Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

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 do not need to 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. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.


Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply in some cases.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

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

Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

October 21


Delete. No such word is used to refer to indigenous Australians. Paul Carter (academic) coined this word to refer to the colonial empire of the Indian Ocean, or the landmasses of the Indo-Australian plate. DrKay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This is definitely nothing to do with Aboriginal Australians. It doesn't even make sense in that context. Gnangarra can probably confirm this. --AussieLegend () 15:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


No such word. DrKay (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

1993 ISAF Sailing World Championships

Delete. No such event. The link in the one article that linked to it turned out to be an error for the redlinked 1993 event in Windsurfing World Championships. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

William walles

Implausible redirect to William Wallace as it isn't a misspelling at all. Only 23 pageviews since January 2018 and I don't see any reason keeping this redirect at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Vulgar language

The redirect should point to the Profanity article, per WP:Primary topic and WP:Principle of least astonishment. "Vulgar language" commonly refers to profanity. Readers are not expecting to be taken to the Vernacular article when clicking on or typing in "vulgar language." Rcsprinter123 created the redirect in 2012. The redirect continued to point to the Profanity article until this IP showed up and changed it in 2017. There has recently been edit warring at the redirect page. I've brought the matter here for discussion and so that the edit warring stops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

As another option, the redirect could point to Vulgarity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Note I've corrected the nomination template. @Flyer22 Reborn: for future reference, when nominating a redirect for retargetting the "target" parameter in the template is for the current target not the proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thryduulf, yes, I know. It was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity per the nomination. A hatnote can be added to Vernacular if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity as per Thryduulf & nom - Vernacular does mention the word "vulgar" but agreed profanity seems a better target. –Davey2010Talk 23:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to profanity per above Raymond1922 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong keep the redirect to Vernacular, or redirect to Vulgarity. Profane is religion related, whereas vulgar and vernacular are not—check the terms' origins and etymology.
Note: I reverted the redirect when checking the edits of (now indef blocked) user Brandon5015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who seemed obsessed with making bad edits to just about all our articles in the field of "bad words". Two days before my revert I had put a final warning [1] on their talk for this little gem. So this was just a revert of another bad edit, which in turn was a revert of this good edit. Recently another incarnation of same blocked user came along: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also blocked for redirecting dozens of articles to Profanity.- DVdm (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Per above, regardless of any past disruptive editing by Brandon5015, Brandon5015 is correct that redirecting the term to the Profanity article is a far better choice than redirecting it to the Vernacular article. His edit was not a bad edit in this case. In fact, it was a restoration of the WP:Status quo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Per the dictionaries, and per some comment below, Brandon5015 is not correct, and WP:Status quo suggests we keep the situation that was in place between 28 September 2017 and 4 August 2018, almost a year. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how the dictionaries support having this term redirect to the Vernacular article. And that's not how WP:Primary topic works anyway. Only you and one other editor thus far have supported the term redirecting to the Vernacular article. Well, unless DGG below was saying that the page should be a disambiguation page rather than creating a separate disambiguation page for it or adding some hatnote at the top of the Vernacular article about it. All others have agreed with me that the term should redirect to either the Profanity article or the Vulgarity article. And since the IP changed a significantly longer-standing redirect destination and I would have reverted the IP had I seen it (the redirect has been on my watchlist for years, but I missed that change), I do not consider the IP change to be the status quo. Furthermore, it's not like that page has a lot of watchers. It likely only has a few, and you and I are two of those few watchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Checked yesterday, and only nine editors thus far watch the redirect. have edited the article. It was eight yesterday. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Checked today: Polling is not a substitute for discussion Face-smile.svg - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And where did I state or imply that it is? Nowhere that I can see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, though: Polling is clearly suited for discussions such as this one. The supplement page you pointed to is clear that polls are used to help determine consensus, as is happening in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. and change to a disam note: the term has both meanings. The traditional meaning is indeed "vernacular", the use from antiquity through the 19th century--its use to mean profanity is a description and use from about the 16th century to the present (in the 18th and 19th century it could mean either) , DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, this is about WP:Primary topic -- about what readers are most likely to be expecting when they click on or type in "vulgar language." Surely, they are most likely expecting what is stated at the Profanity or Vulgarity article, not what is seen at the Vernacular article. As we know, words evolve. A traditional meaning is not the same thing as what is usually meant by a term today. We don't, for example, have Gay as a disambiguation page or two articles for the term simply because the original meaning did not refer to homosexuality. Yes, we do gave Gay (disambiguation), but we also have "Gay" for the primary meaning of the term and how it evolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
there is no primary topic. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, I and others clearly disagree with you on that. I see no valid reason to have "vulgar language" redirect to a disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to vulgarity because WP:ASTONISH — that article actually explains the term. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to vulgarity per User:DVdm's rationale. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity as it originally was.[2] Accesscrawl (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget. The use of the phrase "vulgar language" to refer to vernaculars is now outdated, but it was historically by far the most common, and I can imagine even now it's probably more likely to be the one encountered in contexts in which readers are likely to follow it up on wikipedia. Now, the contemporary meaning is rather broad (and hence more typical of a dictionary than an encyclopedia) and it's covered at Vulgarity#Language (Profanity, already linked there, is only one possible aspect of it). Given that we favour specific encyclopedic topics over lexical meanings, it would seem at least weakly preferrable to keep the current target; however, that would necessitate the addition of a hatnote, and I really don't like the idea of the article on vernaculars to start with "Vulgar language" redirects here. I think I would go for disambiguation as the lesser of two evils. A draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; we shouldn't follow a new meaning over an established and continuing-to-be-used meaning, especially in this case where the proposed alternate topic is outright wrong: as noted above, vulgarities are distinct from profanity, since rarely or never do they denigrate the holy. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar disambiguation, as somehow Profanity is also listed there as vulgar language (recent edit?) so three possible targets. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language. This is a slight modification of the AngusWOOF proposal. This is as specific as it can be while minimizing surprise. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language per Mr. Guye. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language, which covers all the bases. I don't think the current target is quite right (historical meanings should be taken into account but shouldn't be given precedence over modern usage), but nor is profanity – vulgar language surely encompasses all sorts of words and phrases that don't quite rise to the level of the profane, in either its religious or secular sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not confident we can reach consensus here, as the discussion favored profanity, vulgarity, and vulgar. That being said, there does seem to be consensus to change the target, and given that the three popular options went largely in sequence, perhaps some more discussion might change some folks' minds. Worth a shot
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it should be turned into a DAB, since vulgar language can refer to both Profanity and Vulgarity#Language. Therefore, I think it should a DAB that links to both pages.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 13:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Cross namespace redirect, per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_112#RFC:_On_the_controversy_of_the_pseudo-namespace_shortcuts: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases.

