Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

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

When should we delete a redirect?

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deleting

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

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

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Current list

July 23

July 22

Sound Credit Union

Apparently moved from a mis-name - currently links to an unrelated Credit Union PRehse (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Willis

Person of minimal independent notability, whose existence as a redirect to the organization she was president of is actually standing in the way of a more notable person (see Atlanta blues) with a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. I'm also willing to support moving this to a disambiguated version if somebody can show a substantive reason why retaining a redirect would be worthwhile, but the undabbed name should be left for the musician. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Hazardous air pollutants

Cross-namespace redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:R2. Cross-namespace redirects states:This applies to Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete BHG is correct, cross-namespace redirects like this are typically deleted, per WP:R#DELETE. BJB, you are referring to the CSD criterion R2, which is not being invoked here and is not relevant. If CHG had made a CSD tagging to the page, you'd have a point. She didn't, she nominated it for discussion here in line with policy on redirects. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Climate forcing agents

Cross-namespace redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:R2. Cross-namespace redirects states:This applies to Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete BHG is correct, cross-namespace redirects like this are typically deleted, per WP:R#DELETE. BJB, you are referring to the CSD criterion R2, which is not being invoked here and is not relevant. If CHG had made a CSD tagging to the page, you'd have a point. She didn't, she nominated it for discussion here in line with policy on redirects. EdChem (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Virginia shooting

This redirect is vague, the Virginia Tech shooting isn't the only notable Virginia shooting. I found some examples in Category:Murder in Virginia. A few states do have a list, such as List of shootings in Colorado, but I was unable to find one for Virginia. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there similar pages for other states, though, I wonder? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What would the disambiguation page look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


Target makes no mention of the subject. Trackstarz is a music magazine as well as an artist on Soundcloud who has done covers of many Bruno Mars songs; hence I recommend deletion. — Quasar G. 10:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Trackstarz entered the UK Singles Chart with a pre-release cover version of Grenade. I'm not voting keep until I can confirm this, but I'm leaning to keep.--Launchballer 12:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Trackstarz went to #56 on the UK Singles Chart, it's a perfectly valid search term.--Launchballer 16:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment @Launchballer: despite that, the redirect is still confusing for readers as it could refer to multiple subjects, and the artist is not mentioned at Grenade (song). — Quasar G. 23:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Only one subject with this name meets our notability guidelines. Trackstarz not being mentioned at Grenade (song) is easily fixed.--Launchballer 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Lego online game

Delete, could point to various thing, withunder Lego Minifigures Online, not useful this way. Lordtobi () 14:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Disambiguation pages - can you find any valid targets other than Lego Universe and Lego Minifigures Online? Of the top 6 you've listed, only one needs to be kept, since Wikipedia will handle the alternative capitalizations automatically. For the seventh one, I suggest moving to Lego MMOG. For the last one, Lego Worlds also seems like a valid target, and I'm not familiar enough with the games to comment on whether some of the action-adventure games would be too. = Richard Cavell (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep some for Dabify I see a Legends of Chima as a former MMO as well. Suggest dabify / set index. I would Keep Lego mmo (this is what would show up in main typing), Lego MMO, LEGO MMO, and Lego online game. Remove the other ones as distracting, especially on the Wikipedia app. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Lego video games. There's no need to create and maintain a separate disambiguation page when you've already got a list that contains all the information necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't retargeting to List of Lego video games be confusing as that articles doesn't seem to make any mention of MMOs? – Uanfala 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

2016 MVP Cup

The 2016 edition never commenced (not even planned) so no sense of having an event that never happened as a redirect. Babymissfortune 08:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

عيشي بلاد

Delete - Typo -- (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - a typo of a foreign language term. This makes it a very unlikely search term, rendering it useless. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see how this is a useful search term on the English Wikipedia. Apparently a typo. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:480p HD games

Delete - Wrong redirect -- (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

July 21

Ist of wikis

Not helpful typo of List AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ist of educational institutions in Kerala

This isn't helpful to have aliases for typos of List AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ist of shippuden episodes

typo of List, not helpful. List of shippuden episodes already exists AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of the Wars of the Arab Winter: Iraq

Implausible search terms that read more like a book titles than Wikipedia articles. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Pppery 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Band - Linkin Park

I don't think anyone would type this. feminist 14:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not a search format to use. No such organization called Band-Linkin Park AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as wrong modifier format, unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Linkn Paark

Two typos. feminist 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 20

Saraiki history

Vague term that could easily refer to several topics, neither of which is currently covered on wikipeda: the history of the language/dialect (current target), the history of the region (Saraikistan), the history of either the loose ethno-linguistic grouping that is nowadays the primary topic for the term Saraiki people, or the group of mainly Baloch tribes that were historically the primary bearers of that name. – Uanfala 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pings to users who've edited the redirect: Narutolovehinata5, Irfan sanwal saraiki. – Uanfala 10:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had forgotten to tag the redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 13:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Saraiki people. Even though Saraiki has more options as a dab page, they seem to refer to the same group of people. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC) updated 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Saraiki might be more useful. Wouldn't have to guess which Saraiki would it refer to. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Either delete or retarget to Saraiki. The article on Saraiki dialect has a bit more "history" than Saraiki people does, but there really isn't a lot there. If not deletion, the only other logical action seems to be a retarget to the disambiguation page as it's ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to set index at Saraiki. They're clearly various facets of the same people group. Deryck C. 15:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Saraiki. Best of the available targets. WJBscribe (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)

Cyclobothra elegans is a possible synonym for 2 cases: Calochortus coeruleus and Calochortus elegans. Cyclobothra elegans should therefore be retargeted redirect to the first with a redirect-distinguish hatnote to the second. Disambiguation is not required per WP:2DABS, and Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) should be deleted. (Neither should redirect to C. elegans (disambiguation) which has dozens of entries and in this case impedes navigation rather than assists it). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Either would be fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation). Retarget Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. It's not "either would be fine" nor is it just matching the page that has elegans in the title. Cyclobothra elegans (Pursh) Benth. was published more than twenty years before Cyclobothra elegans Torr. (see dates here). Per the Principle of Priority, the name published by Torrey can not be used as a scientific name. In the extremely unlikely event that somebody is looking for Torrey's name, a hatnote will suffice. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Cyclobothra elegans is an illegitimate name for Calochortus elegans, but it's been in the literature since 1857. What is Wikipedia's position on these things? Does Wikipedia include illegitimate synonyms because they are in the literature, or get rid of them because they are illegitimate? - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There isn't any position on that, as far as I know. Redirects for synonyms are OK, but aren't usually (in the big picture) created. When synonym redirects are created, they often include illegitimate names. I don't think I've seen anything deleted on the grounds of being illegitimate (but a redirect might get retargeted on priority grounds). Plantdrew (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. If the Plandrew's reasoning for why one of the targets is correct but the other is not is correct, that seems too complicated for a layperson to understand, especially if both have been in use, notwithstanding any principle of priority. Redirecting readers to one or the other seems unhelpful with context that a DAB could briefly provide, which seems like a good reason to not follow 2DABS strictly in this case.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate = Refine to C. elegans (disambiguation)#Order Liliales per Patar knight. Even though the principle of priority exists, neither species is most commonly referred to as cyclobothra elegans, so I agree with Patar knight that the naming situation is sufficiently nuanced to merit disambiguation. Deryck C. 17:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete/Retarget per Plantdrew. I trust the expert on this, and his explanation makes sense to me. Additionally, it's concise enough to include in a hatnote so laypeople can understand if need be. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Plantdew's suggestion to delete Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) and retarget Cyclobothra elegans to Calochortus elegans with a hatnote. olderwiser 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't see much of a difference whether the disambiguation is carried out with hatnotes or by a separate dab page, but I'd follow Tavix in opting to support the choice of our plant redirects expert. – Uanfala 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 9#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles was closed as:

Endorse deletion without prejudice to further discussion at RfD

Cunard (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete in line with previous discussion. Deb (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Deb: Note that the previous discussion deleted them because they were cross-namespace (article → Wikipedia), the new redirects are not cross-namespace so "per previous discussion" is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I understand what you mean, but I feel this discussion is a bit of a backdoor way of getting what the creator wanted (not that I doubt Cunard's motives). Deb (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality (where the current target is transcluded from) as this is an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic and there are no competing encyclopaedic uses I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Somewhat dubious. I'm not out-and-out opposed to this redirecting within the article space, but how likely is it that someone typing in "Good articles" wants to go to the section of the English Wikipedia article on article assessment? A secondary concern is that I think that the English Wikipedia article is massively self-indulgent, but I could probably look past that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC).
    • Delete, after thinking on this for a couple of days, I don't see that these meet any of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. "Good article" is a term of art that is not widely used outside of this project, and I don't see that anyone who didn't already know about our good article programme would type it in expecting to get a section on Wikipedia quality assessments. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Weak Delete. As I mentioned in the DRV, this does solve the original problem of cross-namespace redirects, but upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that it solves it in the wrong way. We should not be excessively introspective. Obviously, we should have some articles about ourselves; i.e. nobody is going to suggest that Wikipedia be deleted. But, the term Good Article, as used in this context, is really a wikipedia term of art, and as such, should be discussed in wiki-space. As I mentioned in the DRV, WP:Navel-gazing talks about this. Putting it another way, if WP:X redirects to Y, the problem is not that X is in wikispace; the problem is that Y is in mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and Retarget as per Thryduulf. While this is a term of art on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is large enough and significant enough that its major terms of art are somewhat notable -- enough for a redir, in any case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, but I have no strong feelings one way or another. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - After failed re-creations, somewhat unresponsive and inactive admins, multi-page deletion review, and another reincarnation, I think deleting all of the pages again would be less and less productive. If deleted, one or more of the pages can be re-created over and over. No opinion on which to target as long as all of them are retained as redirect pages to whatever target it is, mainspace or cross-namespace. However, due to WP:R#DELETE, one of which normally discourages cross-namespace targets, I guess we are left with nothing but mainspace as a chosen target. Whatever the target is, I would be pleased if all of them are "kept as is". However, I'm convinced by others that the current target may not be the best target possible. Even when not the best, not being the "best" target is not a good reason to delete them all. We can't violate WP:CRYSTAL by moving to a nonexistent topic or an article that doesn't mention "good article(s)", but we can predict that someday a movie studio can create a film called Good Articles... maybe someday. Nothing wrong with redirecting the pages to their one current target; let's treat it as stopgap until something else happens. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • keep as proposed by Thryduulf Contra Lankiveil I suspect someone typing this in _is_ looking for our good articles (either WP:GA or WP:FA or some other notion of what a good article is on Wikipedia). As such, it seems like a reasonable redirect. (so basically per DES) Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way because this term as an encyclopedic topic exclusively refers to the class of Wikipedia articles. feminist 16:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. These redirects have between them several hundred incoming links from talk pages, and the intended target for most of them is probably WP:Good articles. I don't think this target is in anyway "bad" for the general reader as it provides enough context for them to know their whereabouts, and it also contains more relevant content than is found at the proposed article target. If the redirects absolutely must stay within article namespace then at least a hatnote should be added. – Uanfala 22:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, given that nothing has so far been presented that could suggest that it's a bad idea to retarget to Wikipedia:Good articles, I see no reason not to. – Uanfala 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all of them to Wikipedia:Good articles. This is useful for the reader who wants to find articles that are good, whether they mean ranked as GA via the current assessment system, or whether they mean articles that are better than average. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, but add a redirect hatnote for that section per Nyttend. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Wikipedia:Good articles. Assuming we accept that the reader is overwhelmingly likely to want to know about "good articles on Wikipedia", it makes more sense to have an XNR pointing them to the actual list of good articles, rather than an abstracted encyclopedic description of the good article process. Deryck C. 14:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Good articles" is not a term unique to Wikipedia, so the redirects are not currently appropriate. Oppose retargeting either: (i) to another Wikipedia-centric article; or (ii) in a manner that creates cross-namespaces redirects. WJBscribe (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeti Trunk

