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

August 14

NC Province

These abbreviations aren't used at the target articles, and aren't used in sources referring to the targets either. There don't appear to be any other provinces with the initials NG, and only one with the initials NJ. There are dozens with initials NC or SC, but while some occasionally use those initials in an official context (e.g. NC is the license plate code for North Central Province, Sri Lanka), judging from Google only a few are actually called "NC Province" or "SC Province" in any sources, and the Wikipedia articles don't use those names at all, so they more or less fail WP:DABABBREV (see collapse box below). (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

List of things you might call "NC Province" or "SC Province" if you were really straining to commit WP:OR and invent new abbreviations




2018-19 El Niño event

Subject violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also there has been no El Nino event this year (the current status is actually neutral). ~ KN2731 {t · c} 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ball (baseball

It's missing the closing parenthesis, and I've seen redirects like these get deleted before. ToThAc (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Alabama American band

Variant of name without (). Likely not needed. Home Lander (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as it was recently created. Doing a search would already get to the (American band) as an option. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This strikes me as a plausible enough search term for the band, and not one that could refer to any other Wikipedia article. "Not needed" is, I think, an unconvincing rationale that raises more questions than it answers. I don't think redirects need to be "needed" to be worth keeping, just potentially useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts who is correct that we judge redirects on the usefulness for some purpose rather than any perceived need. In this case the redirect is a perfectly plausible and unambiguous search term that simply uses a different disambiguation format than our article title - clearly a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Why not redirect to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter or Category:WikiProject newsletters, which has a list of Wikipedia newsletters? The editor whose username is Z0 14:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Dabify per nom, and because adding hatnotes for the other newsletters to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would mess up the Signpost's nice design. This is a plausible search term, but there are obviously other targets which could be of use to someone who searches for this (let's not list all the WikiProject newsletters though, there are dozens). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Only ~10 links exist (hence the weak) but this has pointed to the current target since 2008. Shortcuts can be and are commonly ambiguous. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Arms & Hearts. Many plausible on-wiki newsletters exist, and adding hatnotes would be obviously unhelpful and unsightly. We can easily have the project-wide newsletters, and then a link to the category with the WikiProject specific ones. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Patar Knight and Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Retarget to the existing list of newsletters at Wikipedia:News that is more comprehensive than that drafted below this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      How about now? The editor whose username is Z0 13:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Good find. Since there's already a good list of newsletters, no need to maintain another one by creating a separate dab page. The Signpost is listed prominently there already. (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we write a new newsletter index or point readers to Wikipedia:News?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Pattukkottai Kalyanasundaram was never known as "Kalyanasundaranar", and there is no mention of that name in the his article. I can't find any other worthy article to redirect this to. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Western education

clearly not a good target because not all western education is secular Prisencolin (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It defently needs a different target. For example, North America has a large number of Catholic schools which are clearly not secular. This should be deleted unless a better target is found.-- (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this really does need a better target. It has several incoming links from article space, the one at Zou people says "...many neo-literates among the Zous were convinced about the power of western education and medicine, perceiving these things as synonymous with Christianity itself." which makes the secular education target clearly incorrect. The association with western medicine is present in at least one of the other links too, which gives a hint about what is meant. We have articles Traditional education and Classical education but I don't think they are quite right. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Education, a comprehensive article, the great majority of which covers modern, "Western", education. Failing that, retarget to school, the defining institution of Western education. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Two articles- I haven't got my reference books with me here in Congénies but if we are going to make a change, lets get it right. Western Education stems from the Greek tradition of Socrates, and the Roman interpretation of the need for the elite to recieve an education in the Greek manner and the plebs to recieve a training. The Western as distinct from the orthodox tradition was different, and we never mentioned the Eastern cultures of China, and South Asia on our BEd philosopy of Education course. There really is enough material to work up an FA on this.
Secular education is equally fascinating to the right sort of person. In Europe the Kings had subcontracted education of boys to the church, and with naissance of secularism there was an awareness that something was wrong. Your couldn't get tenure at UK university with out entering Holy Orders. The whole curriculum of the English public school rested on divinity, and latin and greek (a left over) so, we now enter the debate for the control of the curriculum. Material for an article there! Now we have the hidden subsidy of the church by the state through village schools. The 1944 Act was the historic compromise where religion was imposed on every school in country in return for the church handing over its assets (village church primary schools in dire physical conditions where no other school existed) and a generous financial package. Secular schools took a giant stem back! I believe that the church still holds on to all major public schools. That said it was possible to spend 4 years at a C of E College and never step foot in their chapel. We still have funding differences in austerity Nottingham between the non-church schools and the church schools. I was reminded last night about the perils of insisting your 8yr goes to a 'secular' school in protestent NINSS. Finland is secular MATTI KOTIRANTA Religion and the Secular State in Finland but Merenmies_MastersThesis_Final show illegal permeation of religion and breaches of human rights law. I have not discussed the separation of church and state in post Sarkosy France- but I can do. Without my books, I think, given attention, we have enough notability and material to do a second article.ClemRutter (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment judging from the incoming links and comments, there are multiple distinct concepts which editors of other articles are trying to reach when they invoke the phrase "Western education":
    1. Liberal education or liberal arts education
    2. The topic referred to by the links from Zou people and Lu Xun: English- or French-medium education in schools run by European expatriates or schools in the metropole, in contrast to the local traditional style of education based on systems which pre-dated contact with Europe (e.g. education for the Confucian court examination system in Vietnam). Colonial education, more or less (oh well, that's red). This would not necessarily be liberal arts education, but quite possibly limited to vocational training in bookkeeping, business correspondence, and such to meet the needs of the colonial government and business
    3. The topic referred to by the links from Education in Ethiopia and Primer with Various Instructions, which appears to me to be something like the creation of an educational system by the government, with standardisation of language, teaching practices, etc. State school and compulsory education and some other articles capture bits and pieces of that concept.
I think we'd be better off writing some sort of index or disambiguation page here, not the least to prevent it from getting occupied by an article exclusively referring to one of the above concepts to the exclusion of the others. (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13