Especially confusing as {{ITV}} is a separate template; this redirect is used less than 10 times Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - The fact that Template:ITV, which is used on 114 pages, exists is the exact reason that a shortcut could not be created there. {{Infobox television}} is used in 45,241 articles so having a shortcut is quite reasonable. Perhaps {{ITV}} should be moved to {{ITV television}} --AussieLegend () 17:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Galobtter. In addition, this redirect it not used in any article so will not cause any issue. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's meant to be a keyboard shortcut. It doesn't have to be used in articles, nor would one expect it to be. --AussieLegend () 20:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand, my point being that removing it won't cause an issue which would need bots to deal with. --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying you'd rather inconvenience actual people rather than annoying a bot? --AussieLegend () 15:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, this "shortcut" is not particularly convenient to use in the first place (see below), but it's also in the article namespace: it shows up in searches and so potentially inconveniences readers. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It is very convenient to use as a keyboard shortcut compared to typing in the whole name of the template. --AussieLegend () 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per AussieLegend. A shortcut is not unreasonable, and it's unlikely to be confused with any encyclopaedia topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep saves time as AussieLegend besides the moving part. What harm does it do anyways? – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. First off, this is not a template shortcut. If anyone tried to trasclude that in the usual way, they will only get a red link like this: Template:T:ITV. This is because a transclusion expects the thing transcluded to be in the template namespace and this "shortcut" is not in the template namespace. If this were to be used, the article namespace will have to be specified with an additional colon: {{:T:ITV}}, and this is highly inintuitive. Second, as pointed out by the nom, there's consensus against the creation of redirects from the article namespace into the template namespace. We do have an a few dozen similar redirects mostly inherited from the older days (see Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace) but they really only make sense for templates that function more as project pages, and hence are there to be linked to, not transcluded, which is not the case here. Third, even if this were in the right namespace, it wouldn't really be a felicitious shortcut, as it looks much better suited to be a shortcut for {{ITV}} rather than {{Infobox television}}. Fourth, infobox templates are used only once in an article so there's little need to make their aliases cryptically short, and given that they're used in a prominent position at the top of the article, there are good reasons for having them as explicit as possible: {{Infobox TV}} is probably the shortest shortcut we should have. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. It's NOT supposed to be transcluded. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would want to do that. As far as {{ITV}} goes, that's a very ambiguous name and should probably be moved. You seem to be missing the point that this is supposed to be a keyboard shortcut; it's a lot easier to type "T:ITV" (5 characters) than "Template:Infobox television" (27 characters). --AussieLegend () 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What is its intended use then? Is it only for linking? – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As I explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. Its primary use is to avoid having to type 27 characters when going to the template page, something that has to be done almost every day, mainly to confirm parameters after editors do things like this. Put Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters on your watchlist and you'll see what I mean. --AussieLegend () 12:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
So it's used for linking. In that case, you can ignore points #1 and #4 of my comment, but #2 and #3 still stand. Again, it is easy to confuse with {{ITV}} (regardless of what that other template's name really ought to be). And, more importantly, such pseudonamespace redirects are legacy material, they should be avoided whenever possible, and their use generally makes sense only in cases where it's very common to link to a given template (as for example for T:DYK). This shortcut has only about half a dozen talk page links, despite having being listed, inappropriately, as a shortcut at Template:Infobox television for two years – that's nowhere near enough to outweigh the disadvantages. This infobox doesn't seem to have any more need of such pseudoshortcuts than the average template. And there are generic ways for editors to save time typing its name (like {{ltb|Infobox TV}}) that don't involve the creation of shortcuts that pollute the article namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Uanfala: no, it isn't used for linking - you've completely misunderstood AussieLegend's comment. This is used as a keyboard shortcut, to aid editors maintaining the template. Your characterisation of peseudonamespace redirects (PNRs) as "legacy material [that] should be avoided whenever possible" is incorrect - new PNRs are discouraged unless there is a good reason for them - linking is just one example of what might be a good reason but ease of access to the template page (as explained by Aussielegend) is another (c.f. T:AC / T:ACOT). Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
So that's what they're used for! Sorry, my bad! If I hadn't misunderstood the point of the redirect, I would have spared you all the long rationale, and my comment would have been briefer: "Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." Needlesss to say, people are completely free to avail themselves of the standard features on their web browsers (or whatever software they use to edit here). – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." That's not relevant because it's nobody's favourite shortcut. It's a shortcut for anyone to use, as explained. Personlly, I'd rather not have to use it at all but when you have so many people making silly changes to infoboxes over and over again because they don't bother reading the instructions, it's a necessary evil. --AussieLegend () 14:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T: where "T:" redirects as a class gained overwhelming consensus. The arguments explain the difference between linking and navigation - that the two are different is why T:ITV and {{ITV}} leading to different places is not at all problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This was from 2010, and the current consensus on the issue is from the RfC of three years later: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. The redirect we're discussing was created two years after the RfC, and so shouldn't have been created in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's confusing and/or misleading for T:ITV and {{ITV}} to go to different places, per precedents such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#T:N. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call that a strong precedent (not that we are actually bound by precedent) - one person mentioned it as one of multiple reasons to delete, someone else endorsed all the reasons to delete and that was it. Nobody else even considered it. I'm not seeing any evidence here that anybody has ever actually been confused by T:ITV not redirecting to Template:ITV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 10:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


The current system is confusing as people are redirected to the Horsepower page when looking for HP Inc. or other pages at HP. It especially confusing for users because Horsepower is commonly written as HP (uppercase) and HP Inc. writes hp (lowercase) on their computers as their logo. And many links currently on HP are lowercase. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Note previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1#hpwbm1058 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab page per nominator after fixing the incoming links. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hp doesn't currently have any incoming links from articles. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Uanfala: That's because I disambiguated ~50 links. The vast majority were for horsepower, of course, but this exercise should be done periodically to fix stuff like THIS and THIS. wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to HP per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambiguation. There are times when upper- and lower-case should point to different articles, but I would argue against there being a primary use for either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to HP: this is a long dab page and almost all of the entries there seem to be abbreviated using upper-case letters: if a reader is trying to get to one of the three or four lower-case ones, they would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I've had a look at the incoming article links to hp – I don't see any direct ones, but the ones that use piping are of two types:
    • [[....|hp]]: about 845 such links, in only four of them is the target different from horsepower (one link each for hp-FEM, Hewlett-Packard, HP and hit points).
    • [[...|Hp]] : 96 instances, most of which are infobox fields of the form [[Railway station types in Germany|Hp]]
      All this shows that at most one out of ten links to hp are for something other than horsepower. As far as linking go, this is a very clear indication of a primary topic, and that appears to have been the consensus in various discussions (Wbm1058 has already linked to the previous RfD, and to that I can add two more discussions). So far, this favours the status quo (a primary redirect, and a hatnote at the target pointing to the dab page). However, it's possible that the actual usage by readers might not be aligned with the topic structure. If a challenge to the primary topic is to be mounted, I guess the way to do it is to turn the redirect into a dab page (listing only the lower-case entries) and then seeing what proportion of readers click on each. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lengthy edit history, now with over 80 revisions, does belie the idea that horsepower is the clear primary topic here. There's been a lot of back and forth since the first May 2004 attempt to retarget this. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the amount of input at the previous RfD, I think a little more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 464 (Kentucky)

There is no information about I-464 on the New Circle Road article. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Pioneer(daily)

Delete there already exists a redirect with the proper spacing, so this typo redirect is unnecessary --- (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, {{R from move}}, harmless, unambiguous and very well used (582 hits this year, 789 last year). Deletion will not bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20

n-ary redirects

n-ary arity is as likely a target. (My apologies for cluttering RFD. I don't have a bot which generates multi-RfDs cleanly). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No worries. I went ahead and bundled all of them that had identical rationales ("n-ary is as likely a target."). Feel free to revert, tweak, or otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I believe deletion is more appropriate, a redirect to the new disambiguation page n-ary may be an alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Dank Tinder Convos

Not mentioned at target page. I assume this was a subset of memes there? BDD (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fast Ferries

Nominated for deletion as potentially confusing. There is also a ferry company (for which I'm preparing an article) with the same name: Erroneously associating them with the Canadian scandal could be considered defamatory. Lourakis (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

School of Cork

no obvious target, there's Cork Institute of Technology, University College Cork, Ashton School and other schools. It previously targeted a dab with no schools. Widefox; talk 12:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that's awful and adds nothing, with the talk suggesting merging or deleting 10 years ago. Widefox; talk 18:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Wila(1988)

Lack of space between the name of the storm and the year, which is an obvious typo. Another redirect with the proper title already exists, which is: Tropical Storm Wila (1988). So, there is no reason to keep this one. CycloneYoris talk! 04:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree it's an obvious typo – in other words, a typo that someone might easily make (and which someone presumably has made in creating this redirect). It also couldn't plausibly refer to anything else, so causes no confusion and does no harm. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete not useful to keep around when the other properly dabbed one exists. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19

मून जे-इन

WP:FORRED created from an accidental pagemove. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, possibly speediable under G6 if this genuinely was a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


