.) ~ Rob13Talk 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
          • @BU Rob13: Generally template redirects are fine here, but it really depends what you're trying to do - if it's part of a plan to reorganise templates then TfD is possibly better. In this case it seems like the better place for the discussion would be wherever file licensing is discussed (Wikipedia talk:Copyrights? WP:MCQ? I'm not sure) as there are copyright issues at the heart of this that RfD isn't best placed to handle. Thryduulf (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Hmm, last I checked, redirects for discussion would be the correct place to discuss redirects. That being said, it seems like it'd be a good idea to alert those places of this discussion if wider participation is warranted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to error message per nom since there are many CC-BY-SA licenses. -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not keep Apart from the fact that transcluding template redirects does slow down the website a tiny bit, this one creates legal ambiguity if people use it without reading the actual template page. So its transclusions should be cleaned up and this redirect be turned into an error message that transcludes {{No license}}. Same for the other redirects, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I've left messages at WP:MCQ and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Hopefully knowledgeable users will follow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't assume. In copyright matters, any speculations about what someone may have meant are dangerous. We have several redirects here that produce, as an end-result, a by-sa 1.0 license on the corresponding image pages. Assuming uploaders may have possibly meant anything else is not sound. So from the perspective of a low activity WP:CP volunteer, you can merge them to a single redirect, you can replace them by the redirect target, you can delete all files as unlicensed, but what you cannot do is change a valid license statement to a warning or error message, or a different license statement, without subverting each uploaders' copyrights. MLauba (Talk) 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @MLauba: What has been proposed is to convert all existing occurrences of the five redirects nominated here to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}, so all pages currently bearing the license would retain it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not the only thing proposed in the discussion here, and where the !votes stray from that simple conversion, it becomes problematic. MLauba (Talk) 22:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Before there were CC-BY-SA 2.0 or higher, was CC-BY-SA 1.0 actually called CC-BY-SA without version number? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The official deed of the license seems to have included 1.0 from the start December 2002 archived version. The January 2003 version of the Creative Commons website homepage starts "On December 16, 2002, Creative Commons released version 1.0 of its Licensing Project...". I presume that when there weren't other versions that cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-1.0 were legally equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to error message given the ambiguity. They shouldn't be deleted since CC By SA is a commonly known license type, so it's more useful to have a helpful reminder to use a more specific license than to leave those who would use these redirects with nothing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

May 1

Conan the Conqueror (2017 film)