Delete: Yeti Trunk developed two games published by Chucklefish, but is not related to the company, and there is no information on it at target. Lordtobi () 07:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


unused, implausible, needlessly confusing FASTILY 05:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New Yorke

Delete this as unlikely misspelling; New-Yorke (with hyphen) was redirected to HP Saturn#New-Yorke per discussion — JFG talk 01:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think New Yorke is a likely misspelling for New-Yorke, and I would prefer to keep it but redirect it to HP Saturn#New-Yorke. Tea2min (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete New-Yorke too. An entirely unnotable printer, which never even made it to production. Since neither of these two redirects pointed to the HP page until the past couple of days, I don't think they're at all necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this point, I added New-Yorke to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, Tea2min, I hadn't noticed that one. Actually, "HP New-Yorke" makes perfect sense as a likely search term for this admittedly obscure HP product; does no harm at that title. Knowing this, I would now move to delete both "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke". — JFG talk 15:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not! It would be mindless to destroy carefully constructed and established infrastructure elsewhere not interfering with the restructuring of the New York disambiguation page at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep.
    • "New-Yorke" should redirect to HP Saturn#New-Yorke, because that's the proper target for it. The HP community would fiercefully disagree with a characterization of that processor (not printer #-|) as "obscure", it is well documented in the literature...
    • "New Yorke" should be considered a spelling variant of "New-Yorke" and thus be redirected to HP Saturn#New-Yorke as well.
    • However, since "New York" is such an important term and "New Yorke" could also be a misspelling of "New York", the HP Saturn article should have a hatnote pointing to New York (disambiguation).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is

Retarget all to Wikipedia:Introduction#What is Wikipedia?, the target of Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia. (So, for Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia, I recommend "keep"-ing it as is. Either way, all of these redirect's should probably target the same target.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is appropriate: they should be the same, and should go to something more introductory following the principle of least astonishment. I created one of those, not knowing of the others. In any case the introduction points to About Wikipedia for more, which points to Wikipedia:Five pillars in the second paragraph. ··gracefool 💬 03:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all per nom. — JFG talk 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19


Surprisingly, this redirect is a WP:FORRED. This redirect is in French and not used in English text. In addition, this redirect could be confused with subjects which start with or contain the phrases "superproductive" or "superproducer". Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or Dabify and add wiktionary, seems to refer to the term blockbuster in French cinema, [1] which the article covers a big-budget film production. [2] [3] However, I'm also seeing superproduction (Super Production) used to refer to a type of Rally racing car class, although that section has not been written up or made specific so that could be a hatnote. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC) updated 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Usage attested in French since the 1950s. Not sure there is any other legit use of the term in English, so no dab unless something else is sourced. — JFG talk 22:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sinceros song

The way I'm reading this redirect, it would refer to a song named Sinceros. Failing to see one, I think the best course of action would be deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. For most of its history this targeted 2nd Debut, an album by the Sinceros, which was plainly misleading, and not simply silly, as it is now. – Uanfala 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and we don't have "(artist) song" searches. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Finance Park

There are plenty of places, organizations, and programs that utilize "finance park." Seems like an unnecessary redirect. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 03:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After searching for "finance park" on Google, it does seem like two or three other establishments use the term. Perhaps a disambiguation page could be created? –Matthew - (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Then I would recommend making the disamb. page if you want, but I think a general term like Finance Park should just lead to a search result. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 04:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Junior Achievement I'm seeing a huge number of the searches go to Junior Achievement's Finance Park program. This term is too generic to be trademarked by a middle school in Florida whereas JA Finance Park is trademarked. [4] [5]. Add hatnote to Business park Consider creating Finance Park (Stavros Institute) as it seems to be notable locally [6] and an R from product. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget etc per AngusWOOF, plus redirect-distinguish hatnote at Junior Achievement to point to Stavros Institute. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern Insurance Comapny of New York v. Chatham County

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Calkain Comapnies, Inc.

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete, non-essential redirect. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete legacy of 8-year-old spelling mistake. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. user can type Calkain which goes to the same article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Channels owned by Walt Disney Comapny India

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete legacy of 6-year-old spelling mistake. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's also unlikely cap of Channels. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

New Dance Group Comapny

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary misspelling (and no evidence in article of NDG being known by this name anyway). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comapny of Watermen and Lightermen

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary. Not sure why User:Chris j wood created it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - nor am I - I was obviously fixing a misspelled link in another article - but why I created the redir before correcting the spelling eludes me -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Arazi (comapny)

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Snow delete... should have been moved without redirect, but yes. Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fox Broadcasting Comapny

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 18#Comapny. feminist 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Would Women in firefighting be a more suitable target? feminist 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No. A "firefighter; fireman; firewoman" is a person in a very specific job; a dispatcher, mechanic, personell supervior, &cet, &cet, ad naus who works for a fire department, a supplier of firefighting equipment, a fire marshall's office, &cet. is also "in firefighting" to a greater or lesser degree. Anmccaff (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Good question, and yet Anmccaff makes a good point about broader usage. A firewoman, -man or -person is a "firefighter" and is an important part of, but not the whole of, women in firefighting.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be worth looking at renaming Women in firefighting, also. 19:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Keep as is Not a common term in the Western US, but I like the target of the redirect just fine. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New-York (disambiguation)

Ditto. The correctly-spelled dab page New York (disambiguation) was moved to New York; we are cleaning up useless links. The misspelling of this title is addressed at New-YorkJFG talk 13:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The reason why these three redirects with "(disambiguation)" appendage were created was that all incoming redirects to a disambiguation page should have a "shadow" redirect including the "(disambiguation)" qualifier as well - at least this is how I understood the system so far. The rationale for this is that some hatnote templates automatically append "(disambiguation)" to parameters when creating links to disambiguation pages.
To put it in other words, if we have a redirect like "New-York" to a disambiguation page like "New York", we also need a redirect named "New-York (disambiguation)". In a perfect world, the latter would point to "New-York" in order to make things easier would "New-York" be changed to point elsewhere or changed into an article later on, but since double redirects are avoided for technical reasons, we have no other option than to point it to the target of the "New-York" redirect instead, that is "New York". Basically, the redirect "New-York" can be thought of as being a disambiguation page in disguise.
If this rational still holds true, the nominated redirect should be kept, otherwise it can be deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good point. This would be justified if we had incoming links to the misspelled dab title New-York (disambiguation), but we don't (and rightly so): the only pages that link there are this RfD and lists of RfDs[7]. Safely delete, and keep just the misspelled New-York. — JFG talk 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Example. Things are easier to explain using examples: We have an article about the HP Saturn microprocessor family. One of the processors has a codename "New-Yorke" (no typo), because it is the successor of another processor codenamed "Yorke" (names derived from York (slave)). So, we could argue that the "New-Yorke" redirect should point to this page. If so, we'd probably add a hatnote using the {{redir}} template. Using the syntax {{redir|New-Yorke}} this hatnote would display:
"New-Yorke" redirects here. For other uses, see New-Yorke (disambiguation).
That is, it would automatically point to "New-Yorke (disambiguation)", not "New York (disambiguation)" or "New York".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh now I see why we have "New-Yorke" and not "New-Yorki" or "New-Yorku": it's not a misspelling, it's the HP processor! Let's redirect there, case closed. No other use, no hatnote. — JFG talk 23:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done, and pushed New Yorke for deletion as unlikely misspelling. — JFG talk 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was just an example because it nicely illustrated the rationale behind the generic principle for using those "(disambiguation)" appendages. Of course, I thought of your suggested solution as well when I created those redirects originally. However, there were two reasons why I decided against it eventually:
1) Given that "New Yorke" could well be a spelling variant of / typo for "New York", the hatnote on the "HP Saturn" page would still be needed, in particular because "New York" in general is much more important than this processor.
2) Since people may not know the proper spelling of the processor's codename, many would arrive at the "New York" disambiguation page (where we should have an entry for "HP New-Yorke". If so, "New-Yorke" would have to redirect to the disambiguation page "New York" as we typically do for such minor spelling variants.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the HP New-Yorke redirect, I believe that's the best title for this, and we should remove the bare "New Yorke" and "New-Yorke". In my opinion the processor wouldn't fit in the New York dab page because it's a WP:PTM and because it was never even produced or marketed under that name. — JFG talk 15:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

New-Yorke (disambiguation)

Ditto — JFG talk 13:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New Yorke (disambiguation)

Useless and confusing: we already have New Yorke pointing to the real dab page New YorkJFG talk 13:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Same Icelandic, without accents. WP:RFOREIGN again. — JFG talk 13:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


This is Icelandic: delete per WP:RFOREIGNJFG talk 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Jewish progressivism

Implausible, misleading redirect; unrelated to article. Please delete. AddMore-III (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just tried to correct a submission - I have no idea whether this is justified or not.PRehse (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

43rd Pesident of the United States

Barely a likely typo. --Nevéselbert 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - too obscure of a typo. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agreed. I can't believe I created that. Though it was my pre-ban self. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Typing "43rd P" will show the correct term in the search. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Not sure as to whether a disambiguation is needed. I think we all know what this could be a misspelling of. --Nevéselbert 10:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's fine as a redirect to the airport, just like FUK. The misspelling of "Fuck" was added in 2010 and promptly reverted. — JFG talk 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Add a hatnote at the airport article if you want, though I would disagree with that. feminist 15:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. The mis-spelt obscenity is at least as likely to be the intended meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete (to reveal search results) or disambiguate as in addition to the airport there's at least one person with that name: Fuk Li. Given that the airport doesn't show up at the top of the search results, I'd imagine disambiguating to be the better solution. – Uanfala 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep no mononyms or organization acronyms that override the airport code. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. No policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

2010 general election (2010)

Pointless and redundant disambiguation. --Nevéselbert 10:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blair–Brown government

A bizarre redirect, Blair was irrefutably the dominant figure of his ministry for ten years. --Nevéselbert 10:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nineteenth century Britain

The 19th century did not begin with the reign of Queen Victoria in 1837. --Nevéselbert 10:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Not exactly, but Victorian and 1800s are a pretty close match, as Victoria dies in 1901. Historians sometimes use inexact definition for historical eras, such as the "long 19th century" which extends from 1789 (French revolution) to 1914 (World War 1). I'm not so sure whether to keep this as is, but this probaby is closer to what readers are looking for than anything else we have. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Greater Britain