It's only one letter, but it's such an implausible typo. Has an impressively low 34 views in over 13 years. Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Yes the pageviews are impressively low, but in the few cases where it is used I'm sure the users are very grateful for it. Moreover it is a perfectly reasonable phonetic spelling. JZCL 09:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Who's going to be so much into science that they're looking up obscure synthetic elements, and yet eat the same time not know that elements are spelt "ium"? Also, with less than three views a year, can't we just let the search page take those very few people to the article? Thegreatluigi (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Two things. Firstly: no, if one typed in Seaborgeum into the search bar then the Seaborgium article would not come up - if you don't believe me then try it yourself. Secondly, redirects are WP:CHEAP, and in this case absolutely no harm whatsoever is being done. Ergo no reason to delete. JZCL 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll give you that first one, I stand corrected. But I stand by my claim that pretty much nobody would ever make this mistake. For the second one though, I never really understood that reasoning. If I created a redirect for The element which was named after the scientist Glenn Seaborg, should that be kept? It's doing absolutely no harm whatsoever. (Don't worry, I'm not actually going to create that; I am aware of WP:POINT). Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would have no problem with that redirect existing if there was evidence that it was being used. I would encourage you to think about this redirect in another way: on no fewer than 34 occasions we have helped people (probably some of whom are non-native English speakers with a bad grasp of spelling) locate the article which they are indisputably looking for, and might have been very difficult without it. I can see no way whatsoever that this redirect is hindering the encyclopaedia, and at least one where it is helping. JZCL 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per JZCL. Perfectly reasonable and perfectly harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per JZCL. (Also, at least one element has an alternative name with the "eum" suffix: promethium was originally called prometheum.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm starting to remember why I banned myself from nominating redirects for deletion. Would I be as well just withdrawing this? Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing burger

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


Another series of misnomers from the (now indef blocked) guy who brought us such gems as Unicode 0. This one goes up to \127 (119 redirects total). Reason for deleting: escape sequences in C use octal, not decimal, so these redirects either are garbage or point to incorrect targets. (This is also why i'm not nominating \0\7 because these numerals mean the same in octal and decimal). Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. It's linked from Maria, My Darling (1980 Tamil film), and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDAB error. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ravenswood (2017 film)

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. It's linked from Callan Park Hospital for the Insane, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDAB error. We have no articles on the director, writers, or the three principal actors; see the IMDb entry. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Regardless of whether the film is notable, it isn't mentioned in the target (and shouldn't be) or in any other article, so the redirect is unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reason #10: the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Inappropriate cross namespace redirect. I don’t know how often it might happen, but anyone typing 'WP:AHK' into the search box will not be expecting to be taken to a user page that will task both their bandwidth and browser JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment WP: shortcuts to userspace pages are not inappropriate simply by being cross-namespace - individual assessment of the redirect and target is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ideally this would be in Wikipedia space and split over several pages (certainly the latter) but they are not reasons for deletion. The AHK shortcut isn't conflicting with anything else, and the content is certainly relevant to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The question of whether it should be in WP space and considered part of the project was discussed on the talk page: see User talk:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge#RfC: Upgrade to essay at Wikipedia:Sum of all knowledge. And there was clear consensus that is should not be moved or considered so. It’s just a user page, and WP:AHK does not look like a redirect to a user page so will just confuse anyone coming across it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Redirect shortcuts from projectspace to userspace are common and acceptable. That aside, this is not the place to address the size of the redirect's target. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18

Univesity of Education, Indonesia

This is not a common misspelling of "university" and it could have been created in error because it is not a "Redirect from move". Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Move without redirect to University of Education, Indonesia which is a plausible title and what the creator intended had they not typoed (their other edits from the same day show they know how to correctly spell University). This has received only 2 page views this year - showing what an unused redirect actually looks like. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Term not explained at target. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The term is mentioned in passing in a couple of articles (e.g. Geoffrey Hoppe#Teachings, but I can't find any suitable target related to the New Age movement or anything else. See also the separate nomination for Lightworkers. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm equally happy with the soft redirect suggested below. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:lightworker. This is a specialist/technical term which isn't discussed in any depth anywhere in the encyclopaedia, and there's no obvious article that such a discussion could be added to (no glossary of New Age terminology or the like), but it's a plausible search term and Wiktionary has the definition. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a soft redirect to wikt: per WP:SPECSOFTRED. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete reason #10. No suitable article exists; soft redirect not appropriate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The herb

Delete? Disambiguate? Retarget? I think cannabis (drug) is the article most likely to satisfy somebody searching for the phrase the herb, but also there's the current target (herb without a definite article), cannabis and religion (I'd also associate the phrase "the herb" with Rastafarian usage of the plant), and as a redirect, the phrase was pointed at Cannabis for several years (the article on Cannabis (drug) is more relevant than the article on Cannabis as a genus). Plantdrew (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Herb (disambiguation) per WP:ASTONISH. There is no primary topic for the herb, and certainly not one that is different from herb. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page per Nowak Kowalski. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to cannabis (drug) per nom. I disagree that there's no primary topic for the phrase: I think when it's used on its own (i.e. not as part of a phrase like "the herb basil") it almost always refers to cannabis, whereas neither herbs generally or anything else else that's listed at the disambiguation page are known or frequently referred to as the herb. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. No mention at any suitable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Julian Faye Lund

The player Julian, as far as I know, does not pass notability standards, and his page is redirected to his brother Jacob, who passes notability standards. I am not sure if this should be done, since the page of Jacob has no information relevant to Julian except that they are brothers. This seems to open a pandora box that any sportsperson who is not notable but has a parent/sibling/child who is notable would get a redirect. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep redirects from non-notable people to the article about notable family members where they are mentioned are common and frequently useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Such redirects are indeed common, but there are a few factors that lead me to think this one is not particularly useful. First, the mention in the target is a single sentence that tells us nothing other than that Julian is Jacob's sibling and also a goalkeeper (who does he play for? does he play professionally? etc. – cf. a redirect like Ryan Ripken, who is discussed in some depth in the target). Second, that single sentence is an unsourced claim about two living people (a source could probably be found, but I don't know what's considered an RS). And third, Jacob Faye-Lund is a fairly low-profile person who isn't significantly more well-known than his non-notable sibling (so this is different from cases like, to pick some at random, Donda West or Blanket Jackson or Giulia Sarkozy, all of which point to much more high-profile people). This redirect was the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Faye Lund, but only one of six participants there mentioned a redirect, so I don't think revising that consensus here is a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Selma Bacha

While the player currently plays for the club, it does not make sense for the page of the player to redirect to the club, as players can change clubs at any time. The page of the club also has no information about the player except that the player currently plays for the club. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: the mention in the target is insubstantial enough that the redirect isn't really any use to anyone. I assume, based on the fact that the other members of the squad all have articles and our notability guidelines for sportspeople are very broad, that Bacha is also likely to be independently notable, in which case the final point of WP:RDEL also applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sajjad Ali 1980 singles

Delete. Implausible and unused in article space. The section that it redirects to doesn't say which singles were released in 1980. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. While my first reaction was just to say retarget this to the #Singles section of the article, but that doesn't list the dates for most entries, and I can't find any evidence that he released any singles in 1980 - the list appears to be in chronological order (as is conventional) and google suggests the first entries in the list were not released until 1993. He released albums in 1979 and 1987 but apparently nothing in between, and wile did appear on a television program in 1980 (age 14) this was apparently not his first appearance and the article says he didn't become famous until 1983. All this adds up to this not being a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article that was at this location from 2007 to 2009 says this was an alternative title of Master Sajjad Sings Memorable Classics, but that article doesn't mention it, nor does any other article. Google finds eight results for "Sajjad Ali 1980 singles" that don't also mention Wikipedia, so this seems like either an awkward translation or mistranslation, an exceptionally infrequently-used alternative title that couldn't be sourced, or something made up. Taking Thryduulf's point into consideration, there's nowhere this could reasonably be retargeted to. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17


No one is ever going to use these names. Templates were moved to better names and these pages remain as useless redirects. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. First off, the target templates have been nominated for deletion: regardless of where that apepars to be going, BrandonXLF, it's always best to wait until is is over: if the result is "delete", then these redirects would be deleted as well, and there would be no need for us to be discussing them here. If the outomce is "keep", however, these redirects should be kept as standard {{R from move}}s: the templates were at these titles for a decade until they were renamed not two days ago. And I'm not even sure the new titles are better: they're rather vague and can easily be confused with Template:Decade. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uanfala. Even if these weren't redirects from moves, we're almost never going to discuss redirects to pages currently nominated for deletion. If you really think these redirects should be deleted then nominate them again after the discussion about the templates has concluded (assuming the templates are not deleted, if they are then these will be speedily deleted under criterion G8). Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Peacock tail