Baek Ji Yoon

WP:XY. Potentially a typo/misspelling of multiple names (e.g. Baek Ji-hoon), but not the correct name of anyone currently discussed in English Wikipedia. (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you add a distinguish to the other options? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase

Deletion - redirect appears to have been created for unlikely title instead of using piped link on appropriate sentence. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


No mention in the target and no mention in related article Jio as well. Should be deleted. Gotitbro (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: Jio DTH TV also points to the same target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Both redirects have some content that can be merged or added to an existing article, with Jio probably being the best match. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jio as {{R from product}} DTH is some sort of direct-to-home service they are trying to launch this year. [1] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Anurag Kashyap (spelling)

A redundant redirect. Their is an article of the namesake Indian personality. But, this one doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria's. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Standard {{R to list entry}}. Not redundant: parenthetical disambiguator distinguishes him from the other person named Anurag Kashyap. Notability is not a deletion criteria for redirects. And there's no WP:XY problem here, unlike other "award winner -> competition" redirects, because the spelling bee champion hasn't done anything else that's mentioned in Wikipedia. (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or restore article per WP:EXIST saying that getting some non-local coverage for winning the National Spelling Bee is a "probably". There are in-depth interviews such as this one [2], Voice of America one with his parents [3], and he was at MIT [4] They may not be New York Times or CNN though, which went with the routine coverage. I don't think the Jeopardy! Teen Tournament is as notable to XY this, and would suggest redoing that redirect to point to the spelling bee. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore or create the article, in light of the sources pointed out by AngusWOOF, which I think are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't know whether the deleted content at Anurag Kashyap (Jeopardy and Scripps National Spelling Bee champion) is worth restoring, or whether we'd be better off starting anew, but the result is more or less the same. Failing that, keep as a plausible search term that directs the reader to some useful information. The parenthetical disambiguation means there is no risk of confusion with Anurag Kashyap. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 12

Regular Octogon

Regular octagon and Regular Octogon each redirect to Octagon#Regular_octagon, but neither Regular octogon nor Regular Octagon do. If it's plausible for the second word to be capitalized, shouldn't Regular Octagon redirect to Octagon#Regular_octagon? If octagon→octogon is a plausible misspelling, shouldn't Regular octogon redirect to Octagon#Regular_octagon? Unless both are plausible, the redirect from Regular Octogon should be deleted. However, I do not think that action should be taken without feedback from the community amount how plausible each is (although when trying to get to the page, I typed "Regular octogon" the first time). Ideally, whether or not the octagon→octogon misspelling should have a redirect and whether or not the versions where the second word is capitalized should have a redirect should be decided independently of each other, which results in four possible outcomes:

  • Neither the misspelling nor the capitalization of the second word are plausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted.
  • The misspelling is plausible, but the capitalization of the second word is implausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted, and a redirect is created at Regular octogon.
  • The the capitalization of the second word is plausible, but the misspelling is implausible: The redirect at Regular Octogon is deleted, and a redirect is created at Regular Octagon.
  • Both the misspelling and the capitalization of the second word are plausible: Redirects are created at Regular octogon and Regular Octagon, and the redirect at Regular Octogon stays.

Because the section title of the target neither uses the misspelling nor capitalizes the second word, I think that Regular octogon can be assumed to be the status quo, so the plausibility of spelling octagon correctly and lowercasing the second word do not have to be questioned or debated. I personally think that both the misspelling and the capitalization of the second word are plausible, but one opinion does not constitute consensus. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete for the somewhat weak WP:RTYPO (two or more corrections: octogon and then the caps). No media with this particular title or spelling. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF:, please also specify whether or not you think that redirects at Regular octogon or Regular Octagon should be created. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. A plausible typo and one that does no harm – it's unlikely that the reader who searches for this is looking for anything other than the content at the target. Discussing whether a redirect that doesn't currently exist ought to be created is really outside of the remit of RfD: if someone wants to create Regular octogon or Regular Octagon, they're free to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical Acclaim

Critical acclaim is a generic term. I believe the proper title for this redirect should be Critical Acclaim (song). Critical acclaim I believe is a legitimate search term for something linked to either Critic or Review but I'm not sure which. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep as I cannot find any other proper nouns called "Critical Acclaim" in Wikipedia, and the WP:DIFFCAPS is sufficient to distinguish the proper noun Critical Acclaim from the generic phrase critical acclaim. Creating critical acclaim to point to some appropriate target would help readers who use the case-insensitive search box, but retargeting title-case Critical Acclaim to that same target would be confusing to editors intending to link the song. (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per the ip above. The best target for a generic critical acclaim redirect would seem to be either critic or critique, although neither is perfect. Criticism is a poorly-written article that feels like it would be unhelpful as a starting point for someone using this search term. I'm undecided whether it would be a good redirect or not (as a point to consider, "critical acclaim" and "critically acclaimed" were both deleted at Wiktionary so we can't soft redirect there), but the capitalised version certainly is. If we do have a generic redirect then we should add a hatnote to wherever it points at Avenged Sevenfold (album). Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 11