Easily a term confused for Great Britain, it should redirect there instead of the current target per {{R from incorrect name}}. --Nevéselbert 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Propose retarget to Evil. (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom since that has a separate article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil doers is meant to be one word, and evilness doesn't seem to be in any major dictionaries or publications, but it has some book mentions, so I'm less sure about it. SpikeballUnion (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


The group this redirects to no longer owns the Londonist brand - until a standalone article on this or the parent company exists, I'd propose this redirect be deleted. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Is that a recent development? About Us still says it's franchised off of Gothamist? Who is the new buyer? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Walter J. Haas

Suggest deletion, as it redirects Walter J. Haas to his father Walter A. Haas Jr., and not to an entry about himself. This for example creates (a confusing) circular references in Walter A. Haas Jr. אבגמד (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Unlink and keep. It is reasonable to call "Walter J. Haas Jr." as "Walter J. Haas", as some references on that article do. We should be removing internal links that refer to the non-notable child of his, not delete the redirect. Deryck C. 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dried citrus peel

I think this redirect can be misleading. Many dishes utilize dried citrus peel and Zest (ingredient) can also be dry. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me) 00:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Peel (fruit)#Uses as that section mentions chenpi, zest. I've also added candied. Note if the redirect were dried mandarin orange peel, dried tangerine peel, or dried orange peel then favor chenpi first. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC) updated 16:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from the page creator No objection to recreation as a disambiguation or retargeting. I'm satisfied either way. --Talitiainen (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Chenpi is the only topic with an article that is literally a "dried citrus peel" and nothing else. Disambiguation is useful when the reader may be looking for information that is spread over multiple pages. But in the case of "dried citrus peel" we simply have no information about anything other than chenpi. If someone creates an article of a type of dried citrus peel in a different cuisine we can create a set index in the spirit of stuffed flatbread, but until then the current target is correct. (Full disclosure: my ancestors come from the main chenpi-producing region. Deryck C. 14:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck. While other suggestions do in fact involve citrus peels, Chenpi is the only target I can find that is a dried citrus peel. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18

Harry Shipp Truman

According to our article, the "S" is an honorary initial, but has no meaning in itself. Lordtobi () 21:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Were any of these notably used in news articles? I just want to check if these weren't WP:MADEUP. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Apparently, these inaccurate middle names have received significant enough historical coverage, with the U.S. National Archives organization even reporting on it. Apparently, Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone delivered the Presidential oath as "I, Harry Shipp Truman" due to the popular misconceptions. The redirects appear justified to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with the above. The popularity and notability of these misconceptions certainly justifies a redirect. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mary Jane Truman

Mary Jane was Truman's sister, but there is no information on her apart from her birth and death years. We don't keep a redirect on his borther John Vivian Truman. Lordtobi () 21:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Citizen

"Mr. Citizen" appears to be a book about Truman, but the name does not appear anywhere in the article. I also don't see why should be primary over an equally minor TV series (see target's hatnote). Lordtobi () 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been five years since I created this redirect, and don't even remember it, so if there's another article with that name, or somebody wants to creates to create or rename one, I have no objection to the change. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mr. Citizen isn't just a book about Truman. It's something that he, himself, wrote (you can see some background here, and so this may be a reasonable enough case of redirecting an author's work to the author's own Wiki page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ReConstruct: Restoring Homes. Renewing Hope

Delete: The redirect originally was an article presumably about a volunteer organization. The only content stated, "ReConstruct equips and prepares students and adults for a lifetime of mission service by providing opportunities to assist low-income individuals with home repair. Each year hundreds of students reroof and repaint houses through ReConstruct." Redirect was created on 11:40, 3 January 2006 by User:Reconstruct. This edit by User:Reconstruct is the only edit performed by that user. One month later an IP account redirected to the Reconstruction page, currently a disambiguation page. By 2008 the page was redirected to Reconstruction Era, an article entirely unrelated to original content. I don't see possibility of salvaging original content for separate article. Recommend speedy deletion criterion G1. Mitchumch (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable organization with slogan appended, article created with apparent COI based on the username. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nom (Keep) - The unicode didn't render on my computer. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Prison Break (revival)

This redirect was created as the result of an improper move by Unknownassassin. I have reverted the move, and do not think that "revival" is an appropriate disambiguator for season 5. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom, I can't envisage any case where "revival" would be an appropriate disambiguator, unless it was an accepted alternate name of the work. (which, in this case, it isn't) --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 US Open – Men's Singles

WP:TOOEARLY, and there aren't many sources about this event. 333-blue 11:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep to remain as redirect until seedings and players as to be announced. ApprenticeFan work 02:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Communications in Transnistria

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


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


Suggestion from WP:RFPP (see Rolling Archive when applicable), redirect to United States per WP:NCPLACE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 17

Liquid dubstep

Deletion, There's no written article or report on this subject, to add there is also no sources for it. Conceivably it is an in-joke name for the genre 'Chillstep'. (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - It's hard to find a clear definition of what is or isn't "liquid dubstep", and basically all of the related discussions are done by obscure blogs or similar sorts of websites. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can always be recreated if sufficient information from notable reliable sources (not random blogs) is provided. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Slim Jxmmi discography

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Jxmmi as redirect per consensus there, but would Rae Sremmurd discography be a better target for this specific redirect? feminist 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Could refer to dozens of species or cultivars. If there is a primary topic, it's likely Afghanica (Cannabis bigener), which doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in its target. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Artists who have been involved in a feud with Drake

This is a redirect to a section of the Drake (musician) article that no longer exists (it seems controversies is the new section title). I'm not sure how to classify this, my best guess is it was a redirect set up for a specific purpose (i.e. someone wanted to wikilink along the lines of "See Artists who have been involved in a feud with Drake"). It has no incoming links and seems rather implausible to be typed in. menaechmi (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not a potential article title and not found at the target. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the section looks like it was moved to Drake_(musician)#Controversies. Is that enough to keep the redirect though? It's not like we have feuds for music artists like with pro wrestlers. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Implausible typo

Was PROD'd by Groiglery1217 after I made a mistake in saying PROD should be used. Since redirects are not eligible for PROD, converting to RFD. I have no opinion at this time. ~ GB fan 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Mascot where Wikipede was mentioned as a mascot. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The retarget proposal is terrible - not only directing an article-space title to project space, but to a very obscure part of project space. If this page already existed as a redirect to WP mascots, it would almost certainly be deleted, so let's skip a step and delete it now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Oiyarbepsy, the retarget would create a cross namespace rdr to low-importance part of project-space that would probably be listed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groiglery1217 (talkcontribs) 12:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province

This was a poor closure at AfD. The closer - Kharkiv07 - has not responded to my query. Consensus was clearly favouring a delete and, indeed, that is what has happened to numerous similar articles relating to the Raj era censuses in India. Pakistan did not even exist in 1901. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Sitush (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree that was a bad AFD close, and I see no consensus to redirect to Census in Pakistan. And the very good reason not to do so, as pointed out by Sitush, is that the 1901 Census of the North West Frontier Province was not a census of Pakistan. Pakistan indeed did not exist at the time, and there is no mention of any North West Frontier Province censuses in the Census in Pakistan article. If we had any content anywhere that dealt with those censuses then a redirect to that would make sense, but if we have no coverage of them then such a redirect has no purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it's misleading. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Isotta Fraschin L.121 R.C.40

Proposed deletion. It was created in error by misspelling Fraschini as Fraschin, a mistake readers are rather unlikely to make for such specific and technical articles. The correct redirect already exists (Isotta Fraschini L.121 R.C.40) and has incoming links, unlike this one, which simply pollutes the namespace. Deeday-UK (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing further to add.--Petebutt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bridge (NHRP Louisville, Nebraska)

Old redirect from a page move. I don't believe anyone would ever type in this poorly disambiguated name (it was moved to an appropriate name). It also has a typo (NHRP should have been NRHP). I've been fixing all these typos throughout WP (there were hundreds) and would like to delete this one. There are no incoming links. MB 01:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 16

The Irishman (2010 film)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. There is no film titled "The Irishman" released in 2010. Not only is there no evidence the target film was ever specifically titled "The Irishman," but it was also released in 2011. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete I don't know what these digits are, but I can't imagine anyone would search on them to find the target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Normally ISBNs are not set up as redirects. I'll sitck with my delete. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Particular ISBN numbers are not notable. And Romeo and Juliet has a wide number of different publications and formats. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no one needs this. Legacypac (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no such thing as the ISBN for Romeo and Juliet (really, check the article's References section for the sheer number of editions, and that's just what we actually cite). --Xover (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's a large number of different editions of the story, as stated above, and deletion looks like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


There is an actual flight with this number unrelated to the target page, almost all the search results are about that flight [9], thus WP:R#DELETE confusing. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as confusing as most searches will point to the American Airlines flight number, which does not have an article here. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Squint eyed Southerner

The article mentions no such creature, no sources. Kleuske (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It comes from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The name was given by the residents of the Shire to the orc-men sent there by Saruman to industrialise Sandyman's mill. In the Fellowship of the Ring, Butterbur also refers to a Squint at the Prancing Pony in Bree. See Half-orc#Tolkien's half-orcs. Osama57 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Osama57 added the quote containing the phrase to the Half-orc section around the time of the post. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Unlikely search selection. PKT(alk) 21:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Anyone familiar with the books or movie trilogy would associate this term with half-orcs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fetish (Selena Gomez album)

This is a non-existent album.-_Stanajra (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

July 15

Christ's sake

Shouldn't these target the same place? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a bit of a weird one. According to the principles at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, I would argue that the expression "(for) Christ's sake(s)" is primary over either the band or the film that have been linked. It's in far more common usage in more groups than either other subject. That said, it's clearly not sufficiently notable to have its own article and would ordinarily be a good candidate for redirection. I suggest that both of the above redirects retarget to Christ's sake (disambiguation) which would list the blasphemy, the band and the film. Hatnotes for the articles. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm ok with the proposed DAB. The curse is obviously the common meaning, and the band named themselves after the curse for shock value. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note, per WP:MALPLACED, that if a disambiguation page is made, it will need to be at Christ's sake. bd2412 T 01:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Christ's SakeKeep Christ's Sake as primary, which has a hatnote to the film with "For" in it, and if you're really concerned about the original phrase, then add wiktionary boxes on both. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) updated 03:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Blasphemy, "Christ's sakes", "Christ's sake" and "Christ's Sake" should all redirect to Blasphemy, and then Christ's Sake (the band) should be moved to "Christ's Sake (band)". –Davey2010Talk 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That would work if the primary topic is that article, but it isn't even used as a primary topic example on the Blasphemy page, so Wikipedia favors pointing to subjects that have an article first. If you want to keep Sakes to the Blasphemy page, that would be fine too, since that isn't the exact name of the band and would favor keeping the phrase. An argument can also be made to redirect to Profanity. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, "chrissake" doesn't have an entry, although it is mentioned as quotes in multiple articles, and Jesus H. Christ has its own article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Shanghai