Disambiguate, as seen in this revision: Prior to my edits, the two alternative capitalizations of Peacock tail and Peacock Tail pointed to different places. The first pointed, as it does now, to Peafowl#Plumage. The second pointed to Butterfly tail (goldfish), as seen in this revision Jikin also redirects to Butterfly tail (goldfish). This source confirms that the Jikin and Peacock Tail goldfish varieties are the same. So if existing consensus is correct and Jikin and Butterfly Tail are the same, there needs to be a way for editors to get from Peacock Tail to Butterfly tail, as they are different names for the same goldfish variety. If existing consensus is wrong and Jikin is distinct from Butterfly Tail, there is still a need for disambiguation, but it would just point to a new Jikin article instead. HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete - no inbound links other than for a valid math article - Assuming that peacock tail refers to the technically correct peacock train (and not metaphorical usage for objects of ostentation) - it should point to the Indian peafowl section and not to the generic peafowl article as most references are to that species and not to the rather rare African or Indo-Malayan species. Shyamal (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No inbound links isn't a good reason to delete a redirect. It seems that the decision should be either what target is most appropriate, or if there are multiple possible targets without an obvious primary then make a disambiguation page. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The stats (54 hits before the nomination this year, 58 hits last year) show that this is a term that readers are searching for and the current target is clearly a plausible thing for them to be looking for and, given the wealth of information about peakcock's tails there, those who are looking for this cannot be provided for better by Wikipedia. Google results strongly indicate that the current target is what most people are looking for as every single one of the first 40 hits are about the plumage of male peafowl birds (either directly or indirectly, e.g. "Like a peacock's tail, our wines cover the wide spectrum of all the colours of the rainbow,"). Other uses of the term should be linked in a hatnote at the target section directly or via a non-primary disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. At present Butterfly tail (goldfish) doesn't mention "peacock tail", so if this were to be a disambiguation page the goldfish wouldn't need to be listed per WP:DABMENTION. Even if the name was mentioned in the goldfish article, there's generally no need for a disambiguation page with only two entries per WP:TWODABS – they can be distinguished more straightforwardly using hatnotes. To address Shyamal's separate argument: while it may the case that most references to peacocks' tails refer to the Indian peafowl, no obvious alternative target presents itself (Peafowl#Indian peafowl? Indian peafowl#Sexual selection?) and I don't think any more specific target would be more suitable than the broader topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per others above, and use hatnote/s to disambiguate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talkcontribs) 09:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Confusing use for redirect. Wikipages for EP are for editing (edit policies WP:EP, edit protection (Template:EP). EPs are also not traditional albums so to use a shortcut tag such as this for any album at all is misleading. Users can simply use the more sensical {{album}} to tag the WikiProject on album article talk pages if the concern is the number of keystrokes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - Keep
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{WPEP}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per all the other times this has come up. It's not a good idea to have cryptic template abbreviations in talk pages; using the actual template names should be encouraged instead. When editors see {{WikiProject Albums}} on a talk page, they know exactly what it is. That is not the case with {{WPEP}}. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This could just as easily redirect to Template:WikiProject Epilepsy, for instance, and I really don't think it's worth dabifying this (scarcely used) search term. JZCL 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Projectspace and templatespace shortcuts are quite often ambiguous and are allowed to be. That aside, due to the nature of this redirect, i.e. that it is only ever likely to be used on mainspace talk pages where editors may learn from it and brevity is not high priority, I agree with Tavix that "using the actual template names should be encouraged instead." However, were it something used in discussions, e.g. {{re}}, it would be perfectly acceptable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Luv Is Rage 1.9

Hoax album promoted by mixtape websites (fan-made). Flooded with them hundreds 13:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Bani Fasan

Former WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND problematic geostub, someone has turned it into a redirect rather than delete it but it's useless, has no link to RAK and needs to go, IMHO... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Bani Fasan is currently mentioned in the Ras Al Khaimah article under Dunes and landforms, but you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be. The coordinates given for Bani Fasan in the Ras Al Khaimah article point to a place in the western Emirate of Dubai, some distance from Ras Al Khaimah. It would be good to clarify whether the mention in the target article is accurate, and remove it if necessary, before making any decisions about this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, I agree: this is cart before the horse. On the face of it the redirect is (currently) legitimate. If the article is amended to remove the mention (e.g. because the place—if it exists—is in Abu Dhabi (not Dubai) not RAK , then RfD the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

0s (century)

Another unlikely and at the moment simply wrong redirect Fram (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: this and the similar redirects below went to the wrong target at the time of nomination, hence my comments. While that issue seems to have been resolved, the basic issue that these are unnecessary redirects because these terms are not in use and make unlikely search terms remains. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

000s (century)

Another unlikely and at the moment simply wrong redirect Fram (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Contrary to BrandonXLF's claim, a search of the wiki shows that 000s is only used as a method for neatly tabulating numbers in multiples of 1000. I'm not seeing a usage in relation to years. This article creates its own ambiguity in need of diambiguation. In its lack of usage elsewhere it verges on WP:A11, something made up. The same argument holds for 000s. Cabayi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Note 000s is currently at AFD. JZCL 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I have done Google searches of this phrase and have found no evidence of this being a term used to refer to centuries. JZCL 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This doesn't seem to be commonly used, but with the parenthetical disambiguation it isn't confusing or ambiguous – if "000s" is being used to refer to a century, it's certainly going to the the 1st century (in the same way 100s (century) refers to the 2nd century, 200s (century) to the 3rd, and so on, up to 2000s (century).) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "This doesn't seem to be commonly used" As in, this is never used. People were born in the 1000s or in the 2000s, no one was "born in the 000s", that's just not something that gets said or written. Fram (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


Unlikely redirect, term is not in use for the first millenium or other time periods. Fram (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete defining units in terms of thousands makes makes 0 * 103 sense. Cabayi (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete New redirect that only exists because of a typo. Unlikely to get usage. JZCL 21:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. A more commonsensical target would presumably be 1st millennium, but I can't find any evidence that this term is used to refer to that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

00s (century)

Unlikely redirect / search term. Probably intended to redirect to first century, but even so is not really in use (who is going to look for 00s (century), with the disambig, if they want the first century?) Fram (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - the first two usages (in terms of years) retuned in a search of the wiki are Absolute Radio 00s, & Now That's What I Call the 00s. A mere 2000 years off target. Cabayi (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 00s. As mentioned at the page, 00s can refer to both the 1st century, and centuries in general. JZCL 21:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It seems to me counterintuitive that anyone would search for this, but with the parenthetical disambiguation it isn't really ambiguous and couldn't refer to anything other than the current target. In the highly unlikely event that someone's searching for centuries in general and is using this mystifying search term to do so, century is the first link in the first line of the target so it's no harder to find than if this were to point to the dab page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tun Tschu Chang

Wrong target: Tun Tschu Chang is a completely different person from Te-Tzu Chang. See [3] Zanhe (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect per nom and Google, which lists Te Tzu Chang in all its top results. JZCL 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nowhere to retarget as there is no article about him, and other articles which mention him are not good retargeting options (Special:Search/~"Tun Tschu Chang"; Special:Search/~"Chang Tun Tschu"; Special:Search/~"張東柱"). (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the redir and change the title of the target article to Te-Tzu Chang; the choice of name for the target article was plausible, but problematic (per nom) and incorrect (per JZCL). Also agree with IP
    Additionally, the botanist abbreviation template needs to be removed from the Te-Tzu Chang article, as it’s simply inaccurate. - Hamamelis (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per 59.149. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Since it need to be redirect both to Micić and Mićić, which is not possible, I propose to delete this redirect Smooth O (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert on Slavic names, but if these are indeed two distinct surnames then disambiguation would be required for the diacritic-less term. Maybe include Frank Micic on the dab page as well. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Xezbeth. JZCL 22:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Xezbeth. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Per Antidiskriminator below, I oppose merging. Just because two words are homographs when you remove diacritics does not mean that they are suitable candidates for merging. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge. While I am sure there is enough difference between those names in Serbian, English speakers, who are our audience, have a hard time recognizing diacritics since they are rarely part of our language. Rather than having three separate pages for someone to have to thumb through to find someone with one of these names, I think it would be more convenient to have Micic be a page that encompasses all three names, which each in its own section to represent that they are separate in Serbian. I have drafted this below the redirect for your consideration. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge both to the version without diacritics as above. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tavix (though if there were a good reason for the disambiguation page to be at one of the other titles that would also be fine by me). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Merging would not be a good idea. Micić is derived from female name Mica (shortened from Milica) while Mićić is derived from male name Mića (shortened from Miodrag). Without diacritics it is the same, but with it, completely different.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


The hatnote at the target is getting a bit long, and we need a disambiguation page. I'm just not sure whether unfinished creative work is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of unfinished (in which case the dab should go at Unfinished (disambiguation) instead) or not. These single-word titles are often contentious so I thought it would be better to discuss it.