George H. W. Bush vomiting incident

I redirected this article per discussion at Talk:Presidency of George H. W. Bush#Proposed merge with George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. The unanimous consesus there was that this was a clear case of WP:Recentism about a non-notable incident. However, some believed we should go further and delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, I am nominating it here for deletion. Please see the history for the contents of the previous redirected page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Restore article and take to AfD. This is a matter regarding what to do with the (former) article at this title, which AfD is better suited to handle. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Striking "and take to AfD" per the discovery below that the article was formerly kept at AfD. The article should simply be restored, and that should be the end of it. -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore per Tavix. RFD should not be AFD by stealth. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore article / AFD and then you can decide whether vomit is a WP:BURP / WP:FART AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore article per everybody above. RfD is not the venue to discus content matters. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to Articles for Deletion if desired. A previous AfD on this article had extensive participation and ended in a decision to keep. Consensus can change, but it would take a larger discussion than has taken place so far to demonstrate that. the wub "?!" 23:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore article per above. "RfD is not the venue to discus content matters." Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Not used. Based on a misspelling and not intuitive. Jameboy (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Jameboy (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, not needed. GiantSnowman 11:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Mary Bowes-Lion

Delete: ridiculous made-up name created by indefinitely-blocked sock puppeteer FabianCarpena (talk · contribs). Celia Homeford (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per housekeeping damage caused by banned user. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article says that the subject's name prior to her marriage was Mary Bowes-Lyon. A typo or misspelling differing by one letter, and identical in pronunciation, doesn't strike me as ridiculous, or as otherwise confusing or harmful, but rather as potentially useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arms and Hearts. "Lion" for "Lyon" is a very plausible misspelling, especially for someone who has heard the name but not seen it written. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this merely drivel from a sockpuppet or a useful, valid redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Harrisburg City Islanders

A template redirect? I don't see any reason for this. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • speedy keep. Template redirects are perfectly normal and usually harmless. This is a redirect from a move (the team it relates to changed its name) and the template has transclusions under both old and new names. As the old name for the template makes more sense on articles about seasons when the team had this name adjusting these to use the new name would not only be pointless but also slightly unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • keep per Thryduulf. Template moves happen frequently, consequently a couple of dozen template redirects get created every day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pulmonary embolism/Archive 2

Archive was originally created at this, the wrong name, which is now a redirect after the page was moved to the right name (Archive 1). See User talk:Misza13 § Talk:Pulmonary embolism. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Do not delete instead, blank the page so that it is no longer a redirect but an empty archive ready to be filled. This is what I advised at User talk:Misza13#Talk:Pulmonary embolism. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, housekeeping, since there is no second archive and we do not know if there will ever be one. This can easily be recreated with archive content when/if there is such a need. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    That was my thinking, seeing how low volume the talk page is. I wasn't aware that the archiver needed the blank page to exist, or is there something less desirable about re-creating a previously-deleted page, or is the archiver unable to do so? No argument – just trying to (re-)learn. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    "The archiver" is lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). It doesn't need a blank page, any more than it needs a nonexistent page. The point is that an empty archive page cannot remain as a redirect (if it remains as a redirect, then when archive 1 fills up and it ticks over to archive 2, you may find that archive 1 continues to grow because of the redir from arc 2), and the easiest thing for any editor to sort this out is to simply blank it out. You can add {{talkarchive}} to the otherwise-blank page if it makes you happy. I don't see why we have to have a full RFD for what is a very easy action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    Me neither. Just trying to do the "right" (not necessarily expedient) thing. It didn't seem "right" to leave an unlikely-to-be-needed page lying around, and there didn't seem to be a matching WP:CSD (should there be?). Blanking it for the moment regardless. Yes, I'm aware "expedient" has to be balanced against priority, people's limited (donated) time, and sense of accomplishment. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    I would have accepted {{db-housekeeping}} before deletion was objected to. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Korea

Could not find usage referring to the present target, most of the results I could find were partial title matches in the form of Chinese, Korea. Retargeting to Chinese Korean is a possibility. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe retarget to History of Sino-Korean relations, which has information on multiple diplomatic relationships, territories, etc. that could be considered "Chinese Korea". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete given the absence of this term in reliable printed sources, this is basically WP:OR. All GBooks hits are coincidental fragments of larger phrases like "Chinese Korea expert" (i.e. a Korea expert who is Chinese, not an expert on something called "Chinese Korea") or typos/OCR errors. (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WMF Global Ban Policy