Part of me wants to redirect this to Shanghai, but another part of me says that makes no sense and this should just be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with the part that says this makes no sense. It is more like a neologism than a real name that describes something. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I thought we already deleted all of these inexplicable Neelix redirects.- MrX 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Bad news: User:Anomie/Neelix list/6 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per X1 Neelix Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Shanghai wasn't split into two cities of different nationalities. And no mention of this term in that chicken article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Shanghai was split into two different cities though, during the Western colonial occupation of the Bund with the no Chinese zone; and during the Japanese occupation, with Japanese only zone. There's also the "Chinatown" in Shanghai (the old city, and Yuyuan) -- (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
If that's the csae, it should go to those sections, not a section about chicken. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Gabriella Taylor

Delete (does not relate)

The redirect should be deleted because it does not relate directly to the subject. Taylor may not have her own page, but that is little reason to redirect to the 2016 Championships' main page simply because she played a small part in them (particularly the main page as opposed to one more specific to the part of the draw played in by Taylor). This is not common practice within tennis pages and is simply confusing and pointless. --Dalek194 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Even a loose association like this can be useful.- MrX 00:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2016 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles where she is mentioned. The main page doesn't give any details, but at least the Girls Singles page shows her in stats. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed; this is a solution which makes a significantly more substantial connection between the title and the page that it redirects to. What happens now? Dalek194 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, Dahmen is the only notable person with this name - but it's not really a name in itself, but a variant spelling of Cathy, even if it's an unusual one. Would it make more sense to target to Cathy (given name)? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as another Neelix redirect. We speedy deleted hundreds of first name redirects just like this during the big cleanup. They just make search results harder to use. Instead of getting directly to the target or a list of similar targets when you type the first name this forces you to a particular model from the 60/70's via the redirect. It's not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not that helpful when only one person has used this spelling variant. Revisit as SIA if there are more than one notable Cathees or create article if there's one who uses it as a mononym. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a standard {{R from given name}}, used when there's only one notable person with the name. As such, Dahmen is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If Cathee Dahmen uses Cathee as a mononym, then keep. Can someone confirm? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Given names aren't WP:PTMs. If your name is Angus Woof, people would call you Angus. That doesn't make the name a mononym, but it's definitely reasonable for someone to attempt to search for you in that manner. -- Tavix (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would redirect it to Cathy (given name) and add Dahmen to the list. There are a couple of other people mentioned on Wikipedia with this variant, so it's not unique to one person. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment target's actual name is Catherine. This is more a nickname. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dash, Alexander

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


Delete These are not the stock symbols for these companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


Unlikely spelling error; might as well redirect to "Washing". Target article does not assert "Washin" as an alternate name for Tropical storm Washi. Confusing for people searching for "Washington" or "Washi" paper, as this entry pollutes results displayed dynamically in the search box. — JFG talk 16:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and it's just wrong. Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely typo, I would have expected a redirect to someone's name like Wa Xin,Wa Shin, or Wassin, Wasshim, but Washi isn't even close. Consider Washing AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ltd. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company

Same rationale as the "Inc... " redirects below. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian related business dealings

Implausible search term; target article was renamed a long time ago, and we have better redirects starting with "Donald Trump" for people to find the subject from the search box: Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia and Donald Trump business ties with RussiaJFG talk 07:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump’s Russian related business dealings

Duplicate of Donald Trump's Russian related business dealings (apostrophe) — JFG talk 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. The curly apostrophe is hard to type. FallingGravity 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Affiliations with Russia

Duplicate of Donald Trump's affiliations with RussiaJFG talk 07:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely capitalization difference and just clutter search results. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete I find no evidence the Christian prayer is spelled this way. These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. Zyaire once pointed to the country of Zaire) (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – Totally unrelated to destination page. — JFG talk 07:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kyrie Irving or Kyrie (given name) as how it's pronounced and Irving is referred by his given name as often as LeBron. There is also a Kyree Walker a high school basketball player that isn't Wikipedia-notable. [10] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC) updated 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Retarget to Velgarth#Kyree which mentions a race called the Kyree. Granted it's fictional, but it's about the only Kyree that's shown up so far. Perhaps Kyree (disambiguation) or Kyree (given name) can be created when there are more notable ones. A "redirects here" can be added for Kyrie. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to "Madeline"

Delete "Madeline" is a media franchise from children's literature and is spelled "Madeline". These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. "Marleigh" once redirected to the reggae star "Bob Marley" ) -- (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – Unrelated to destination page. — JFG talk 07:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
That one's better. Weird that wasn't on the dab page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to "Zaria"

Delete "Zaria" is a city in Nigeria. I can't find that these spellings are used for this city. These redirects are part of a series of random redirects requested by (talk · contribs) that seem to be pulled out of a baby name book, and point to random destinations without regard to the topic of the destination. (ie. "Kayson" once redirected to the cargo ship "Cason" ) -- (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete or stub, the target has no relevant info on methamphetamine and sex. Klaun (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

July 14

Alexander ALX 200

IMHO pointless category - When you search "Alexander ALX" you then get a whole list to select from and when you search "Alexander ALX 200" the "Alexander ALX200" is the first result so I don't really see the need to keep this around,
"Alexander ALX 200" brings up 1,150 results where as "Alexander ALX200" brings up 58,700 results,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Prior to this RFD I had amended the wikilinks so nothing links to the above redirect, ALX300, 400 and 500 all don't have the "Alexander" bit at the front either, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Inc. Murder

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

Torino 2006 official web site

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

Consumer enablement

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

Tommy Car Wash Systems

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural Close. Restore Article

July 13

'Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider Wizard & Fourze: Movie War Ultimatum

Delete No need for the redirect with the ' at the head of the title. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete this appears to be a typo in creation that was corrected shortly afterwards. The ' is not part of the title.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as improbable misspelling, it's probably a missed formatting edit (italics?) --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Medieval Asia

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget to History_of_Asia#Medieval_history.

@midnight (Twitter)

Delete as unnecessary. Not surprisingly, @midnight is the Twitter handle for the show, but someone typing @midnight will get where they need to go, and is very unlikely to add the parenthetical (Twitter). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a notable show, not a twitter channel. If the twitter handle was what resulted in the TV show, then it can be retained, but it is more likely the other way around based on the article itself. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Was going to ask the editor who created the category and the rcat back in 2013 to make a showing, but it seems they are more or less retired. So, with no one to track and/or maintain them, I can no longer speak to the usefulness of any of these Twitter redirects.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hey Paine, caught your paper trail (I really need to disable my notifications to my email). Anyways, I agree with the nominative since "Twitter" is an unclear disambiguator at this time, and the target article is not a Twitter account. I created the respective category for Twitter usernames, but since "@midnight (Twitter)" is not the target article's Twitter hashtag (including the "(Twitter)"), it could potentially be considered misleading as a redirect. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I should probably clarify: If the subject at the title @midnight represented a different subject than what the Twitter username "@midnight" represents (like if the nominated redirect targeted "Luxury Berg Enterprises", I could see a need for this redirect to exist. However, at the present time, unless the aforementioned situation exists for at least one such other {{R from Twitter username}} redirect, I stand by this. (However, if I am proven otherwise during the course of this discussion, consider my "delete" withdrawn.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FC Fcsb

obscure collection of letters that may or may not refer to the target - just confusing and not a useful search term PRehse (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per news that this was their new club name as of March 2017. [11] [12] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Good catch - nothing like choosing an impossible name. Not sure what to do here. My gut feeling is to delete the redirect (inaccurate capitalizations) and move the current target article to the new name.PRehse (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A WP:RM was made on the article talkpage and resulted in "No move" so a move would be controversial and needs to be discussed first. Qed237 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Messy.PRehse (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Does renaming this redirect to FC FCSB make it disappear from search for "fc fcsb"? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No (says someone who hates clusters of redirects with capitalization variations).PRehse (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, let's Move to FC FCSB / Delete mixed caps version. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 12

File:UBa Logo.png

Redirect created as a result of a file move of a fair use file, links updated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Originally a PROD but it is a redirect so ... This is not the name of a product by Segway Inc. and Segway is a registered trademark of the company. As such I believe that it should be deleted. Segway do have a product called the Segway miniPro, but that is different. Mini Segway is already marked for deletion for the same reason. PRehse (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep or Find better redirect People are looking for the minipro, or any kind of smaller scaled version of a Segway. What would be better is an article section detailing the miniPro like with the Segway PT. But news articles are comparing them to hoverboards so this may be where it will go until it is made clearer. [13] [14] [15] [16] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably the best answer then is to change the redirect for these to point to Segway Inc. (where the Segway miniPRO is mentioned), or we delete it. What we shouldn't do is misuse the the trademark as a generic term for hoverboard (as is is being used currently) especially not with a capital S (as is the case with these redirects). PeterEastern (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirecting to the company would be fine. I've already tagged both of those as incorrect name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Politics and Current Events

Delete as current target is not appropriate and also WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Main page (text only)

Cross-namespace redirect. KMF (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's nothing wrong with the redirect being cross-namespace as it goes to a page meant for end-users. However, I feel its title is a bit misleading: it leads me to expect a text-only version of the main page as it appears on the day, but what I get instead is a generic main page without any of the daily changing content. – Uanfala 07:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - The somewhat misleading title makes me feel like this should be deleted, although I've no strong opinions on the matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


Cross-namespace redirect. KMF (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Buchanan family tree

Cross namespace redirect, unlikely to be used Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure it makes sense to direct a three letter abbreviation to someone who happens to have those initials. There is no way that this is the only person who has these initials anyway. I've so far not found anything else notable with these letters - there are several non-notable companies, but not much else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Also noting that he does have a company called CHJ Designs so that could be created instead to link to Jones. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


This abbreviation is not mentioned in the article. I'm unable to confirm if a broadcaster has ever used this call sign, which is complicated by the fact that CBC has a show called Q. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete the CBC show Q is pretty famous in Canada but not styled as CBCQ. Useless redirect. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting

Incorrect month (actually June 9, 2016). Mattflaschen - Talk 02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Wrong month.Casprings (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. As above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • KEEP. and fix and expand. it should exist as a milestone.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipietime I don't understand what you're saying. A milemarker? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this would also imply other events of the format "Month Year Trump Tower Meeting" If there's only one notable event associated with Trump Tower meeting then keep one redirect for this. Otherwise it's WP:NOTDIARY AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There are all kinds of meetings at Trump tower every day. Why are we singling out one month when it is unclear what the meeting is about? Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

July 11

Finance Park

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 19#Finance Park

Enterprise Village

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

John Bonifield

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


This redirect appears to be incorrect. I'm finding very little information on this word, but what I have found suggest that it actually means emerald [17], while carbuncle usually refers to garnets. Some help from someone knowledgeable in Hebrew or the Old Testament would be helpful here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • From the linked text it appears that there isn't scholarly consensus on the exact meaning of the word. If it's not completely known which gemstone it referred to then we shouldn't redirect it to any. List of precious stones in the Bible could be expanded with relevant content (particularly the section on emeralds, which already discusses what looks like the root from which bareqath has been derived), but until that happens I don't see the point of having a redirect. – Uanfala 13:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dab? Britannica discusses this under the Emerald subject where the word is associated with carbuncle Authorized Version and emerald in the Revised Version of the Septuagint [18] Here's some Bible lexicons [19]. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetti Spaghetti!