Brief history: Unfinished was created as a dicdef/joke in January 2006, turned into a {{wiktionary redirect}} in March 2006, had a dab entry added to it in May 2006, and was then redirected to the current target in August 2006, and hasn't been touched since then except by bots. (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Dab page at the base term seems to be the best option. Unfinished creative work isn't the primary topic and I don't even think it should be present on the dab page except as a see also entry. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify per above. There are plenty of examples of unfinished that aren't mentioned in the hatnote, like Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. JZCL 22:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify as above which is already being developed. Unfinished symphony has been added and pushed towards the top of the Songs section. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


I think this should redirect to Tropical cyclone#Hurricane or typhoon. It shows how hurricane is used along with typhoon. Also, can you add the redirects for discussion template on this redirect? (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep at the current target. The lede section of Tropical cyclone introduces and defines the search term in the terms that a reader who searches for this common word is likely to understand and find useful, while the proposed target contains no contextual information and provides information on a relatively minor semantic point rather than a general overview. (The redirect has been tagged by Kuyabribri.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with this redirect. --B dash (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16

Template:2018 Asian Games - Men's tournament 3rd place

Implausible redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure where this should go but I'm sure it isn't here. We do not have a page on decimals like these. JZCL 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. If someone copies and pastes "0.9" (which is explicitly mentioned and what the article could be titled) and uses it as a search term they are taken to this redirect and thus the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I agree with Thryduulf that there are good reasons someone looking for 0.999... might search for this, but I think there's a risk of causing confusion here that probably outweighs the benefits of keeping this. For the less mathematically competent among us the idea that 0.999... = 1 is hard enough to grasp, without seeming to suggest that 0.9 = 1 as well. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm very much not mathematically inclined, but even I understood from that article that 0.9 != 0.9. A hatnote can be crafted to make it explicit if that would allay your concerns, but even without that I think the clear benefits to those using 0.9 outweigh the slight possible confusion for those looking for 0.9. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Move 0.9 (album) to this title via Thryduulf (below). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Change redirect This page should redirect to 0.9 (album). – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarun Kumar(cricketer)

Implausible redirect. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely grammar of the search term Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, unambiguous, and clearly a plausible typo, given that someone made it when creating the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. The WP:COSTLY essay of which WP:RDAB is far more often wrong than it is right and so is itself harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


SoundCloud is not mentioned anywhere in the target. Perhaps there’s another more suitable target that says not to use this website as a citation? (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I've not found a better target, but there are so many AfDs that mention the term finding its occurrence in essays and guidlines isn't easy. That said, I would expect a mention at WP:SPS if anywhere, and there isn't one there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target now or when the redirect was created. I don't think we need to have lists of sites that aren't reliable sources (per WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS), and we certainly shouldn't be creating rules or prohibitions for the sake of finding a use for a redirect created in uncertain circumstances six years ago. That Soundcloud shouldn't normally be listed as an external link is already implicit in point 10 (and perhaps point 5?) of WP:ELNO. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

William of the United Kingdom

There are many people called William in the United Kingdom, including Prince William of the United Kingdom, who is the primary topic by google hits but possibly not by page views: either Retarget to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge or Disambiguate. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment there are indeed many people called William in the United Kingdom, but far fewer who have been of the United Kingdom (i.e. have/had a (senior?) peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom). I'll advertise this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Mixed feelings its a bit vague but whats the catch all if we deleted it for 'william' Garlicplanting (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There is a William of England dab page that could be expanded to encompass this as well, that would be better than William. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • That doesn't work though as William of England and William of the UK will include/exclude different people!Garlicplanting (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I meant for one dab page to list both topics, similar to how George of the United Kingdom lists all the British kings named George whether they were kings of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify or Retarget to an appropriate disambiguation page per my previous attempt. There are at least 6 British princes called William, in addition to the monarchs. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Amended 08:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been only one King of the UK (if you don't know already, familiarise yourself with the distinction between the 1707–1800 Kingdom of Great Britain versus the United Kingdom since 1801) called William, and that would be the only conceivable usage of "William of the UK"; since the only Williams who've been a Prince of the UK had territorial designations, peerages, — like the current one, who was Prince William of Wales and is now Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and has never been "Prince William of the UK" — or double forenames. DBD 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do a google search for "William of the United Kingdom" and see what hits you get. The state between 1707 and 1801 is also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • William IV wasn't "William of the United Kingdom". He had a numeral. According to your own argument, the current target is as incorrect as the proposed one. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to William of England (and expand that dab page as necessary). The difference between "of England" and "of the United Kingdom" is a fairly obscure one that we shouldn't expect readers to know in advance, and any confusion will be resolved once the reader arrives at the article they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify as follows:

William of the United Kingdom may refer to:

Please do let me know if I've missed anyone. JZCL 23:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The symbol is not used in the target page. As it has no specific meaning (in mathematics, and probably elsewhere), it cannot be retargeted elsewhere D.Lazard (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment All single unicode characters (outside the private use area) are very useful search terms and so should be or lead to a relevant article or disambiguation page. If there is no more specific meaning for this character then Letterlike Symbols is the article about the relevant unicode block. Unfortunately neither google nor Wikipedia's internal search engine distinguish between ℛ and R so searching for uses is not easy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll redirect it to Script typeface#Unicode, and this thread can be speedy closed. D.Lazard (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually I think it would be best not to speedy close this thread as other people may have different views on the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Crandell (disambiguation)

Non-existent dab page, should not redirect to human name SIA. Delete. MB 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not only a surname of people (like the disambiguation page clarifies) and AFAIR WP:HOWTODAB is the cause for the redirect. Keep. --MinesweeperFive (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:INTDABLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. One could easily make a valid DAB page that strictly adheres to style guidelines (i.e. Surname(s), mountain theatre). However since most entries would be surnames, and there are not too many other entries, having a human name SIA with the other DAB entries in the See Also is preferable from a practicality standpoint. So in this case, there's additional reason beyond the normal ones to keep DAB redirects to SIAs. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a disambiguation page as requested. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, per WP:IAR. (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the target is a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Fire (soccer club)

Both are leftovers from unexplained moves, and likely not needed since they are very similar to the target. Home Lander (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep both. Both are valid redirects using correct parenthetical disambiguation which are useful in differentiating the team from the historical Chicago Fire. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both Neither is a valid redirect. They were recently created under the misguided premise that they ere the team's common name. They are not a plausible redirect and not a reasonable disambiguator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • As a general rule, I find it hard to believe that any team with a name like "Foo [generic sports team type]" is not commonly referred in informal settings as just Foo. Not sure why "soccer team" or "soccer club" would be unreasonable disambiguation, unless the Chicago Fire is somehow not a soccer team, which it obviously isn't. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both are plausible search terms, {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} can be used if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: User who made the unexplained moves has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Home Lander (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That doesn't mean the redirects should be deleted. Per above they remain useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Patar knight. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15

Faan hap

Term does not appear in target article. It seems that the target article was originally at the title "Faan hap" but was moved in 2007 and the term removed immediately in the next edit. Googling suggests that the term means "rice box" and is not specific to foam containers but could be made of another material. PamD 22:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Packed lunch where there is Bento for Japanese, and Dosirak for Korean, but otherwise it's just a packed lunch with rice in it. It's not tied to foam containers. Only one mention in a random book. [4] connecting it to rice box. Online dictionaries point to packed lunch [5] Also okay with deleting since it is not mentioned by type there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. The article seems to have only been at this location for one week in 2007, so we needn't worry about incoming external links. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Wrong venue. Per the instructions, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Final Fantasy VII terms

All of the above redirects were merged to Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)#Geography in 2007. That article was then redirected to Compilation of Final Fantasy VII following an AfD in 2013. I'm not clear if any content was merged, but the Compilation article no longer contains such lists, and I don't see any other good targets for these titles.