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

Template:R cm

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

Homosexualism

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

Andres oend

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

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural close

Aß fiber

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

Nyet

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect to wiktionary

Sueleyman Nazif

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Sueleyman Nazif

Ubisoft SRL

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

Gyoergy Luntzer

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

Homeschool athletics

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

Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher

This is extremely implausible as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete technical, poorly constructed modifiers that list her occupation as a proper noun and her birth range when both are not necessary or helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless {{R from move}} that gets human views. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article was at that title for less than a day eleven years ago, and the views it gets (2 last month) are below the threshold of views I'd expect to be coming from the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • This got 10 hits last year, which is a little more than double the noise level. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • 10 hits per year?!? That's laughably implausible! -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: I don't know why you're laughing. Everything I've seen suggests that every redirect, no matter how implausible, can expect between 2 and 4 hits every year - presumably from bots that the tool has failed to recognise as such. This means that around 6 to 8 real people used this redirect last year - what benefits will be had from making it harder for those people to find the content they are undoubtedly looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't fall for the page view fallacy, I prefer common sense. I could easily see those page views coming from Special:RandomRedirect, for example. So no, the page view tool does not prove that people are actively using the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Really? There are more than 7.5 million in the aritcle namespace. Assuming that Special:RandomRedirect is viewed as often as the Wikipedia article (8.5 million last year) - something I think is exceedingly unlikely, then every redirect would get a random hit just over once per year, not 6 to 8 times. You can declaim the page view stats as fallacious if you want, but you will need much better evidence than that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You can use page views to make whatever claim you want. I think it's a laughable claim that people are actively using this redirect (eg: typing in "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" into a search bar). I'll tell you what, back up your claim: If this term is being used, surely you'd be able to find the phrase somewhere, right? Find me a source outside of Wikipedia that uses "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" and I'll change my !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous - you know as well as I do that people typing the exact phrase verbatim into the search bar is not the only possible way of using a redirect. I care that the evidence shows that it is being used (regardless of why) that it is unambiguous and harmless - if you can show me any reason at all how this deleting this redirect will benefit the encyclopaedia then I'll switch my recommendation, but all you've done so far is attempt to discredit the evidence that it is used. If we assume that all the evidence is wrong and this isn't used, and we delete it, what have we gained? Nothing. If we assume that the evidence is right, and we delete it, what have we lost? We've made it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What's that? There's no evidence of this phrase being used outside of Wikipedia? That's what I thought. -- Tavix (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What's that? There's no evidence of there being any benefit to deleting the redirect? That's what I thought. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:R#K5. We have evidence that people find it useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No we don't. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────<pantomime>Oh yes we do!</pantomime>. Seriously, we have evidence that the redirect was viewed 10 times last year in a way the tool classifies as human use. Based on experience we can say that 2-4 of those hits will not be humans but bots, leaving 6-8 hits to be accounted for. Statistically we can say that at the very most 1 of those might have come from the random redirect links. If someone did search this title, then there is no question that they got to the right article. This leaves 5-8 times last year that to the extent we are able to tell, this redirect enabled someone looking for this article to find it. This is either right or wrong and we can either keep it or delete it. Meaning there are four possible scenarios:

  1. People do find it useful. It is kept. The encyclopaedia benefits from people finding what they want.
  2. People do find it useful. It is deleted. The encyclopaedia is harmed because people find it harder to access the content they are looking for.
  3. People don't find it useful. It is kept. There is an infinitesimal overhead from potential vandalism, but in practice nobody gains or loses.
  4. People don't find it useful. It is deleted. There is a negligible overhead from the deletion, but in practice nobody gains or loses.