Created as a redirect to Polymorph (Red Dwarf episode) as Alphabetti Spaghetti was referenced in that episode.

An Alphabetti Spaghetti redirect already existed- and pointed towards Alphabet pasta- so having this one do something different (while appearing separately in the drop-down search list) is likely to confuse those who don't get it or who click on the wrong option.

I'm opposed to this on principle; if we did this thing for every pop culture reference, it would vastly increase the amount of navigational clutter.

I've changed it to redirect to Alphabet pasta as with the other one, but this redirect still appears in the list and serves no practical purpose; I'd rather it was removed. Ubcule (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete version with the ! on it. Not needed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln vs. Chuck Norris

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

Zombi (2012 Video Game)

Delete as invalidly capitalized disambiguator; leftover from another discussion where it was errorously closed as "no consensus" (despite being at 3 vs. 2 at closure). Lordtobi () 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. You can't just add up the numbers and because more people were in favor of deletion, that equals deletion. While I don't believe my closure was erroneous, I'm fine with this discussion being opened. Since it's unbunded, we might get a better discussion out of it... -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as Zombi (2012 video game) is correctly capitalized and covers this issue. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I'm mistaken, the page was started at this title in 2011, moved to the correctly capitalized version in 2015, and then moved to its current name in 2016. Since it's a longstanding {{R from move}} where the only difference is capitalization, I'm inclined to keep it. It got 134 hits in just under two years even discounting any hits from the recent RFDs, so it does get use as well.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the only time the article was at Zombi (2012 Video Game) was for two minutes on 1 August 2015‎. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Patar knight: The title, just as the Zombi(2015 Video Game) one, were created within four minutes (22:08–22:11) by Aozz101x through undiscussed moves. The original title was actually Zombi U, which was corrected shortly after to the current title. Lordtobi () 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok right, I was looking at the wrong page. The rest of the comment still stands. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Patar knight and my comments in the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
And as per previous discussion, I suspect the caps version attracted the searches for this over the lower-case proper version. We shouldn't make exceptions for (Film), (Video Game), (Song) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per AngusWOOF: given that the properly capitalised redirect already exists, all that this redirect does is add clutter to the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While redirects are cheap, some redirects are beyond unnecessary and are just clutter. olderwiser 12:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it is clutter. Search ignores capitalization. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


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


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

File:UBA logo.png

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

July 10

2005 (May 5-8)

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

Murder of Miosotis Familia

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

Jesus' Flock

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

Specific Date Redirects

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2013 October 20 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2011 February 11 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert to original version of the redirect per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#October 10, 2010 Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Lego video game

Delete, we do not need mass amounts of these kinds of redirects. Lordtobi () 14:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep: I don't think there's any good reason for deleting all of these redirect pages. Deleting these pages would contribute to the problem of link rot, and it would otherwise serve no useful purpose. Jarble (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Video games (Lego) and Lego video game. I express no opinion about the others. Could an admin please fix the capitalization of the redirects, please? - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Richardcavell: The first item you want to keep does not seems to exist (You spelled out "Video games (Lego)", rather than "Video Games (LEGO)"), do you think the redirect with this capitalization is useful and should be kept? Lordtobi () 19:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    There is no need to capitalize the 'g' in "games", and although Lego is widely used in capitalized form, by the company itself and others, it is properly written as Lego. So I say fix the capitalization. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    Said redirect only had 22 views, ever. You are considering a move without leaving a redirect, right? But do you think it is worth it for this certain redirect? Lordtobi () 20:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget the Bionicle ones to List_of_Bionicle_media#Games as some of the titles are not necessarily related to Lego. Keep Lego video games, delete the rest as vague and redundant. There isn't a separation between "computer and video games" from "video games" AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support AngusWOOF's proposal, as it seems reasonable to me. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relisting in an attempt to prevent a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll add that Lego (TT Games video game series) could redirect to TT Games Publishing which has its own list of Lego video games in its article, but that almost all the Lego titles have eventually been assimilated into Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment. If desired, the original developer and publisher for each game could be listed in that master list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all with no objection to someone recreating something they find useful. Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Does not compute. If anything, this should target something related to religion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PCN02WPS 20:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Religious presently targets Religion, and I cannot see any difference between the terms "belief-oriented" and "religious" for Wikipedia purposes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as there isn't even experience oriented which is usually what the term is compared and contrasted with. Otherwise Faith might be a possible target. But it's really vague. The article does have a single statement mentioning belief-oriented though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current target seems incorrect (maybe even opposite--faith or [religion]] seem plausible). But unless we have cited definition or evidence of actual usage of this term, I don't see a need. And it seems like it could be a euphemism with somewhat fluid definition, so I think it's a problem to declare a meaning even though redirects are cheap. DMacks (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - While the term is used occasionally (see this scholarly example), it's still deeply vague and without a proper target. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Yeti Trunk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Yeti Trunk

Halfway (game)

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

Finn Bruce

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


Lake Elsman also exists. Redirect could be a DAB, but I just recommend a simple delete. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 04:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not enough to assume the entire last name. If you want to dab / set index this with entries for Lake Elsman and Alyssa Elsman that would work too. That was what was done with Eisman. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC) updated 01:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC) updated 21:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Shippig Companies

Delete Unlikely misspelling, especially when combined with the non-standard capitalization. (but consider maintaining edit history, since there was a cut-and-paste merge) UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment It was a parallel version of List of ship companies, itself was split by the creator of List of Shippig Companies, making List of Shippig Companies became a redirect to List of freight ship companies (but inherit the page formatting). Just need a way to keep page history and a need of redirect. Matthew_hk tc 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    For the prior, an admin could easily execute a histmerge (can be requested at WP:RMT). Lordtobi () 11:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything in the history worth keeping though? It appears to be just a list of companies that could be easily compiled if given the proper sources. I don't see extensive discussion on the subject unless that was what was deleted from the talk page? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Note the properly spelled List of shipping companies redirect exists. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 9


I'd assume this comes from "special needs" or something similar, but is this term ever used? A google books search returns results pointing to: a) a concept in ecology introduced by Kinji Imanishi; b) incorrect pluralisations for Species, c) a surname (the surname of the Italian contestant at Miss Universe 1972, there's no article on the English or Italian wikipedias about anyone of that name); d) a Russian organisation; e) a Finnish trade union None of the topics are really covered on wikipedia, so that leaves Species as a target for a rare {{R from typo}} (of sorts), but this will only obscure the fact that we don't have content on the other (possibly encyclopedic) topics. – Uanfala 22:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Splitting that off to a dab doesn't help, and none of these dab possibilities point to the original redirect either. I do see it in Urban Dictionary. News searches show a person named John Specia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see the use of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. No use. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Squint eyed Southerner

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 16#Squint eyed Southerner

List of Apple Software

Obvious misleading redirects, Apple software is not restricted to that of Mac OS, it could also refer to iOS, watchOS software, etc. Note that Apple software is red. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Create list It should be a list of software developed by Apple and organized like List of Microsoft software. It shouldn't be about third-party software developed for Apple's platforms as that's way too open-ended. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The idea of turning List of Apple software into a disambiguation page has been brought up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Itnc

This redirect redirects to the wrong page. It should redirect to Wikipedia talk:In the news just as Wikipedia talk:In the news/Candidates does. It's also common practice to have redirects of this type (shortcuts) capitalized (WP:AN, WP:ACC, WP:CHU, etc.), unlike this one, which is why I either deleting this page and creating WT:ITNC to redirect to Wikipedia talk:In the news or moving it without leaving a redirect (There are currently no pages that link to it except for this discussion.) t WT:ITNC and modifying it to redirect to Wikipedia talk:In the news. The only difference between the two options is that one would preserve page history (1 author, 1 revision) and the other would not. Personally, I prefer the deletion option, but I'm ok with either. The former would require admin action, whereas the latter would only require Page Mover action. Gestrid (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Has potential to cause confusion and is not consistent with other project space redirects. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Big dick bitch

Not a known term for this redirect target. Possible vandalism Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Ts Madison has referred to herself as Big Dick Bitch on her Youtube channel multiple times. As Youtube is black-listed on Wikipedia, you can search on Youtube for her video entitled: Big Dick Bitch says.... "22inches or better". She introduces herself as the Big Dick Bitch at around 30 seconds in. Illinois347 (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason for having it as a redirect term on Wikipedia. There are more than a dozen Ghits under that term and none refer to that subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You are mistaken. When I search "Big Dick Bitch" on Google, the first page had results that all lead immediately to Ts Madison's pornographic videos. Also, when searching on Google Images, her images appear overwhelmingly in the search results. Big Dick Bitch is a moniker by far most commonly used to refer to Ts Madison. Please verify your search results again, Kudpung.Illinois347 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev

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

July 8

Twelve (number)

Delete as unnecessary (Twelve already redirects to the same target) and inaccurate (the spelled out word is a numeral, not a number: same reason we don't have Tom Cruise (actress) redirect). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete highly unlikely that a reader will enter twelve (number) in the search engine, and we already have a redirect. Atsme📞📧 00:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't helpful. Someone looking for 12 the number would just type in 12. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Considering the additional subjects listed at disambiguation page 12 (which Twelve (disambiguation) currently redirects) that go by the name "Twelve" spelled out, this redirect is valid and helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Tom Cruise (actor) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, because he is an actor, not an actress. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, and the target of this redirect is a number, so it's situation and basis for existence is identical to the existence of Tom Cruise (actor). Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IOS 12

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

Mohammad Rezaei (wrestler, born 1958)

Should be deleted, This is not the same person, nor the name nor the birthday year if you check the article Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete the wrestler who won a bronze medal in 62kg freestyle in the 1978 World Wrestling Championships is listed as Mohammad Reza Navaei according to the Leipzig database [20] . I've updated the links that were pointing to the 1958 wrestler. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Two thousand five hundred and twenty

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

Lonesome Dove (TV series)

Note: Not requesting that this redirect be deleted. There is disagreement as to what should be the target of this redirect. Now that Lonesome Dove: The Series is an article, I feel that this redirect is ambiguous as to whether it is meant to target Lonesome Dove: The Series or Lonesome Dove (miniseries), and so should instead target the "effective" disambiguation page Lonesome Dove series (which includes links to both articles) instead. Another editor feels this redirect should target Lonesome Dove (miniseries), despite the fact that WP:NCTV is clear that "TV series" and "miniseries" are different disambiguation terms. I'd like the community to look at this one and help decide the correct course of action here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • DAB - clearly two different articles. Atsme📞📧 18:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect should be eliminated. Clearly two completely different entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF40:E690:DCC0:277A:296F:D5C8 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • That is an inappropriate solution here. Lonesome Dove (TV series) is a valid article/redirect title – the issue here is that it is unclear to which article it should point (or if it should be converted to a DAB). But deleting of the redirect is the wrong call. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lonesome Dove series which has links to both the miniseries, the TV series and other sequels. TV series and miniseries on television can be confused easily. Is there a series that isn't related to Lonesome Dove or covered by that series aritcle? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with AngusWOOF and this redirect should be tagged with {{R from ambiguous page}}. olderwiser 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lonesome Dove series, as long as that article includes in its lede prominent links to the two TV series articles. The miniseries might be the only topic with this exact name, but the other one, even though having the extended title of Lonesome Dove: The Series, is similar enough and likely to be referred to as simply Lonesome Dove. – Uanfala 08:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Human disturbance