Move without leaving a redirect to WP:WMF Global Ban Policy. There are no other redirects to meta: nor occurrences of plain {{soft redirect}} (see CAT:MSSR) within the mainspace. The redlink within the page history of User:BrillLyle can be remedied to a certain extent through the WP:SUMMARYONLY procedure. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Move per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if you feel Wikipedia:WMF Global Ban Policy should exist, simply create it yourself. There is no need to move around another redirect to do so, as I have just shown. Wbm1058 wanted the redirect to exist at its current title, not in the Wikipedia space, and had a reason for doing so ("to fix the red link at"). The rest of the nomination would be a rationale to delete, not move, the current redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Largely a wash either way. Now that it exists, a history merge would be minorly beneficial (as there is no harm in keeping the history visible but little benefit). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • No, a history merge would be more confusing. Wbm1058's reason for creating the redirect doesn't apply to the Wikipedia-space version. -- Tavix (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I don't think keeping this would be the end of the world – I'm sure it's possible that someone could search for this and find what they're looking for. But generally the reasons for avoiding cross-namespace (or cross-project) redirects outweigh the benefits, especially when they're recently created; and in this case, given that we have articles on the Wikimedia Foundation, Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) etc., the likelihood that a reader is looking for encyclopaedic content but unexpectedly finds themselves redirected away from the encyclopaedia is somewhat greater than usual. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Article space is for pointers to article content. The proper way to address a mislink in an edit summary is to make a subsequent dummy edit. (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Pointless redirect, The only time this could ever possibly happen is if your shift key fails ..... Not a known or useful typo. –Davey2010Talk 02:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Though ? and / share a key on standard American keyboards, this error has no more affinity for this subpage title than any other. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if it helps but they also share the same key on UK keyboards too, Just thought I'd put that out there, –Davey2010Talk 12:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Del?ete Not all that plausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's certainly plausible that one might hold the shift key to type "AN", then fail to release it to type the forward slash before pressing it again to type "I". I can't think of any other target this could point to or any harm done by keeping it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree the shift key has failed on me more than once but you don't create a redirect just because of your own cock up, Keeping this could set the precedent of creating more silliness (IE WP:RFD?Today or Talk:Twitter?Archive 1), One could say there's no harm deleting it either. –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Arguments about "setting a precedent" often crop up at RfD but I find them deeply unconvincing and usually unsupported by any evidence. There is no policy or guideline that suggests creating redirects on the basis of the existence of other similar redirects and it's hard to imagine any editor behaving in such a way. Redirects are created, as a rule, because someone imagines they'll be useful, not out of a desire to conform to a precedent that someone imagines has been set. I'd also argue that we do very often create redirects because of our own cock-ups, especially when we imagine that others might make similar cock-ups: this is why we have over 30,000 redirects from misspellings. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally I believe it's true - If an editor sees this sort of redirect they may think creating similiar is okay (Not saying they would but anything's a possibility), I'm having trouble finding the right words as I want to say "I do agree we do create redirects because of our cock ups" which would be contradictory to the above .... Can't really explain what I mean .... I guess I mean we shouldn't create them for these sorts of cock-ups is probably the best way to say it, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Arms & Hearts: The community generally accepts redirects for common misspellings (e.g. mixing up the "i" and "e" in words or leaving out the duplicate "n" in millennium) and it would likely not be considered unreasonable to create such redirects for every title containing them. However, the community generally rejects redirects for technical aspects (i.e. unnatural errors specific to Wikipedia conventions) of titles, see WP:RDAB for example. I suppose if one wanted to argue the error in question was acceptable for a non-technical title, e.g. /Drive, they could but it might still be deleted as uncommon. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of this, I just disagree. As far as I know these questions are covered by some essays and explanatory supplements but are not the subject of any policy or guideline, so reasonable disagreement within the parameters of WP:R#CRD is to be expected. My view is that, as Wikipedia is not paper, there's no good reason to limit ourselves to only common typos and misspellings; rather, we should consider whether a given typo or misspelling is plausible. Wikipedia editors tend to be competent, so with some rare exceptions, the fact that an editor has created a given redirect should be taken as evidence that the typo or misspelling is plausible. This isn't an argument about what redirects ought to be created, it's specifically an argument about the utility of keeping vs. deleting certain redirects that currently exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (as creator). I added this redirect when I found that I was typing it a lot due to releasing the shift key too late, or simply holding it through the name. This redirect lets it be entirely shift-key-insensitive, similar to how for letters Wikipedia search is case-insensitive (WP:An/i would work). I also added the similar WP:VP?T which should presumably share this one's fate, for what it's worth. Anyway, I use them a lot. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|they/their|😹|T/C|☮️|John 15:12|🍂 23:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:ANI goes to the same spot so you don't even have to bother with entering a slash. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am convinced by the combination of Arms & Heart's arguments and the evidence of use provided by Goldenshimmer and the statistics. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ultimately, it's a redirect to a project-facing page that is one of the most trafficked project pages. ANI is unlikely to be moved so maintenance would be minimal to non-existent. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Human face fish

Targets Koi#Human Face Fish. R to broken anchor and subject not mentioned at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. The sourced article content at Human Face Fish was merged to Koi in 2011 [5], without much if any discussion by the now-retired ClaretAsh. It was removed with this edit by Lawrencekhoo in 2012 as not being at type of koi - I can't find any associated discussion. I don't think it is likely a standalone article is justified (but I've not searched for additional sources) but a merge to Common carp might. Accordingly I think a discussion at a suitable venue (which RfD definitely isn't) with the options of keeping as a standalone article, merging (to Common carp or elsewhere) and deletion is the best way forward. The present situation of a redirect without content at the target is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The merger and redirect, and subsequent removal of the content from the target, seem reasonable to me given the very weak case for notability (or the significance required to merit a mention in another article) of a topic that amounts to an individual fish with a vaguely human-looking face that received some minor news coverage some years ago. (I don't know if we have a guideline that addresses topics like these, but the final sentence of WP:ROUTINE comes quite close.) It's not even the only such fish to have been the subject of news articles: see this carp caught in China and a shark caught in Turkey, both in 2016. Neither the fish in question nor the broader phenomena of fish that resemble humans is discussed in the target or in any other article, so the redirect is of no use to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Creator says that these refer to a Scottish legal term, but to everyone else this is incredibly confusing.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:condescendence where the Scots law term is explained. There is no content on Wikipedia relating to this that I can find (the only occurrences of the word are in lists and Singaporean contexts). Adding related content at Summons would be a useful addition to the encyclopaedia, and this should be free to be retartgetted there without further discussion if and when added, but until then Wiktionary is the best we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Condescension Is this a slightly different meaning? It should probably be expanded there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @AngusWOOF: I considered a retarget to that dab page, but the two words seem to have completely different meanings and there is nothing we could add to the dab page except a link to Wiktionary and a lot of words to note that there are now two things on the one dab page. A soft redirect at this title will be much simpler everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Wiktionary shows condescension as one of the meanings though, and as a synonym. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 10