All the evidence, and the balance of probability (after all a human created it at this title), points to people finding it useful so scenarios 1 or 2 are the most likely but even if all four are equally likely then there is no harm from keeping this and potential harm from deleting it. There is no scenario in which deletion benefits the project, at best it's neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no use keeping redirects around that no one uses, they're better off deleted to save the maintenance burden. It's a shame you're obstructing that clean-up from happening—it's a lot of effort you're putting in to try to save a redirect that no one actively uses. That effort could be spent doing more worthwhile things, but here we are... -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses, but (a) people do use this redirect (I know you don't think that the 6-8 people a year using this redirect are people who use this redirect, but they are) and (b) redirects that are truly not used but which are unambiguous, pointing to the correct target and not in the way of anything else are completely harmless. You're putting a lot of effort into something that, at best, will bring no benefits and at worst make life harder for around 6-8 people per year. That's the real shame. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There is little use in keeping redirects that nobody uses. Couldn't have said it better myself. :) -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my words out of context - I had thought more highly of you than that. Perhaps you would like to respond to the points I actually made? Or perhaps you would prefer to just admit you can't find an actual reason to support deleting a redirect that is both harmless and in use? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Defeat? You're the one in the minority here. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Eh? Consensus is not found by counting noses, and I've presented evidence that backs up my assertions that this redirect is in use. All you've done is disagree with the evidence (without providing anything to back that up), repeated a few times your claim that this is unused (without providing evidence for that), ignored my requests for you to back up your claims, and then quoted me out of context. I'm not sure why you think you have the upper hand here? Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, let me clarify: you're in the minority in argument here. You've provided a page view link that (if anything) backs up my claim that it isn't being used. Remember, page views don't tell us that people are actively searching for a term and finding what they're looking for, it's literally just a note that the page has been viewed, which can happen in several contexts. I've asked for evidence of the term in use elsewhere. This would be an easy and concrete way to establish use, but you've balked at that every time I've asked. I presume it's because I'm correct: people simply don't use "Hanneke Canters (1969-2002) Feminist Philosopher" to refer to the subject. So why would they do so on Wikipedia? That doesn't follow. Stop clinging to a false narrative that the page view tool proves use and start using common sense. -- Tavix (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You've presented evidence? The term is not used verbatim in online sources that I can find (which are a subset of all the possible places it could be used), but that is not evidence that the redirect is not used - the evidence that the redirect is used comes from, shockingly, the evidence that the redirect page is viewed. It's excruciatingly implausible that anyone will actively search this redirect while looking for something else. It's statistically impossible that more than 1 (and extremely improbable that more than 0) of these hits are from the random redirect tool. Commons sense to me says that when you have evidence that a tool which is specifically designed to record page views of Wikipedia pages records views of Wikipedia pages you treat that as evidence that the Wikipedia pages with views are being viewed unless you have evidence to the contrary. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary (repeatedly calling the page views fallacious does not make them fallacious, you need actual evidence to prove that). However, even in the unlikely event that 6 to 8 people last year ended up here without intending to, there is absolutely zero evidence presented or available (I've looked many many times over the years I have been at RfD) that this redirect or any other like it is actually harmful. The best argument you have for deletion is "assuming the evidence of use is wrong (even though this is unlikely) then nobody will gain or lose anything from the deletion." which is rather a contrast to "If we assume that the evidence is correct, when there is no evidence it is not, then there will be measurable harm caused to the encyclopaedia by deletion." Or to put it yet another way, if we keep we end up with either a positive (likely) or a neutral, if we delete it with a negative (likely) or a neutral. Why choose the latter? This is not a minority argument, this is WP:RFD#K5. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Let's boil it down, here. We're waging a war of WP:R#K5 against WP:R#D8, maybe WP:CHEAP vs. WP:COSTLY as well. You think it's useful, I think it's obscure. You think the page view tool proves people are actively using the redirect, I do not and counter that I do not think anyone is using the redirect to find information on Hanneke Canters. You think it's better off kept to aid anyone using the redirect to find Hanneke Canters. I think it's better off deleted to save the maintenance burden (rcatting, potential vandalism of the redirect, database reports, etc.). Is that a fair assessment of our differences? -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair summary of where we differ. I think the demonstrated utility and lack of harm outweighs the tiny cost - R-catting is a one-time time thing and the likelihood of vandalism is infinitesimal. Database reports might (depending on how well the report is written) add some time, but the encyclopaedia's readers must absolutely always come before its editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as "novel or obscure synonym". The article was established under this name back in the Wild-West days of January 2006, and stayed at the title for all of several hours. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I just don't see it as really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This has the risk of breaking external links. It seems unlikely that all the hits are coming from the search bar, since you would have to type "Hanneke C" before this result shows up.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    It would be nice if we could measure or detect external links; as such, we just have to be smart about it. It's possible there are external links to this title, yes. But given how briefly the article was at the title, I don't think it's a stretch to say only the article's creator would create or disseminate such external links. There may be such links, and maybe people are still benefiting from them. But altogether, it seems implausible.
    As for the search box, yes, this would display below the actual article name. But if it shows up there at all, I bet people will click it. If you're reading Wikipedia, you're probably somewhat curious, and you may well wonder, "Where does that go?" --BDD (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Galician Universities