Vague, humans can disturb other things besides Earth's environment. -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But give us other WP articles that discuss those possibilities. Unless there aren't any, I would assume that whatever links here is also expected to silently imply ...environment. -- Kku (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Superficial survey shows that most articles containing the lemma refer to the current meaning. I could also envision a redirect to disturbance (ecology) -- Kku (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think that the term "human disturbance" is specific enough to this target. I'm not sure what is meant by someone typing this into a search box. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete as vague. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep term is used a lot in news articles and journals, and seem to refer to this article. Disturbance (ecology) can be added as a See also. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete: "Inchoate" is a perfectly good adjective for anything, meaning "embryonic, in the early stages of being formed." Its secondary usage in legalese should not be made dominant. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep as it already has a "redirects here" kind of hatnote. Add dictionary infobox. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - We have other matches besides 'Inchoate offense' that use extremely similar wording, including 'inchoate lien' and 'inchoative verb'. Deletion seems like the right call. I've seen direct matches in terms of songs and albums, though, but then none of them appear to have Wikipedia pages. That might warrant more searching. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
At least three musical artists seem to have this specific name, but I'm not seeing any of them rise to a particularly significant level of notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:PTM, not a likely way of referring to an inchoate offense on its own. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that this redirect receives a fair amount of pageviews (8 a day for the past month) makes it eligible for being turned into a soft redirect to wiktionary. However, given that we have two articles with content relevant to specific technical uses of the word, readers should have an easy way of arriving there. To an extent, this is achieved by the search results, but I believe disambiguation to be a better solution. – Uanfala 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of you proposed some kind of disambiguation. What would it look like?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. A disambiguation page wouldn't look like anything, because there's nothing to disambiguate. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. Dabify might not be the best idea due to partial title matches --Lenticel (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The two legal terms appear to be also used outside of the context of the fixed phrases [21] [22], so they aren't quite partial title matches. There was a discussion last year about the advantages of including this kind of entries. – Uanfala 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current target seems to be the primary meaning of the term from my search, and there's a hatnote in place for the other article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    The primary meaning of "inchoate" or simply where that word shows up frequently? This is an important distinction. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    The primary encyclopedic content for "inchoate", which I feel is an even more important distinction. If someone were to search for "inchoate" on Wikipedia, what would they be looking for? They might mistakenly think that Wikipedia is a dictionary and be disappointed by not getting the definition of the word. However, apart from that, I believe that "inchoate offense" would be the most relevant and primary content that Wikipedia has to offer. I second Angus's observation that it's not the only meaning of the term, and a hatnote is in place to serve those looking for the other relevant topic. That being said, I am also amenable to a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not seeing this argument, and as far as I know we've always taken the opposite position: that we don't know why people are searching for a word, and therefore we don't force them to one usage of a word if we do not cover the word itself or other potential usage. I note that in legal Latinate locutions "inchoate" is used in a general sense for anything preparatory, but in any case we do not want to have people typing the word into Google and then essentially informing them that it only had to do with crime, when really it doesn't have anything in particular yo do with crime or even legal matters. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    It'd be a case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If others don't see it the same way, so be it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete as the general should not redirect to one specific usage. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Either delete or make into soft redirect to wikitionary. I'm not convinced there is a primary topic in the encyclopedic sense for this term. olderwiser 19:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


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


This targets a section of an article that no longer exists, and the word isn't mentioned in the article. I'm not clear if this word counts as an Indefinite pronoun or not, but if it does, it deserves a mention there and a retarget. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete one of the 60,000 useless Neelix redirects. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. A band related to Thomas Feiner comes up in the searches but Feiner does not even have an article in EN wikipedia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Anywhen" appears to be the name of a somewhat notable project by French artist Philippe Parreno, and it's mentioned on his page. Retarget? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate?. "Anywhen" isn't specific to West Country English, and unsurprisingly there doesn't seem to be any wikipedia content relevant to the generic topic. There do appear to be at least two potentially significant works with this title though: a project by Philippe Parreno (pointed out above) and a novella by James Blish. – Uanfala 12:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even with Uanfala's discoveries it makes sense to delete the redirect to reveal search results. Deryck C. 22:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The possibility of disambiguation has been brought up, though there has been little discussion over it. One more week should make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dab between the project/film and the novella. The film has a lot of press. The novella won a Nebula award. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the creation of a disambiguation page as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Aziz

Is this a valid redirect? I can't find any reference to the name Muhammad Aziz in the article. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • For some time the article did have a prominent mention of this name, see Talk:Jermaine Jackson#Name. – Uanfala 14:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I did a quick Google search and couldn't find any meaningful results, but didn't think of checking the talk page. I guess the redirect should be kept, even if the article doesn't mention the name anymore. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There's the complicating factor of the existence of an article for which the term is a spelling variant (Mohammed Aziz), and two similarly named ones: Mohammad Azizi and Muhammad Aziz Khan (the last might not be relevant, as the person appears to be known as Aziz Khan). – Uanfala 21:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Seems plausible for both Mohammed Aziz and Mohamad Aziz. Jackson could be included if relevant information is added to his article. Is there a standard practice for naming such human-name disambiguation articles—namely, do we use a default spelling of "Muhammad"? I doubt it, though in this case, it seems like anything could work. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Anthropogenic effect

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 16#Anthropogenic behaviours. I would imagine if "behavio(u)r(s)" and "activity(ies)" are too vague, then "effect(s)" would also be. I do want to stress that the last discussion had a few "because Neelix" !votes, but Anthropogenic effects is NOT a Neelix redirect (although he did edit it). -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete both - because of what I said last time - these terms are grammatically incorrect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: about 240 real hits on google books for "anthropogenic effect", I've skimmed through the first 50 or so and they all seem to unambiguously be in the context of the human impact on the environment. – Uanfala 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Anthropogenic effects as a redirect, Delete Anthropogenic effect. The same would apply to Anthropogenic impacts vs impact if it pops up somewhere. Atsme📞📧 18:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Why keep the plural and not the singular? This can be tagged as incorrect name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Please leave this line alone (LK Siddiqi (Lutful Kabir Siddiqi)

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

Green beetle

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

July 7

Branch Davidian views of the Lord's Supper

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

Nintendo not-in-article redirects

Delete as they do not appear in the target article. Lordtobi () 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Choo choo: Delete Latamel. Per pt:Latamel, it's a Nintendo distribution company in Latin America, but we don't seem to cover it on en-wikipedia. Keep Nin10do as phoentic and it seems to be a surprisingly popular leetspeak way to spell Nintendo. Weak retarget Nintendo controller to Nintendo video game consoles. Most consoles' controllers are discussed there, although I could see a scope for a separate list and wouldn't be opposed to WP:REDLINK deletion. Keep Nintendo Corporation, Limited as a spelled-out form of the official name of the company. Keep Nintendo culture. While the word "culture" isn't explicitly mentioned in the article, one can get a sense of Nintendo's culture from reading the article, especially the "policy" section. Retarget Nintendo toys to List of Nintendo products#Toys and cards. Delete Nintendo underwear. It was a silly little stub from 2006, should have been deleted then. Delete Rentiantang per WP:RFOREIGN as Chinese romanization? Restore Sekiryo Kaneda to this version. A former president of Nintendo for 20 years seems to be notable to me. Retarget Sekiryo Yamauchi to Sekiryo Kaneda, alternative name. Keep ニンテンドー per WP:RFOREIGN. ja:ニンテンドー redirects to Nintendo, which is good enough for me. (I haven't evaluated the others) -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC) (edited: 23:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
    At a glance, I agree with all of this. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Question regarding Nintendo Corporation, Limited: Usually "Co., Ltd." expands to Company, Limited (rather than Corporation, Limited) plus we also have a Nintendo Company, Limited redirect already, and while we do not maintain a Nintendo Corporation one, we do have a Nintendo Company one. Lordtobi () 14:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    That's a good point that I hadn't fully considered earlier. Perhaps if you would have nominated it separately with that rationale, I wouldn't have left an opinion. However, upon digging deeper I don't see any issue with the redirect. If it's incorrect, then all we'd need to do is add an {{R from incorrect name}} tag to it. It does seem to have some usage in the wild, a couple links at random include [23] and [24]. -- Tavix (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of Tavix's suggestions. Delete Nintendo Treehouse, as that's a viable article subject and the main Nintendo article doesn't even mention it; anyone searching for that is going to be annoyed at the lack of information. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo unlikely search redirects

Delete as unlikely searches, most of which also seem to be vandalism. Lordtobi () 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Nintendo Co. Ltd. - 任天堂株式会社, mixed script redirects are implausible. Retarget Nintendon't to Sega Genesis, it's a notable advertising campaign discussed therein. Keep Nintendoes as {{R from plural}}. Nintendo's consoles, especially their early ones, can simply be referred to as "Nintendoes". Most of the rest seem like harmless typos. A couple of these I could see as implausible, such as Nintendon and Nintendou, but these seem pretty WP:CHEAP to me. No opinion on the subsidiaries. -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Nimtendo; the keys are adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard, so the typo's easy. Also, as the letters are of similar shape, when you look over something you've typed, you might not notice it as easily as if you typed "Nibtendo" or "Nijtendo". Nyttend backup (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep "Nimtendo" since it's a plausible mispelling, with "Nintendoh" and "Nintendou" being reasonably helpful since both are phonetically the same as the actual name. I've no preference for the other ones. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to split these up given the differences in plausibility. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard Chang

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

Shots On The Hood Of My Car

Not mentioned at the target article, nor at List of songs recorded by Kesha. From what I can tell, it's an unreleased song, but we've got no information on it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete if it's not mentioned, but should these be added to the list if they can be verified? There's a featured list consisting entirely of unreleased songs. Peter James (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete was a potential song, got leaked in 2011, then not released. Not in main Kesha article. Revisit if it makes some unreleased album material. This goes the way of Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Rehman Chaudhry

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

Modi government

Should the different capitalisation lead to different pages? If not which should they go to? Peter James (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget second to Premiership of Narendra Modi as with Modi administration. Caps version has appeared in multiple news articles and isn't specific to Ministry just as the U.S. president administration isn't limited to their Cabinet. [25] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have created both redirects originally to redirect on "ministry" page. But later one other editor changed target of one of these redirects to "Premiership" page. I think "ministry" page is better target because "Government" means "collectively all ministers in that government" and "premiership of Modi" is quite related to "performance of Modi" or schemes and initiatives taken by Modi.--Human3015 TALK  15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Obsessed