Tim Deluxe

Tim Deluxe is not mentioned on the target page. As such, the redirect is only likely to confuse readers. History suggests that maybe he was on the magazine's list of top 100 DJs – doesn't seem a ground for redirecting him here. (I realise he has an article on the Dutch Wikipedia, but wouldn't like to replace the redirect with translated text without being sure that the translation is reasonably accurate.) — Smjg (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Unhelpful. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per the tenth point of WP:RDEL, as he looks quite likely to be notable in his own right. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target, no other suitable target found Paradoctor (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:manlet. "The Manlet" is a poem by Carroll, but the redirect is unhelpful not only because it isn't mentioned in the target but also because someone searching for "manlet" is probably more likely to be looking for a definition, which Wiktionary can provide, than for information about the poem. Note that The Manlet also points to the same target and has the same problems, but would be less suitable as a soft redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
"more likely to be looking for a definition" Yep, that's what brought me here.
Soft redirect works for me. I added the poem to the Works section, so The Manlet has been taken care of. Paradoctor (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nikki Sharma

Not mentioned in the article as either a major actress or character AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Cortez

Never heard the subject referred to as this, and could cause problems if someone else were actually called this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex Ocasio

Never heard the subject referred to as this, and could cause problems if someone else were actually called this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Alex Ocasio as confusing for there isn't a prominent subject from a Google search. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Alex Ocasio: I found one video using that name for her, and her campaign website emphasises "Ocasio" over "Cortez (in the url, page title and splash page banner), so it seems much more plausible and much less likely that anyone searching for that name is looking for someone else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination is poor: it's a combination of WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT and an assertion without evidence. If the nominator were to show that someone else is called this and explain how it would be problematic, then the argument may be persuasive. On the other hand, Arms & Hearts actually performed the required research, showing that is a valid name used to refer to the subject in question. -- Tavix (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 9

Field Music(military)

Unlikely search term / incorrect spacing. Compare with Field music (military). Senator2029 “Talk” 22:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Incorrectly generated redirect whose properly created one already exists and does the job. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB and WP:R#D8. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that this was created suggests that it's a plausible typo. To my knowledge there's no other topic to which this could possibly refer, so there's no risk of confusion and no harm done. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Edward Woodhouse

Delete. The redirect could cause confusion. Though Edward is George Woodhouse's middle name and he was known by that name when doing business, there are other Edward Woodhouses whose use of the name may be more significant, especially the professor. If the redirect is deleted, that could create space for an article about the academic. In the meantime, it's odd that the first several Google search results are about the academic, while the only wiki article is about the cricketer. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, as he went by that name in business and should have some news articles under that name, until a Edward J. Woodhouse article is created, assuming notable. Then it can be changed into either a WP:TWODABS or disambiguation page. There's also Chase Woodhouse's spouse, but not much is known about that person in that article other than he was a "professor of government" to warrant a redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's always worthwhile to avoid redirects that might cause confusion between two or more topics covered in Wikipedia articles. It's much less of a priority though, in my view, to factor in topics that aren't covered in any articles (such as the Rensselaer professor). If an article on the Rensselaer professor were to be created, or perhaps if he was to be discussed in some depth in another article, then the situation would be different; but as it stands the current target is the only person by this name in relation to whom we have any significant discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Spider-Man (1978 TV series)

Currently points to the 1977–1979 U.S. TV series The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series), but there is also a 1978 Japanese series, Spider-Man (Toei TV series), so I think this needs to be retargeted to the disambiguation page: Spider-Man (disambiguation)#Television. IOW, there are two viable targets for this redirect, so it needs to point to the disambig. page. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Retargeting to the Spider-Man (disambiguation)#Television section seems to make the most sense. Either that, retargeting to Spider-Man (Toei TV series) (as The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) would generally be called the 1977 series by the standards of other articles), or deleting the redirect altogether. Nothing links to it, so I don't think deleting would be a problem for the time being. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 15:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
It's... complicated: the backdoor pilot aired in 1977, but the "true" season #1 episodes aired as a mid-season replacement series in the spring of 1978. So Spider-Man (1978 TV series) isn't so far-fetched for this series as it might appear... Which, as I said, leads to the problem that there are two viable targets for this redirect, so pointing back to the disambig. page appears to be the best option... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Support redirect to disambiguation page. --Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Whether it should be called Toei TV series or Japanese TV series can be discussed later, as 1978 isn't a clear enough disambiguation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Palace coup