Note that two of the above redirects (List of Final Fantasy VII locations and List of Final Fantasy VII terms) have non-trivial edit history. We may need to preserve those edit histories somewhere for WP:ATTREQ purposes. However, we do not need to locate them at titles which promise content that Wikipedia does not deliver; they can be moved elsewhere. (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 19:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. With no such lists, these are bound to disappoint readers. WP:NOTWIKIA is relevant. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Final Fantasy VII terms and List of Final Fantasy VII Locations, as someone who searches for them, while they might find some relevant information, will have to root around for it and won't find in the form they'd expect based on the redirect. I don't think redirects beginning with "List of" have to point to lists or list-like content, but in this case the relevant information is both quite dispersed and quite minimal. Don't keep List of Final Fantasy VII terms and List of Final Fantasy VII locations – the same reasoning applies, but presumably a solution other than deletion will have to be found to resolve the attribution issue. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @AngusWOOF, BDD, and Arms & Hearts: The consensus so far seems to be "don't keep but beware of the page history". Would a WP:HISTMERGE into the page history of Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), without leaving redirects at the current titles, be an acceptable solution to all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because parallel histories should not be merged, as doing so leaves a mess. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Deryck Chan: I don't really understand history merges, how they work or their effects (hence my vagueness in my !vote), so I would defer to anybody more clued-up than me on those matters. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's mostly ok with me, though with only a single mention at the target page, "Gaia" doesn't seem very solid, and could easily end up at RfD one day if the page contents change. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chairman of Everything

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn by nom

Avengers: Annihilation

Unconfirmed. Just a rumour. Even if this proves to be true later, there's no deadline. We should not be creating pages based on rumours, that will be unencyclopedic. --Let There Be Sunshine 14:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Some rumours and speculation that appears in reliable sources is significant enough to include in encyclopaedia articles, and search terms related to that content can make good redirects in some cases. However, there is no mention of this rumoured title in the article and looking at the edit history it appears there is no consensus to include it, meaning the redirect isn't useful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least until the title is confirmed. The Express is an awful paper and not a reliable source, but people do read it (along with the many other sources reporting this name) and someone who reads it and then searches for this isn't going to be confused or otherwise inconvenienced by being taken to this target. That is to say, someone who has searched for this phrase will certainly be looking for this target, and I see no reason to believe that the target's failure to mention the phrase would cause them difficulties. This isn't like most other redirects that aren't mentioned in the target, where confusion is possible and unhelpfulness is likely. If this isn't the film's title, then the redirect will cease to be useful and can be deleted, but until that point I think the positives outweigh the negatives. This is especially the case when the film's article is at an unnatural "Untitled x" title which is a less likely search term than an actual title, even if that actual title is rumoured and/or incorrect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This rumor's pretty old. A&H's reasoning seems solid to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Suburban Rail Link

Not the name of the project to which this directs users. Has potential to cause confusion as well with similarly-named projects elsewhere in the world. Takerlamar (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak disambiguate While this is not the name of the project, it is not the proper name of any other project either. However where it is used in news reports as a specific name rather than a general descriptive phrase it almost always refers to either the suburban rail loop in Melbourne (the current target), Bengaluru Commuter Rail, Milan Passante railway or Proastiakos Athens (specifically route 1 from the airport to Piraeus). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Commuter rail (the same target as Suburban rail). This is a plausible search term, but it doesn't seem to be the proper name of any bit of rail of infrastructure, and certainly isn't the name of any rail line or network mentioned in the encyclopaedia. As such, pointing to a more general article seems like the best solution. I don't think a disambiguation page at this location could comply with WP:DABRELATED. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Kitab al-Fitan

Kindly remove redirect of Kitab al-Fitan to Naim ibn Hammad, since the former is locked by some admin and I wish to expand the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Write a draft. This page was protected by Abecedare because of persistent sock puppetry. An article at this title was previously deleted because it did not demonstrate notability, so the best thing to do here is to start your article in draft space and then when it is ready submit for review, and when an experienced user is satisfied it meets the notability criteria it will be moved to mainspace over this redirect. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for details and assistance. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

2017 Mexican earthquake

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to 2017 Mexico earthquake.


Very specific target for a rather vague redirect; there are probably other things this could refer to. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine or disambig The string of eight zeros is mentioned in the target article at Permissive Action Link#Development and dissemination - it is allegedly the current or former launch code for US intercontinental ballistic missiles. If there are other targets that this is a plausible search term for (a quick search didn't turn up anything likely) then it should be disambiguated, if not it should be refined to target the relevant section of the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and show search results. First, the current target is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage. The US nuclear arsenal is obviously important, but the exact string of digits they're rumoured to use as the launch code is trivia, and no one reasonably expects to be brought to the target by typing in this string of digits. Second, every other mention of this string of digits in Wikipedia is equally trivial: uses in file formats, communications protocols, etc. Starting a manual list of all such WP:DABMENTION uses will result in worse outcomes for readers than simply showing the search results. Search results which do not require any intervention by editors in order to remain perfectly up-to-date, whereas disambiguation pages do. (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with 59.149 that "no one reasonably expects to be brought to the target by typing in this string of digits" – or at least that it's very unlikely that someone would. This on its own isn't necessarily a reason to delete this – if there was substantial encyclopaedic content in the target and nothing on any similarly-named thing in any other article it might not be a problem. But in this case the mention is brief, quite trivial and very easy to miss when scanning the relevant section, so it's easy to imagine someone being taken to that section and being left, following a skim-read of the prose, none the wiser as to why. I also agree that "every other mention of this string of digits in Wikipedia is equally trivial", and no other article that mentions the string strikes me as something that would need to be listed on a disambiguation page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

IPhone 5G

Ambiguous as iPhone 4S is the 5th generation iPhone and there is no iPhone which supports 5G networking. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of iOS devices. iPhone numbering is confusing and this is not an implausible search term given other models released, so best to point it at the list rather than speculating about which model people are actually looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Search results were primarily about a hypothetical future iPhone, not a misnomer for the iPhone 5 or otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an implausible search term, but unless there's a target that would explicitly clarify that no iPhones support 5G then I think this is potentially confusing, to the extent that it suggests that something by this name or something that could be referred to by this name exists, and so does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

IPhone 3

Kind of WP:XY as it could also be shorthand {{R from incorrect name}} for iPhone 3G as well as meaning third generation iPhone. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Perhaps change the redirect to List of iOS devices#iPhone? --hydrox (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per hydrox. A very likely search term that is potentially ambiguous should be disambiguated rather than deleted - in this case the list of devices does the job perfectly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe the current target is more likely to be sought than any other target. iPhone numbering was far less confusing back then. There was only one model released at a time, meaning the iPhone 3GS was the third iPhone released, the third generation, and it even was released with iOS 3. It was also the predecessor to the iPhone 4, so it works backwards as well. Furthermore, the iPhone 3G is prominently linked in the first paragraph should a reader realize they actually want that one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget either to List of iOS devices#iPhone or a dab on iPhone 3G or 3GS per hydrox. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of iOS devices#iPhone. Though it's true, as Tavix notes, that the 3GS was the third iPhone, I suspect no one but obsessives and those who've already read the article still know that in 2018. Google results also bear out the sense that this could refer equally to the 3G and the 3GS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14

SPF(Harvey Birdman)

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


A deprecated kind of redirect (see this RfC), whose usefulness is further compromised by the fact that its target is different from Template:Sp. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Template:SP was deleted years ago, which was a template that was different from template:sp -- (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as the page view stats show that this redirect is used and therefore useful and there is no evidence of any confusion with other templates or articles. Even though the former is theoretically possible, unless it is an actual issue it really isn't relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Pageviews? It gets one view every couple of weeks and it hasn't received a single one since the end of August. It's even less than what T:MWSD gets and that one we have good reasons to believe no-one has ever used. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Page views do not show that this redirect is used or useful. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

United states of soviet russia

Unnecessary redirect, it is an unlikely misnomer of 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. Thespündragon 20:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Some people who should know better think it is what USSR stands for. I think this makes it a plausible search term. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep misnomers printed in WP:RS are usually regarded as likely search terms. The long and hilarious list of people who thought this was the right name includes members of the UK Parliament [6] and published academics [7], even. (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep since USSR goes there and that's the primary topic over USSR (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