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

Dev Madan

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

Wikipedia:Raymond E. Feist series

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Wikipedia:RAY. Raymond E. Feist isn't mentioned at the target, and the WikiProject has no specific focus on this series (unlike, for example, several series that have specific task forces). As the bluelinks might give an impression that there is a WikiProject or task force by this name, these should be deleted as potentially misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not a task force. Seems like it might have been a template for a navbox. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete Does not appear in the target article, and is not listed as one of the trade names for amoxicillin. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget - According to the World Health Organization, "Megacillin" and "Specillin" are both terms for Benzylpenicillin. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets' good finding. – Uanfala 21:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Tornado Outbreak characters

Delete as there is no such list. Lordtobi () 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no such list or section for a notable list. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per REDLINK and if no one creates it, oh well. Legacypac (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Captain Nimbus (character)

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

Zephyr (character)

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


Delete as Wikipedia not a manual. R6TEA4 is apparently the file version of the NTSC Wii version, but should not be a redirect. Lordtobi () 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Evil Bob

Not mentioned at the target page. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. It was mentioned on the page, but was removed in 2011 [26]. Runescape (which it was related to) was part of the list spun off into List of Cat Video Games in 2011, that was deleted at AFD in April 2016. Neither the character Evil Bob nor Bob the Jagex Cat they are the mirror universe equivalent of are mentioned at Runescape or anywhere else I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bob (The Dresden Files) where an "Evil Bob" is mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Wondercat. This is leftover stuff from a hoax article Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Olimar_The_Wondercat. As for Evil Bob, searches through news articles bring up Bob from Twin Peaks being evil, but no such pretitle on him, so leaning delete for that. It would have to be formally characterized like Evil Otto. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Toby fox (artist)

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

Staten Island route

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep East River route and South Brooklyn route; delete others

Overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq

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

  • Delete as unlikely search term. I could see "Overthrow of Saddam Hussein" or "Overthrow of Iraq", but "Overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq" seems overly specific for a redirect. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Retarget to Saddam_Hussein#Invasion_of_Iraq_in_2003, which keeps it focused on Hussein's article and has information concerning his trial and execution. Delete the "in Iraq" version as redundant and not helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's better to target an article that discusses the actual end of Saddam rather than the symbolic end. I don't see this as being an unlikely search term, so I do not support deletion at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem like a plausible search term, so I'd support moving to Overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I also agree with AngusWOOF that Saddam_Hussein#Invasion_of_Iraq_in_2003 is a more appropriate target. – Uanfala 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but create Overthrow of Saddam Hussein. This is an entirely plausible search term that would come up in natural English (e.g. "After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the country became destabilized," which is neither too unwieldy or convoluted a sentence). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move and Retarget in the way suggested by AngusWOOF. "In Iraq" is utterly redundant, few people have been overthrown in several countries. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Khash (dish

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


This was previously redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). However, it was changed to WP:Deceased Wikipedians in 2008; the last edit prior to the nomination was... 2008. I used the "What links here" tool and found that many user talk pages use the "WP:Obituary" to refer to the previous target, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No other pages refer it to the current target, deceased Wikipedians. Also, I notice that Wikipedia:OBITUARY was created in 2014, yet it was used just once to refer it to WP:NOTMEMORIAL (implicitly). Therefore, I propose either retargeting both to WP:NOTMEMORIAL, or disambiguate one with at least two individual pages and retarget two others to the dabpage. George Ho (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 06:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I added just "WP:OBIT", which is used in different pages to refer to either one, usually the NOTMEMORIAL. All others look too different, and they are not named either "Obituary" or "OBIT". Better to treat them individually, Piotrus, than to bundle all others into here, especially when each of them may have different meanings but somewhat different from "OBIT(UARY)". George Ho (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do nothing for original request. WP:NOTOBIT is unambiguous, while WP:OBIT may be. However its target page, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians has a dabnote and we do not write dabpages with two items, ie. all is by guideline. And along this line do the same with MEMORIAL.Staszek Lem (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Standard French

Delete. Resulted from a controversial page move without discussion (Dinglebat500, 319 edits; currently blocked) to a term that is "nonexistent" describing "Haitian French"; unlike the "standard Haitian Creole (which does). This move was swiftly overturned by editors. "Standard French" (from France) is taught in school as well as spoken in Haiti. A variety while spoken, there is no official standard to be able to bare such a title. There are no sources to provide evidence for this claim. According to History, Society and Variation: In Honor of Albert Valdman (Valdman Albert, J; Clements Clancy), there is even a divided consensus on whether or not Haitian French even exists in Haiti. (It does however) and it ranges differently among its speakers. So a Haitian "Standard" French is impossible to determine and such terminology is unfounded. Opposing parties please provide where this term is in usage. For the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY, we do not have a: Swiss Standard French, Belgian Standard French, Quebec Standard French, Louisiana Standard French, Aostan Standard French, and Meridional Standard French as redirects either. Thank you for your consideration. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC) To add: A side-by-side comparison between "Haitian French" and "Haitian Standard French" from 1 July 2015 - present virtually shows no hits for the latter, except during the time of creation and redirect activity (from edits and views from cached). [27] Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I could say "no harm done" but, besides being, as the nominator points out, an inappropriate move to begin with, there is no reason to expect anyone ever to search on this term. Based on a Google search for "haitian standard french", the only place where this term appears in coherent text, besides Wikipedia mirrors, is a single book] (and a couple of sources quoting from that source) that uses it a single time, in passing, in a manner that suggests that the author was merely trying to emphasize that French in Haiti is distinct from Creole without digressing from the main point of the sentence. Beside, if a term to this effect were in use, it would more likely be "standard Haitian French" (for which Google shows virtually no evidence anyway). Largoplazo (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see it as an analogue to "X Standard English" where X would be the country, which is a commonly used kind of phrase (e.g. [28]). As far as I can see, it does get use in academic texts, [29][30][31] and is distinct from Creole. This redirect doesn't mean that Haitian French is Standard French as spoken in France, but that Haitian French is a French language which has some level of standardization in Haiti.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a virtually unsearched term (0 results before creation), so what purpose would it serve? Purpose of a redirect is to aid in searched terms, not necessarily create correct ones. Source [4] states "Haitian Standard French and Creole." --pertaining to both Standard French and Standard Creole that is "Haitian." It is in list form and preceding it describes 'Greek" and "Arabic" varieties. In source [5], albeit found in 2 pages, there is not a preview; we do not know of the context it is written. This term is neither searched nor correct. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Well if page views before creation was a criteria for having redirects, then all of them would have to be deleted. It's impossible (at least without looking at server logs) to see what people are searching for when the page that would track that doesn't exist. Since source 4 refers to as you say, "Standard French...that is Haitian", it seems reasonable to have a redirect from the naturally constructed "Haitian Standard French" which the source uses. You can find the text in a Google Books search without navigating to the page [32], but it says "ln the second place — perhaps exemplified by Haitian Standard French and Haitian creole", which is even more unambiguous than Source 4's phrasing that "Haitian Standard French" is a thing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar Knight, whose sources have shown that this term gets used by linguisticians in discussions of the Haitian French dialect continuum to refer to the standard French taught in Haitian schools. This redirect might raise eyebrows to a Haitian reader but makes sense to a linguistician coming from an English point of view, as an analogy to Scottish Standard English, Standard Singaporean Mandarin etc. Deryck C. 10:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knigts's findings. Regardless of whether the term applies to some hypothetical standard Haitian French, or the Haitian variety of Standard French, it takes readers to the one article where they'll find what they're looking for. – Uanfala 13:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both delete and keep bring up good arguments. One more week will allow consensus to settle entirely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


This is an actual word, unrelated to the target topic, Bizarrely there is no Wiktionary entry, nor could I find an article to retarget it to, I assume most people searching for this would not look for the current target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Added Taking a look at the page history this redirect was created because it was used as a misspelling in one source, so the editor thought that was appropriate to create a redirect, so this is a classic example of criterion #2 of WP:R#DELETE, a short stub entry was created later, but it was quickly reverted to a redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there a beverage-related article that uses airpot? The Wikipedia searches all refer to it and related terms as a typo. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious typo to page not even with the same meaning. (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY as it can refer to (a type of?) vacuum flask, or to a trademarked kind of flower pot. – Uanfala 16:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


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


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

Ltd. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 15#Ltd. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company

Pre-order status

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

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

Inc. American Airlines

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

Battle Royale (2015 film)

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

July 6

Romford Warehouse

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


There are more music items by this person, so there has to be an standalone page, not 1 redirect to an remix. Delete if not notable. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - So what if that person has 'more music items'? How is that relevant to any Wikipedia policy? If you think there should be a standalone page, then request it to be created, why does this redirect bother you? Whether or not the person is notable doesn't matter because it's a redirect not an actual article. - TheMagnificentist 04:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete to make redlink. He also remixed Lady Gaga's Million Reasons. Is that enough for him to have a page? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
User:AngusWOOF, yes, it actually is enough. Only notable remixers get to have their remixes released by the artists themselves, which shows significance. This is not an article so notability does not matter. Please have an unbiased judgment (just putting it out there). - TheMagnificentist 05:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If they're notable for more than one thing then redirecting to a single work is detrimental both to readers and editors. Someone linking to "Andrelli" does not want to link to some random song they were involved with instead. Xezbeth (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Young and Reckless

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


EThekwini is the Zulu name for Durban and on that basis redirects to Durban. However, since 2000 there has been an administrative region, the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality that is larger than Durban. Most wikilinks to EThekwini mean the municipality, not the city of Durban. (Also the alt cap version Ethekwini). MB 17:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment That it has a hatnote right away about "eThekwini" (lower-case first letter, upper-case second letter) suggests this is a useful search term. Having EThekwini metro area or EThekwini municipality or EThekwini region might help. What I haven't seen is whether those in the Durban area make a difference between referering to Durban and Ethekwini. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Note also that the page on the Municipality was at eThekwini until 11/2014 before it was moved to eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and the redirect at ethekwini has been changed and reverted. I see no prior discussion of this issue on the talk pages. MB 21:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

2018 World Series

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

Gene Hernandez

Delete as a WP:PTM of his birth name, "Peter Gene Hernandez". I can't find any sources calling him this, making it obscure. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Middle+Last should only be used when it's an official stage name or common name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless we can show that he actually uses that name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