This was improperly RfD'd with no reason given. Corrected version - term not found in target and in any case a Palace Coup can be violent PRehse (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. They both appear to have the same meaning "the non-violent overthrow of a sovereign or government by senior officials within the ruling group". The editor whose username is Z0 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Most definitions I found don't talk about levels of violence though one did say usually non-violent. Will say that historically ie Roman/Byzantine the Palace Coup did not end well for the ousted.PRehse (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:palace coup. The phrase is not defined in any Wikipedia article that I can find, and the current target is unhelpful, both in the sense that palace coups can be violent, and nonviolent revolutions (as the first sentence of that article suggest) most often involve mass movements or at least people outside the narrow sphere within which palace coups occur. The reader who searches for this is probably looking for a definition of the phrase, and the Wiktionary entry provides that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:palace coup per Arms & Hearts. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak soft redirect. 'Weak' because it sounds a bit similar to Self-coup. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We should never soft redirect if a regular one makes sense. The phrase is, in fact, used at Coup d'état, and could/should be added to the #Types section. --BDD (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds like an even better idea. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to discuss the proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Add to the types of Coup d'état and redirect there, per BDD. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should be a disambiguation or set index. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and hatnote. I've done a search Special:Search/Rimes~ -leann and figured that LeAnn Rimes is the only use of "Rimes" on the English Wikipedia where "Rimes" is a proper noun. All Most of the other uses are derived from the plural of "rime" (in English and related languages), meaning either "ice coating" or "phonological rhyme". So a hatnote {{redirect|Rimes||rime}} will be sufficient. Deryck C. 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rime and add Rimes people to that dab page. LeAnn Rimes doesn't go by the mononym Rimes to claim primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC) updated 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm good with the surname article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Rime as {{r from plural}} then make whatever addition(s) necessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to a surname article: if there are articles on four people four people and one mythical poodle with this name then there's no reason to hide them away in a broader disambiguation page for a slightly different word. (Retargeting to Rime would be the second-best option though.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert to a surname article given that we've got three people with the name plus a dog, and Patrick Hanks thought it was worth its own entry in The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland [6]. Drafted below the redirect. (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Diahcasial cyme

This should be deleted. It is a misspelling of Diachasial cyme and has no links to it. I moved the original content to Diachasial cyme; a bot fixed the double redirect. I would request deletion under WP:R3 (implausible typo), but the policy says that criterion doesn't apply to redirects created as the result of a page move, and so maybe this page can't be deleted under that criterion, I don't know.... — Eru·tuon 08:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The fact that the redirect was created at this title suggests that it is fact quite a plausible implausible typo, as are redirects that differ by one letter generally. There's no risk of this causing confusion or misleading the reader, so there is no benefit to deleting it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism in India and the Sardarji joke

Unlikely search term and a sort of WP:XY. I suppose this would be an instance of Racism in India (which redirects to Ethnic relations in India), but even if a user did search this phrase, they'd probably be looking for something more specific than the type of joke. BDD (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete. The redirect was the result of page move from bad article title. In Wikipedia we do not use this type of redirects, by combining two separate topics and then redirecting somewhere. Sikhs and Sardarji joke, Hindus and Sardarji joke, Santa and Banta and Sardarji joke, Ethnic humor and Sardarji joke.... They are useless as redirects. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. There would be a good argument for keeping this if the target contained more background information on racism in India, but there isn't much such information and there's probably no grounds for adding more, so the redirect is unhelpful per WP:XY. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 8

Ariri Charles

Delete - There is no obvious reason why this title redirects to Marcin Bułka. Ariri Charles appears to be a non-notable subject, even less so than Marcin Bułka, whose article is currently PRODded. – PeeJay 22:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete This only exists because I moved the from Ariri Charles to Marcin Bułka, as the creator appeared to have created the page under the wrong name, as the article was about Marcin Bułka.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#DELETE #5: "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF. Apples to Oranges. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Endowment ceremon

Highly doubtful misspelling. Naraht (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Typos or misspellings that differ from the correct spelling by only one letter are not implausible and do no harm to the encyclopaedia. "Ceremon" doesn't seem to be a word in any language, so there's no risk that this might cause any confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia searches don't have a character limit this low to think this is a common typo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

List of notable goaltenders (ice hockey)

No such lists (nonexistent sections), and it's hard for me to see how we could have any without being entirely subjective, or actually trying to list all ice hockey players of a given position in a single article. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The following also exist, which you might want to list here too: List of notable wingers (ice hockey), List of notable centres (ice hockey), List of notable defencemen (ice hockey). Endymion.12 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Good catch! Added (and nomination statement amended). --BDD (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sympathetic to the deletion argument, but category redirects are at least worth discussing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sympathetic for category redirects from common terms, but I don't believe these redirects to be likely search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

List of racist attack on Africans in India

Misspelled, and subject is not discussed at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hard to be non-neutral about this unless this is a significant section mentioned in the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not finding such content anywhere. Demographics of India mentions Africans in some other context; Afro-Asians in South Asia mentions the slave trade, but not incidents of racist attacks, much less a list of them. --BDD (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Abu Ivanka

Previous RfD ended up closing as no consensus. I don't think much has changed since then, while it has received media coverage, that coverage stopped within 2-3 days and thus does not pass WP:10YT and isn't worth mentioning anywhere else per WP:WEIGHT, hence it's best to delete it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete – This was mostly used for trolling Trump about his "rooster fart" missile strike or his purported subservience to the Saudi regime ("Bow before the power of oil", "Sheikh Abu Ivanka Donald bin Trump Al-Amriki, the real spiritual leader of Wahhabeast, Wahhabism and Ahle Saud"). You can see that by searching Twitter posts for "Abu Ivanka". (can't link direct search URL due to blacklist) — JFG talk 09:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as yet another neologism. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Abu" means "father", right? If so, this would be an irrelevant WP:FORRED as well. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oplan Double Barrel