I created Template:MWSD a few years ago, and judging by the list of transclusions I appear to be the only person who's ever used it. Though it warms my heart to see that someone thought my template important enough to warrant a mainspace shortcut, I don't see this as ever being useful. See also this RfC for why such shortcuts are generally deprecated. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The page view statistics show this is in use, although not as significantly so as to be blindingly obviously used, it does not conflict with anything else and so I'm not seeing any reason to delete it beyond "I don't like pesudo-namespace redirects" (which is not a reason to delete a redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    • As I appear to be the only editor who's used the target template since it was created over two years ago, if there's anything that the pageviews are telling us, it is that two views per month is apparently what we get for a shortcut that no-one has ever used. And the reasons why such redirects are almost prohibited are explained in the RfC I've linked above and they have nothing to do with my likes or dislikes. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • From vast experience of looking at page views of redirects, I can say with certainty that redirects nobody uses get less than about 6 hits per year, often only 2-3. The RfC does not say that all such redirects are bad and that they can be useful. This is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It's slightly exasperating that I find myself obliged to quote from the RfC outcome every time you make a reference to it. This type of redirects were strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. And no-one in their right mind would claim that this template is one of the exceptional cases. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per non. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mother Wheel

Compare to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_3#I-Self_Lord_and_Master: That redirect originally targetted Nation of Islam#The Mother Plane and Ezekiel's Wheel, a section link that is actually still valid, but got redirected by bot ("Fixing double redirect") to Muslim World. However, Muslim World does not at all cover Nation of Islam stuff, and, which is why I do not just revert the bot edit, I am not 100 % convinced that this is the perfect redirect target, as the term "Mother Wheel" is not really explained, but only cited. → «« Man77 »» 14:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

T: Zone (Toni Gonzaga album)

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


A cross-namespace redirect of a format that is strongly discouraged (see this RfC), confusing as an abbreviation, and almost entirely unused (not even one pageview per week). – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Approximately 1 use a week is signficant enough to demonstrate that this is a useful redirect. It's not conflicting with any articles - almost every page beginning T: is a redirect out of the article namespace, and all but two others T:kort and T: The New York Times Style Magazine) are redirects to articles (and I'm about to nominate one of them for deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wather firearms

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Watercess Line

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–

This has been up for speedy deletion for quite some time but no action. Hence nom it for deletion. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep no ambiguity in naming. Also, CSD C1 does not apply to category redirects. --Danski454 (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The correct CAT is Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–23. --Saqib (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The history here seems to indicate some dispute about the correct category: In July Störm created Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–. Two days later Saqib created Category:Punjab MPAs 2018–23. One day after the –23 category was created, Störm redirected it to the – category. 4 days after that, Saqib reversed the redirects. Whatlinkshere does not identify any discussion about the naming. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: See Category talk:Pakistani MNAs 2018–2023. --Saqib (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 13

My cocaine

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted by RHaworth. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


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


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

China dossier

No primary topic: DrKay (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep I've just learned about the "China dossier". It was censored at the time. Thank God we know have Wikipedia to provide "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" I have aided this with an appropriate redirect. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it wasn't censored. It doesn't exist. DrKay (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google results do indeed suggest that the phrase is more commonly used to refer to topics other than the dossier relating to Wallis Simpson: she isn't mentioned in the first two pages of results for "China dossier" and results for "China dossier" + Simpson number less than a tenth of the results for "China dossier". This isn't necessarily a problem in itself – we don't need to disambiguate topics that aren't notable and aren't discussed anywhere in the encyclopaedia; most titles and search terms could plausibly refer to something of which we have no coverage – but in this case the paucity of relevant content in the target article, combined with the strong possibility that someone who searches for this is looking for something else entirely, suggests this does more harm than good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Newcastle railway station, Sydney

deletion) During 2016/2017 some Australian Transport templates like Template:Sydney Trains stations contained a bug whereby the links to previous and next station in many railway stations stations such as Caringbah railway station to Miranda railway station were created with a suffix like Miranda railway station, New South Wales or Miranda railway station, Sydney where such links would be shown in red as an error. In some cases links were also created with a , Victoria suffix. Instead of having the bug corrected, in many cases editors added redirects to resolve the problem. Now that the bug has been fixed these redirects are causing problems as the templates can not differentiate between valid and invalid redirects and hence still will at times use the invalid ones as valid ones, to create the links with an invalid suffix. Hence the templates have had statements added to ensure these redirects are not used. 158 such redirects have been identified - a further 157 links are listed below for the same reason. Ones theses are deleted the templates can be simplified hopefully without any bugs.. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

List of links
  • Comment None of the listed redirects have been tagged for RfD, this is a requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep these all seem like perfectly useful {{R from other disambiguation}} search terms - at least all the ones I checked were correct in terms of being in the right state. If they are causing problems with the template then the correct course of action is to correct the template. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The very point of the problem is that all the redirects have the wrong state information in that stations in the Sydney region should have the , Sydney suffix while the ones outside of Sydney should have , New South Wales but they are all wrong from that perspective. Hence there appears to be little purpose in keeping them as they will never be used.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
As Sydney is in New South Wales, it seems like these are all useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all with incorrect disambiguation. For example, the first one implies that Newcastle railway station is in Sydney, but it is actually in Newcastle, which is 162km away from Sydney. Keep the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete now that the template problem has been fixed. Not plausible search terms.--Grahame (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Why do you think that e.g. "Riverwood railway station, New South Wales" is not a plausible search term when Riverwood railway station is in New South Wales and the main article about Riverwood is at Riverwood, New South Wales? This is a genuine question - I honestly can't see anything implausible about it at all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • People are much more likely to search for "Riverwood railway station", where they would find what they were looking for.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
      • And it certainly would not be the case with ones with the , Sydney suffix where no one would be looking for Wyong railway station, Sydney. And to be consistent we should add all station names with a , New South Wales suffix if it is though that the ones listed with a , New South Wales suffix are to be retained, which I am certainly not suggesting.Fleet Lists (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep – I never saw the state of affairs where the templates were resulting in red links. I was originally called in to look at a case where a station was missing from a station template's list, one with a blank default case, resulting in a confusing blank result. I also never found anything other than the station template code itself that explained how they were intended to be used. By having a default that looked for disambiguated cases first (agree that parenthetical disambiguation would have been better than comma), then for the non-disambig case, the templates could cover nearly all of the stations without having to explicitly list them. Instead, it appears that people chose to make the station templates be lists, sometimes with a default and sometimes not, and - to further complicate things - people added redirects with disambiguations where they where not required.
    Since the redirects are essentially harmless as long as they point to the correct article, I don't see any strong need to delete them, even if they contain the wrong state (I think that's what Fleet Lists means by "invalid" redirects). The path by which we got to the current state had some unfortunate turns, but I believe we should let the current state persist in the absence of some proposal to fix the templates to have a consistent (and documented, please!) approach. [My proposed approach appears at User talk:Jmcgnh#New South Wales stations with suffix.] — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all "New South Wales" disambiguated stations, because they are all in New South Wales. Delete the three "Victoria" disambiguated stations, because they are not in Victoria". Weak delete the "Sydney" disambiguated stations, because they are not formally in Sydney. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, many are not really correct, and none are needed now that the problem has been fixed. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: 29 hours have passed since this nomination was created and it appears that no effort has yet been made to tag any of the redirects in question. See WP:RFD#HOWTO. (Aside from apparently being too much work to tag 158 redirects, it's also very hard to accurately reach any conclusion on their fate, which is why I'm not !voting – clearly there are some with objectively accurate descriptors after the comma, some with objectively inaccurate descriptors, and others that are more ambiguous, but I've got better things to do than try to sort through them.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done, note for closing editor, as this was not performed until 15 October, earliest closure date for the discussion should be extended by 48 hours to reflect this oversight. Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not likely search terms, many of the towns / cities in which the stations are located are hundreds of kilometres from Sydney. Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all, as long as the bug has gone away, and thank you to whoever fixed it. Will this stop them appearing on "missing articles" lists too? (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/Missing topics) If not, they have a potential to reappear as this might have been the original vector for creation. There appear to be a number of xxx railway line, Sydney articles for country branch lines in that missing topics list which are presumably "required" by the same or a related bug. There's also a few odd ones like Bourke railway station, Sydney redirects to Bourke, New South Wales, but Bourke railway station is presently a red link. --Scott Davis Talk 02:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
If these redirects are deleted, they should turn from blue to red on the "missing article" lists and should then no longer cause any problems. As long as they are here they can cause a potential problem. Some more changes are to be made to the templates but these will depend on whether these redirects are still present or not. The red links referred to are as far as we know true missing topics and not related to the bug but will be investigated during the further changes to be made. There is no article for Bourke railway station hence the redirect is to the locality name instead which is normal. I am not aware of any red links to Bourke railway station in any articles but please let me know if there are and they will be investigated.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the template is automagically linking to Bourke, New South Wales. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 03:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Thanks for fixing the bug Newystats (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The few redirects here that are both accurate and helpful, e.g. Liverpool railway station, New South Wales, are covered by synonyms such as Liverpool railway station, Sydney. Please can an expert check the few uses of {{Closed Lines stations}}? The footers of Blackalls Park railway station and Toronto railway station link to deletion candidate Fassifern railway station, Sydney but that should fix itself on deletion. Certes (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the "New South Wales" suffixes. This is a reasonable redirect - the stations are indeed in New South Wales. Delete the "Sydney", "Victoria", etc. suffixes for stations that are not in those places.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The redirects have been tagged, but some do not transclude the {{rfd}} template. (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Helensburgh, given the hatnote at the article and the fact it's the first station on the line outside the Sydney suburban area. Weak keep the "New South Wales" ones and the following plausible "Sydney" ones: Picton, Gosford, Woy Woy, Katoomba, Bargo, Point Clare, Blue Mountains railway line. Delete the others. Gareth (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bailey Company