Delete, not at target, we have Category:Universities in Galicia, but I would oppose a CNR. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete -- implausible redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as WP:XNR to exactly what Champion said. I am not doing it for the sake of it, I think it is where it should go. It's where I would expect it to go if I wanted to find out about Universities in Galicia. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget. My first preference is List of universities in Spain which is by-default sorted by autonomous community (of which Gallicia is one). Category:Universities in Galicia is my second choice. XNRs are not harmful in and of themselves, the harm comes when there is disconnect between the expectation and the target - particularly in terms of type of content. Redirects from article space to reader-facing categories suffer only small amounts of this as the two namespaces both present encyclopaedic content, just in different formats. It is usually (but not always) best to take people to articles if that is what their search seems to indicate what they are a looking for. What we have here is a choice between a page in the format they expect but which is broader than what they are looking for and a category which matches the scope of their search but not the architecture. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 'DAB with whatever the relevant "List of universities in Poland/Ukraine" articles to deal with the issue of Galicia (Eastern Europe). Maybe move the cat to clarify the country as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that Galicia is a disambiguation, so there's no primary topic for the term. If this is to be disambiguated, what would it look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support creating a disambiguation page, which should list (at least) the following: List of universities in Spain, List of universities in Poland, and List of universities in Ukraine. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Notecardforfree. When I left my comment above I didn't realise that Galicia was ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have one article/list on Galician Universities, much less multiple ones where disambiguation would be required. The redirect averaged less than one view/day last year, so it's not like it's a well-used term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • We do however have multiple lists that include Galician universities and so I see no reason at all why we should make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Just because there are not that many of them does not mean that obstructing them a good thing or mean any benefits will come to Wikipedia from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Galicia (Spain)#Education. Notwithstanding the lack of a primary topic for "Galicia", I just don't find it particularly plausible that readers would use a historic regional name like this. Note also that universities are not mentioned at Galicia (Eastern Europe). I wouldn't oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Needle inside a ball of cotton

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

Seasea

I'm not seeing a connection between the redirect and the target. Seaching my favorite search engine showed no results for the Seahawks several pages deep. -- Tavix (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Google returns results relevant for football teams for "jacjag", "oakrai" and "dalcow". On the other hand, "denbro" and "houtex" don't have football results on the first page. That's all I've checked, but at least for some teams, three letter abbreviation of team name and city gets some results. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability of the blend word. General searches show local businesses starting with Sea Sea or Sea & Sea. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could this be a misspelling for Seesee, which redirects to a species of fowl? – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to See-see partridge per Uanfala (where Seesee redirects), I found at least one example of the confusion appearing in a possibly reliable source [25] (although that uses "sea-sea"), so it's not impossilbe this will get used for that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If the bird is where it will go, we should have a "redirects here" and a hatnote to CC. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I've got no objections to resonable hatnotes, and that suggestion looks perfectly reasonable to me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That might be a WP:PTM, though. Is it referred to as "see-see" alone? --BDD (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at least according to the OED entry for "seesee" (and the examples given there). – Uanfala (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hybride Technologies

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

A (betu)

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

Mojave Greens

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

South Carolina Hawks

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

Illinois Ironmen

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

Florida Redbacks

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

Guillemot, Inc.

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

Coty Inc Class A

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14#Coty Inc Class A

Texas Instrument Inc

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

News coverage

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

Slaphead

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moved

Gueenes

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

Infovia

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete both the nominated redirect and Infovía.

Blue Byte (version 2)

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

Ubisoft Romania

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

User:Gears of War/Sandbox/Ubidays

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Primary Results

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

The Explorers Guild

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

April 30

R.P.M. (song)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: fixed.

Obongo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Obongo

Brijbhasha film industry

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

Kemono

Became a redirect after a 2013 AfD. The target article does not contain the word. Other targets suggested on Talk:Kemono do not contain the word, either. All articles that link to it

  • list it as 'see also', which is not helpful for a redirect,
  • have a {{citation needed}} stuck to the very phrase where it occurs, or
  • use it in a piped link for 'anthropomorphic'.