Title not mentioned at target. I know that these two subjects are related, but I'm not sure in what way. I read it was a police program to target high-level drug personalities ([7]) but I am not sure if it is the same exact thing as the drug war.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I see some news articles about it and Oplan Tokhang. [8] So if these refer to the same thing as the article, then it is legit. There aren't any other operations of the same name that would require a MOS:DABMENTION AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The name was mentioned in the lede at the time the redirect was created (as was Oplan Tokhang – should this be added to the nomination?) but removed a few days later by Hariboneagle927, who noted that "Oplan Tokhang and Oplan Double Barrel (along with the anti-drugs campaign in prisons by another name) is just part of the larger campaign against drugs". There are lots of sources discussing both names in reference to the target, so we ought to be able to find a way to define both in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 7

Ugat Foundation

circumventing a removal The Banner talk 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Passes WP:R#K3, WP:R#K5, and WP:R#K7 . The nominator should note that, per community consensus, content removed under WP:G11 may be recreated if WP:PROMO issues are resolved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per community consensus, mentioned above. Jzsj (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • keep. The speedy deletion of an article (as this was) will rarely be a reason for the deletion of a redirect at the same title, unless there are problems with the redirect as a redirect. No such issues have been identified here so the nominator has failed to advance a reason why this should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, not discussed in the target article. Someone searching using this term will not be helped by where they end up. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. Everything Thryduulf says is of course correct, and the nominator could have provided a better and clearer rationale, but aside from the procedural issues this is unhelpful to the reader as long as the foundation is not mentioned in the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Refine to Ateneo de Manila University#Social initiatives and add a brief mention there where I have added a brief mention. Unlike other similar nominations below, this organisation is mentioned a few times in reliable secondary sources, e.g. [9][10]. Also the target is a single university, so adding content about this organisation there doesn't really cause a WP:WEIGHT problem. (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WWE Revolution

The "WWE Evolution" is not a revolution, but an evolution. LAX5150 moved the article, and the move has since been reverted. "Revolution" is an unlikely typo. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jesuit Social Center Osaka

Non-sensical redirect The Banner talk 16:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to provide a valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, should be retained per WP:R#K5. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • You have given no reasoning why you try to circumvent a removal by creating a redirect to a rather random subject. The Banner talk 18:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Articles removed under WP:G11 can be recreated if WP:PROMO issues are resolved. In this case, I feel that a non-notable instrumentality of a religious organisation should redirect to the religious organisation. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Comment please see WP:RPURPOSE: Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. Catholic Church in Japan doesn't describe this subtopic, and shouldn't: that article is an overview of a whole religion in a country of 120 million people and is far too high-level to add information about one non-notable organisation in one city. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to add something at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Osaka, and I'd be reluctant to endorse a retarget there without knowing exactly what we can add. Searches on "大阪イエズス会社会司牧センター" or "Jesuit Social Center Osaka" yield no reliable secondary sources. (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, not mentioned at the target article, so someone using this term will not be helped by where they end up. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Crayola colors

This is an {{R from move}} from 2009. It originally pointed to Lists of Crayola colors, but I just closed that article's AfD as delete so I pointed it to List of Crayola crayon colors to be somewhat useful, but especially since there's no mainspace usage, figured I should put it up for discussion. I'm a weak keep on the premise that it's a possibly useful nine year old redirect to (after a rash of AfDs) the only related content we have. ~ Amory (utc) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Based on google results, crayon colours are by far the primary topic for "crayola colours" -wikipedia and similar search terms - that we don't have any other competing targets just makes our life easier. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's It

Should be retargeted to That's It! Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate I found some other albums and songs to add to that list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
That settles it, definitely a viable and mid-length dab page now In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
That means the result shall be remove redirect. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Denim (color)

Should be redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors after information about the color was removed from the Indigo article Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • CommentDenim is not a color, it's a textile, however in the List of Crayola crayon colors there are a couple of sources that Denim color is a Crayola thing. On the other hand, to support that claim both references (this and this) are deadlinks. Are there better sources that can still support it? --1l2l3k (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Violet-blue (color)

Should be redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors after information about the color was removed from the Indigo article Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Calms

It is ambiguous, can refer to many things B dash (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nomination, needs to be deleted, it is misleading, and not a useful redirect. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as "The Calms" are indeed related to the target. and there is no competing target at Calm (disambiguation) or which I can locate in Special:Search/"Calms". The capitalisation and inclusion of "The" clearly indicates a proper noun phenomenon, rather than the generic word "calms". (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only competing use I can find is related to being in the lee of a mountainous island, especially the Canary Islands, but this is not routinely capitalised and I can't find any content about this on Wikipedia - the only place to include both "The calms" (uncapitalised) and "Canary Islands" is a comment at Talk:First Fleet and there they are in different paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