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Glenbrook railway station (New South Wales)

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


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget per nomination. DrKay (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 12

Vegas (TV show)

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


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

White power sign

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

Willl and grace

Not a plausible typo Reyk YO! 14:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - acceptable {{redirect from miscapitalisation}}, and as such I have added the template to the redirect. While not acceptable for wikilinking, this redirect may aid in search navigation within Wikipedia and navigation to the Wikipedia article from external links. The redirect sees 100+ hits a day; it's obvious it's being used and that somebody finds it helpful. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not the lower case g in "grace" that's the problllem. Reyk YO! 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Reyk: Ahh, I see the extra "l" now. Still, someone is obviously finding this useful given the steady amount of pageviews, and it's not harming anything. Why delete something that's obviously aiding in navigation? cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cymru.lass. It's not really harming anything and it's extremely unlikely it will ever be used for another topic, so I don't see any reason to delete it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cymru.lass. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete not a stylization where the letters or punctuation marks after Will might cause confusion. Will and grace exists to cover the lower-case instance. Stats do not show 100 hits a day, more like 200 views over 3 years [8] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angus. Stats show approx 5 hits a month for three years, and this has the lowercase g and triple l, which makes it unlikely and just too many issues to bear; search will be fine. ~ Amory (utc) 14:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as highly implausible. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: recent comments show this discussion is still ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - The triple "l" makes it implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Not completely implausible, but implausible enough that I don't think it's worth keeping. If it was just the third "l", I'd lean towards "keep", but between that, the lowercase g, and also the "and" instead of "&"... Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Totally unambiguous and received almost 100 hits last year. No reason to delete. JZCL 20:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it's correct that common stylisations cannot explain the uses, it ultimately doesn't really matter why a redirect is used, just that it is used. There is no question that someone using the redirect is arriving at the correct target, it's not in the way of anything else, and we don't want an article at this title so it's harmless. As with every redirect that is both harmless and used there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


No info at target, and no other plausible redirect. Killer Moff (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see what happens to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin's Avengers, which may effect whether or not a retarget is possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Lutz Ebersdorf

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


Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close. The redirect has been converted to a disambiguation page so is no longer in RfD's scope. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Wila(1988)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 20#Tropical Storm Wila(1988)

October 8

It covers the torso and crotch

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

One Crapnificent Morning

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Kids Fattening Center

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete all as vandalism.  If you see what you consider evidence of good-faith, let me know and I'll undelete them to permit further discussion.  ---- Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Template:Delhi Daredevils former Squad

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Template:Arche at the 2014 Asian Games

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 Asian Games - Men's tournament 3rd place

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#Template:2018 Asian Games - Men's tournament 3rd place

Caillou (new media character)

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

List of exclamations by Robin

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


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


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


A while back, the list of video game emulators was a bit of a link farm/software directory, including lots of non-notable titles. Some time ago, those were removed, but we still have all of the redirects from those titles which are no longer mentioned on the page. First time with a bundled RfD. Tagging/notifying as soon as I save this — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: All pages tagged, creators notified. Is there really no way to semi-automate a bulk nomination? That took a whole lot longer than just doing a bunch of individuals would have... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are some of these are notable emulators at least enough for a redirect. Valoem talk contrib 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Abstain in regards to gnuboy. I co-programmed the emulator and later wrote its Wikipedia article before it was changed to a redirect. This all happened years ago. I was still relatively new to Wikipedia at the time, and I was neither aware of WP:COI, nor did I anticipate conflict of interest issues. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; plausible search terms for their target articles. 28bytes (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Valoem and 28bytes: I'm not sure I understand. @Valoem if you think these emulators that have been deleted/redirected or which we otherwise don't have any information about at all are notable, you are making a great case for deletion underRFD#DELETE #10. @28bytes We have redirects from the names of specific software applications to a list article that makes no mention of those specific applications. Presumably a search for any specific website should then go to lists of websites, then, regardless of whether it's covered anywhere on Wikipedia? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Targeting an emulator without its own standalone article to a list of emulators is a whole different kettle of fish from having redirects for every conceivable website. I'm not seeing anything in RFD#DELETE that would apply to these emulator redirects, and quite a few things in RFD#KEEP that would argue against deleting them (#1, 4, 5 and 7 in particular.) 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The target article contains no information on any of these, so a reader who searches for them is taken only to irrelevant information. Some are mentioned in other articles and could plausibly be retargeted, and I haven't looked in depth at the mentions for each, but the vast majority seem to be very brief mentions that are almost as unhelpful as the current target. As far as I can tell there are no attribution-related reasons for keeping any of these, for the same reasons I noted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 28#Genecyst. I also concur with Rhododendrites' second and third sentences in his comment above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is looking like a keep all vs delete all debate, so let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all that aren't mentioned at the target article. A reader searching for one of these is not going to be happy when they're presented with a list that doesn't even mention what they were looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. In at least the case that triggered a mention on my talk page (Corn, N64 Emulator), there used to be an article at the title involved before it was moved to another location (Corn (emulator)). Then that page was turned into a redirect. While it is true that there is no mention of this particular emulator, deleting the redirects would remove the article history and break a variety of long-standing internal links. This hits both of the criteria listed at WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Importantly, it was only redirected at AfD because it was, at that time, included in the list. If it were not included in the list, it would not have been redirected. Since the closing admin did not specify (and is now inactive), if you think it would've been kept, I'd urge you to recreate it. If you think it will become notable in the future, I don't think anyone would object to you copying the material in the history to your userspace. But we don't need to keep the histories of pages about subjects no longer represented anywhere on Wikipedia. Keeping the history can't be the sole purpose of a redirect (and we don't redirect things solely for that purpose -- again, it wouldn't have been if it weren't on the list). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all that aren't mentioned per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and because it's a poor reader experience. If readers search for a non-notable subject, we shouldn't redirect them to an article that doesn't even discuss their search query. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xezbeth. A red link - an honest admission that Wikipedia has no information about a topic - is not harmful. It is arguably less harmful than a false blue link which sends readers off on a wild goose chase for information that is not contained in Wikipedia. Any history that needs to be retained for WP:ATTREQ purposes could be moved out of mainspace to a subpage of Talk:List of video game emulators or somewhere. (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all until someone checks all of the redirects for copyright issues. E.g. Little John Palm and PocketGBA has both been merged into List of video game emulators. Therefore, theese two should not be deleted unless we delete "List of video game emulators" too (they could be moved, though). Probably more than just those two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talkcontribs) 10:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The merge from Little John Palm entailed adding a single row to a table; none of the substantial content in the merged article was copied across (see the last pre-merge version) so there are no attribution issues. The same is true of PocketGBA: a table row was added to the target, which contained nothing directly copied from the last version of the merged article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Anton Church

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

Vulgar language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 21#Vulgar language


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

Charm (physics)

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep. (non-admin closure)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 18#Lightworker

The herb

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 18#The herb

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