So in my judgment this is only a word. Other languages do not have citations for this article, either, so the parties in the AfD that mentioned WP:OR and WP:NEO are probably right. --Pgallert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Pgallert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. wikt:kemono marks it as the Romaji transcription of "けもの" which it translates as "Beast". The Kanji "" gives a more precise definition, "an animal covered in fur, a beast". ja:けもの is a redirect to the disambiguation page at ja:獣 that is interwiki linked to Beast - also a disambiguation page (ja:Kemono is red). Targetting this to Beast would neither be helpful nor in accordance with WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think a soft redirect is appropriate here as this is word seems to be used in English only in environments where embedding of Japanese terms is common and frequent where readers are seemingly expected to know the meaning. If it had a specific, perhaps ideomatic, meaning when embedded in English then linking to Wiktionary may make sense but that does not appear to be the case so the link wont actually help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Might a 'soft retargeting' over to Wiktionary make sense? One can object that the page there needs more information, but we can add more there ourselves anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Soft Retarget to wiktionary per CWM. Seems to be the best target for now --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • soft retarget and add a PTM (articles starting with Kemono) and a "see also" to Kimono, in case that attracts some typos. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the Wiktionary entry, this is purely Japanese, not English. There's a few article titles where the word appears, so I believe search results to be the most helpful for our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Kemono (anime) should also be added to RFD, as there is no specific anime called Kemono. However, there's also Category:Kemono and Category:Kemono anime and manga which tries to explain it as a genre? But that's a lot different from furry fandom which is dressing up in animal costumes, rather than describing anthropomorphic animal characters. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to kimono and mark with {{R from typo}}. I can imagine someone mishearing the initial vowel and imagining that it's spelled this way. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment: That's a good alternative, particularly as the dress is spelled "Kimono" in other languages, e.g. German. --Pgallert (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment I'm okay with this alternative if the wiktionary suggestion won't gather enough consensus --Lenticel (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    Comment I'm also happy with the suggested retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kimono per Nyttend or delete. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to kimono and mark with {{R from typo}}. WJBscribe (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Retarget to Kimono. Not everyone pronounces their vowels the way you might, Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete to enable search box to do its job per user:Tavix above (rather than second-guess a typo). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per [[User::Shhnotsoloud]], let the search engine do its job, let redirects do theirs. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment - Some Wikipedians (like myself) choose to use the URL bar to check whether an article exists, not the search engine. I feel the redirects entirely do the job the search bar is supposed to do. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
sure @WhisperToMe: people search in different ways. My general argument is that they should end up at the same result. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, which is where Kemonomimi currently targets, which I came across by mining Category:Kemono for any kind of context. The former article seems to support this treatment as well. That short section subsequently links to wikt:kemonomimi so at least there is some encyclopedic context before the jump to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think retargetting this as a typo for Kimono is going to surprise fewer people than ending up deep in an article about anthropomorphism, but I'm not going to object to a hatnote if anyone desires. 12:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talkcontribs)
  • Retarget to Moe anthropomorphism. Redirecting to wiktionary or retargetting as a misspelling would have been eligible options if there didn't exist a wikipedia article that covers the topic, but now that such an article has been uncovered by Ivanvector the other two options aren't really on the table anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Uanfala, but hatnote to Kimono per above arguments. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Create set index, or reluctantly retarget Moe anthropomorphism#Animals. I've been watching this discussion with a view to close it for a few days, but as I dug deeper into the issue I found myself wanting to create some sort of index/disambiguation page. Essentially what has been found above is:
    • Kemono is a loanword from Japanese, literally meaning "beast", but primarily referring to the act of dressing up as animals in anime culture.
    • The relevant information we have are split across Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, wikt:Kemono, and Category:Kemono.
This would support dropping the current target in favour of Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, until I found:
  • ja:獣 (redirected from ja:けもの) is a disambiguation page which lists furry fandom as an entry, in a way that indicates the phrase "kemono" refers to "furry fandom" in English-language discourse and has been back-borrowed into Japanese.
So with all these in mind, I think the best course of action is to give readers a landing page which lists all three pages that they may be looking for. A set index can also cater for people who accidentally land there intending to search for kimono. I've drafted a set index for consideration. Deryck C. 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Moen Island

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

Yvette Felarca

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Yvette Felarca

Austrosynthemis cyanitincta

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

2027 Cricket World Cup

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

M&M Community Development

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

List of artists that refused to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration

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

RadioInsight

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

The Voyager with Josh Garcia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#The Voyager with Josh Garcia

Vacation Creation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Vacation Creation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=782755640"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion
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