It is ambiguous, can refer to many things B dash (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment can refer to many things The only competing target at calm (disambiguation) is calmness. Nothing else there can take -s as a suffix. (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. per the IP as "calms" isn't a good search term for "calmness" but it absolutely is for the ITCZ. There is a frequently used acronym in the field of DevOps but we don't have any content about it that I can find and I'm not immediately convinced of its notability or encyclopaedic relevance anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Improbable redirect target. Delete and salt (because memecrufters will just recreate if it isn't salted). Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep: "Ligma" and "Ligma VIP" are songs by the target, and redirects from non-notable songs to their artists is standard. The two vandalisms so far were the accounts' only edits and that can be deterred by semi-protection. 93 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per 93. We have around 25,000 redirects from songs because song titles are often plausible search terms even when the song is not notable in itself. The only other mentions of "ligma" or "LIGMA" in the encyclopaedia are at LGBT rights in Croatia#Post-communist era, which could be worthy of a hatnote at the target, and Ninja (streamer)#Ligma death hoax, which probably would not be. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Arms & Hearts' findings. I think the other mentions are at least as noteworthy as the song and they all pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think it's worth discussing the merits of a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. The recent meme, in my opinion, has been more covered than the song. Users are probably looking for the death hoax more. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguare. I got a Draft:Ligma (meme) about this topic of meme and this should not be redirected to the song. Superabnoxious (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


I don't know what this means if it means anything at all, it is one letter off "Zhinanzhen" (指南針), which means "compass", and by the way, redirects to Compass (band), (not sure if it is appropriate). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete it's a possible typo, but I don't see any news articles misspelling Zhinanzhen so it's better for searchers to just get the right version from typing Zhinanz... Alternatively redirect to there. Only 38 views since 2015, including ones for this RFD, compare with the band's 366 views. [11] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Compass (band), as a plausible misspelling of the romanised Chinese (Pinyin?) spelling of their name. "Zh" is an uncommon digraph in English, so it's reasonable enough to expect that someone might mistakenly type it as "z"; and to my knowledge there's no other possible target (retargeting to Compass would of course run counter to WP:FORRED). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. While some Mandarin dialects (and some non-native users of Mandarin) do merge zh- and z-, this is done irregularly in this redirect title. With recent improvements to Wikipedia's search engine I'm increasingly inclined to think that haphazard typo redirects like this shouldn't be retained. Deryck C. 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 6

Alabama American band

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 14#Alabama American band

Dirty Words (Rock band)

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

Cinnamon stix

This strikes me as a useless redirect. Some of you are experts on the subject matter--please have a look at the user's other creations, including Taking a poop. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as recently created. There are multiple products that use the "Stix" name, but do not refer to the Cinnamon sticks themselves. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sexual gatekeepers

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

This Week (BBC News TV series)

This redirect targets Reporters (TV series), but that article makes no mention of "This Week" being an alternate title for this TV program. In addition, This Week (BBC TV series) also exists, and that would seem to be the "correct" target for this redirect. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Outstanding Male

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

Lu Kaidan

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

Shadow Slasher

This page was closed at AfD as delete, not redirect. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article was deleted, and all content was deleted with it. The redirect points to the content in the list page. Nothing on the AFD proscribed that there could not be a redirect pointing to the list page. BOZ (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment My Google results for "Shadow Slasher" are mostly about one model of Honda Shadow (not sure this is a nickname or official name or what; it's not currently mentioned in our article). There is also a TV show episode by this name. (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    It could be moved to Shadow Slasher (comics) if there is a disambiguation issue. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    Disambiguate or delete I'd prefer letting the search engine handle these kinds of "nothing but tiny WP:DABMENTIONs" situations, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, this should be a disambiguation page. I've added sourced content about the motorcycle at Honda Shadow#VT400 replica (it was already covered in the Japanese article). Given that the motorcycle predominates in search results, the comics character only appeared in three episodes, and the Google News results are mostly about neither the motorcycle nor the character, I seriously doubt that there's a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here. (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per BOZ. There's sourced content relating to the character in the target, so deleting the redirect would be an unnecessary hindrance to the reader. It's curious that Google mostly turns up content about the motorcycle, but so long as the name isn't mentioned in the Honda Shadow article there's no need for a hatnote. I think we can similarly forgo a hatnote for the Garo: The Animation episode. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Etzedek24. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    For the record, there was content on the list page for the redirect to point to until it was removed just now by the above editor. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    The content shouldn't have been there, though. The consensus was to delete the article, not to put the information on the list page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    The two things are not mutually exclusive. Consensus to delete an article on a given topic is not consensus to never include any information on that topic in any other article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    I realize that deleting an article doesn't mean the information can't be included anywhere, but merging the information to the list page in this manner was rejected during the discussion. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    If there is an issue with including that character on that list, I am more than happy to compromise with a retarget if you can think of an article to which you would be more comfortable with moving the text you removed. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Namenamenamenamename: Merging the information was rejected by one editor. One other editor who participated in the discussion supported a merge, and three others (including yourself) offered no opinion. There was very clearly no consensus against merging. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    Voting to delete instead of to merge is offering an opinion. Merging isn't the same as deleting an article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    To paraphrase the point I made above (11:28, 8 August), a !vote to delete an article on a given topic is not a !vote to never include any information on that topic in any other article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's worth noting that (at least according to Marvel Wikia) this character has only appeared in three issues. The list pages shouldn't be that extensive. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 4

Toast to Our Differences

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close. The nomination has been withdrawn as not an RfD matter. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Allopathic and osteopathic medicine

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

Sambalpuri dictionary

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 14#Wikipedia:Newsletter

Captain Omen

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget to List of Hulk supporting characters#Villains. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


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