Delete Just like the much more numerous and now deleted pagename plus m and pagename plus n redirects created via the popular redlinks query, there was a small window of pagename plus p redirects created. These should all be deleted as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep didp; it's just a decapitalised form of DIDP, whose target article specifies that the "p" is indeed part of it. It's only a redirect to DID because it was later retargeted. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Also keep catp for the same reason. Uncertain on XMLp and IBMp (it seems odd to mix capitalisation like that) and tending toward keep for Woop, as it has the form of the singular of Whoops. This nomination's rationale is only applicable to titles that make sense for the same purpose if you drop the concluding "p", and when we're talking redirects to "Whoops", "Woop" makes a lot more sense than "Woo" does. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Woop as that is covered by the dab page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • With the exception of Woop, these redirects are capitalisation variants of their targets (or things mentioned on the targets), and those that are not can be retargeted to articles of which they are such variants (like DNAP, FOX proteins etc.). The question is then essentially about whether these (mis)capitalisations should be kept. – Uanfala 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • To unpack my previous comment a little bit, I see three groups of redirects here:
      • Redirects from a lower-case title to an all-caps one. These are plausible and shouldn't be deleted. The actions I recommenda are: keeping Catp, and retargeting Didp and Foxp back to their previous targets DIDP and FOX proteins (to match FOXP). Why the latter two had been pointed to their present targets I will never know.
      • Redirects from a mixed capitalisation to an upper-caps title. These aren't plausible as misspellings and should only be kept if it's shown that their targets are referred to using the mixed capitalisation variant. A cursory web search didn't reveal any leads in that direction.
      • Woop. This is the apple among the oranges, and it should be turned into a disambiguation page separate from Whoop as the two terms refer to distinct sets of topics. Draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Foxp as it is unclear why it was created or what it is supposed to represent. Currently it looks like a poor spelling of Fox - we expect Wikipedia visitors to be literate. William Harris • (talk) • 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Both 'didp' and 'catp' are reasonable enough. Not sure about the others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Americna Airlines

Delete Unlikely typo. How do I know? It is the only "Americna" redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep on the grounds that the typo has been done on the internet - Swapping two letters isn't unlikely. (I do wish I remember which website/page I saw which inspired me to create that redirect) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's an entirely plausible typo which only has one possible target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment it initially got around 15-30 searches a month in 2015 and part of 2016 but dropped to under 5 per month in 2017. Is that enough to be useful? [33] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might be a typo of borderline plausibility, but the views it gets are likely attributable to it being the only redirect that features this particular misspelling. It shows up at the top in the search box drop-down suggestions whenever a user makes this typo when searching for anything "American", and so all it does is add confusion. – Uanfala 11:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

.25 process

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

Piranha Plant (Crash Bandicoot)

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


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

Apple phone

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

Apple Tablet

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

July 5


I'm not certain that an art designer and an art director are the same thing Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete some hyphenated search items aren't useful. Redirect the rest to Art as with Art design. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per AngusWOOF. Neelix special creations. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment note that Art and design redirects to graphic design, although that may be too specific as there are many "art and design" schools that cover both topics and not just graphic design, so it's a bit of an WP:XY. Another redirect option is Design#Design and art. But it isn't specific to the leading position of an art director. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Five Satans

May be a plausible mis-spelling but seems offensive PRehse (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure but how does that reflect its power as a search term for the current target or even as a general search term.PRehse (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete those views are just background noise. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly this should not redirect to The Five Satins. Is it a plausible misspelling? Dubious; in any case, I don't think the The Five Satins would appreciate the redirect. I changed the target to Watcher (angel)#Five Satans.
    A little history: In 2004, an editor created a stub for each of five "fallen angels" mentioned in certain passages of the Book of Enoch (example). A few months later I consolidated those into a single article, Five Satans. In 2009, another editor converted the article to a redirect, since the phrase "Five Satans" isn't explicitly used in an English translation he consulted. However, "Five Satans" is a term of convenience used in secondary and tertiary sources that predate the Wikipedia articles (e.g., 1, 2, 3) The new target anchors to a list of these "Satans" in the Watcher (angel) article. —Ringbang (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as retargeted by Ringbang. Mentioned at target, and with a significant editing history. – Uanfala 13:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget - As stated above, this should go to the related article about the creatures in Hebrew tradition. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism redirects

Rest of the list (113 redirects)

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

  • Support all. I think it's great that you did this work. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep/Refine all as long as some sort of religious breakdown is mentioned in the target article. Unlike a lot of redirects, where the absence of the specific term in the target article means a reader learns nothing, the absence of any specific mention of Hinduism does impart information as long as there is a religious breakdown. If say Hinduism is not mentioned but "Other religions" or equivalents have percentage points in a religious breakdown, then the reader knows that Hinduism will not be higher than that percentage. However the redirects should be refined to the demographics/religion section in articles where they are not. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the hinduism in Iceland redirect as I added information about that in this edit. Abstain or Neutral for the rest of the redirects.--Snaevar (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll withdraw that one. This is a perfect example of why deletion is beneficial. If these redirects are red, it'd encourage people to add information on Hinduism in that particular country instead of assuming that information exists. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and unbundle into smaller groups. Per Patar Knight, most of these should be kept, refined or retargetted rather than deleted but there are too many to reasonably investigate individually. Taking the first one I selected at random, Hinduism in Benin, the reader would be better served by landing at Hinduism in Africa#West Africa than deletion, even though Hinduism in Benin is not explicitly mentioned there is relevant information there. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hinduism in Africa#West Africa has the same problem as the current target! Some searching for Hinduism in Benin will learn nothing about Hinduism in Benin no matter where you put this redirect, so deletion is the only logical choice. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not true, they will learn that Hinduism is not significant in the region and that it's essentially only a few immigrants who subscribe to the faith. If there isn't anything to say about it we should tell people that, which that article does, rather than a redlink which would encourage the creation of an article about something that isn't notable while not giving anybody any information at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but the redirect is Hinduism in Benin, not Hinduism in West Africa. It's misleading to our readers to redirect them to a place that does not discuss Hinduism in Benin, and it's misleading for you to assume that little blurb of information applies to Benin. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Benin is unquestionably in West Africa, why would it not apply to Benin? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Benin may be in West Africa, but Benin isn't necessarily representative of West Africa as a whole. We shouldn't assume it applies unless we have actual information on Hinduism in Benin, as the redirect implies. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Refine all to specific religious sections for the nation's articles. Delete any where not mentioned (e.g. Religion in Burkina Faso) or notable. For example, Hinudism in Hawaii, there's only a single footnote that it is grouped among Other religions, and it is in the table. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Hawaii is the only one that has Hinduism mentioned in a footnote. Hinduism isn't mentioned in any of the others. Since you say "delete any where not mentioned", would it be fair to interpret your !vote as "delete all except Hawaii"? -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd even say to delete Hinduism in Hawaii given that it isn't even given a sentence besides what's in a table. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm just concerned there will be a precedent of (group) in (region) where the only mention is in the table itself. Like children in (locale), women in (locale). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The only concern at hand is this group of redirects. The bottom line is if there's discussion about a group within a country, then it's a cromulent redirect. For every redirect listed in this discussion, someone will learn absolutely nothing about Hinduism in the given country, so we shouldn't mislead our readers into thinking we have content where there isn't any. -- Tavix (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (with the disclaimer that I have already voted "delete"). It is true that a reader searching for Hinduism in Ascension Island will arrive at an article that they can read and that will ultimately give enough irrelevant information for them to conclude that there's likely no such thing as Hinduism in Ascension Island. But the same conclusion can be reached, much more straightforwardly, by the simple observation of the absence of relevant articles in the search results, which is what would happen if these redirects get deleted. And if it's really deemed sensible to keep them, then it would be just as sensible to start creating redirects for all the conceivable things that are absent from the targets. Think of Sea cliffs on Jupiter, Penguins in Quebec, Raccoons in London and an innumerable number of combinations. – Uanfala 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Refine all some of the countries listed do indeed have a Hindu presence. I have just added a small segment to Religion in Taiwan about the small Hindu presence there. There is evidence to suggest a small Hindu population in East Timor, indeed Commons has photos of a Balinese-style temple in Dili. Alas, there's no text in English I can find about the community, only a Facebook post in Portugese. There was even an Indian diaspora in Somalia, which no longer exists. --RaviC (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Kansas City Stomp", Breaks in Jazz, "Darktown Strutters Ball"

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

Average Call Hold Time

While this phrase is certainly used in calculating the amount of switching capability in a phone system, I think it's more often used to measure how long a customer must wait on hold before talking to a rep. I think a retarget is in order. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as misleading. The phrase, in plain English, means the amount of time a caller must hold on average. It does not need an explanation and is an unlikely search term. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I also don't think that it's a likely search term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Call_centre#Evaluation as the term Average Hold Time or Average Handling Time is discussed there as well as Erlang. The Erlang article itself is a bit too technical and talks more about loading of networks rather than the time it takes to wait on hold. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss a potential retarget
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr . Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam

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

Chirstopher Rants

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


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

Bride of Kildare

While this seems to be a legit alternate spelling of Brigid, the use of the word Bride is pretty confusing. But I'm not confident as to whether this should be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep both - I'm seeing material explicitly describing her as "Saint Bride" (see here for just one example), and since the redirects are legitimately helpful I'd rather we just leave them be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Çarşamba Ieşilırmak Stadium

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete. Author requests deletion and it is unopposed. Deryck C. 13:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 4

The Circle (comics)(by Brian Reed)

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

Australian cricket team in Zimbabwe in in 1999-2000

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


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

Reality Leigh

We typically delete first-middle name redirects. I haven't seen any indication that Winner is commonly known as "Reality Leigh". BDD (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, link is cheap, redirect page was linked as a red-link in article history. Sagecandor (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, her biological father, who, Mr. Davis said, “always wanted a real winner, so he named her Reality Leigh". Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
That was in response to the derivation of her name though. there is no evidence she is commonly called that outside of her family members. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
In the United States, children still get the surnames of their fathers in almost all cases, and I'm unaware of situations where children get surnames that don't belong to either parent. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see her having used this as her common name, not like Cherami Leigh (no relation) who uses first+middle as her stage name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a partial title match. I've yet to find evidence her being called "Reality Leigh" without her surname. Geo Swan's article gave me pause, but it's the second part of a quote that starts "Ms. Winner received her legal name — Reality Leigh Winner — from her biological father..." -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - She's not known as "Reality Leigh", and we shouldn't have this redirect if it's not actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Cheng

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

List of Lego games

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


CFQR is now a callsign of the new 600 AM in Montreal John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. When the new 600 AM in Montreal gets an article then this can be easily redirected there. 600 AM Montreal currently redirects to CINW. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify could refer to AM or FM stations equally. Although the AM and FM version seem to be sister stations so maybe an article can be created with a hatnote to the old FM station. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Angus, draft available below the redirect. It could be argued that the present target is at the moment the primary topic, but this seems set to change with time, and for such a small issue I think it's better to get straight away to the expected long-term solution rather than leave it to be revisited in the future. – Uanfala 11:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

America-Freedom to Fascism

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

  • keep as a reasonable {{R from modification}}. Substituting a colon for a hyphen (with or without spaces) is far from uncommon, especially in environments were colons cause problems. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete most, see below I don't see any news searches that use the dash or hyphen like that. And a general search will get to the book using the colon. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Pretty harmless to switch out a colon for a hyphen. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not appear to be in use, and likely because of where the punctuation occurs that this will do strange things to search results. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has been whether or not using a hyphen or dash is appropriate here. Since that would apply to several other redirects to the target, I'm including them for completeness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Swapping out a colon for either dash or hyphen seems plausible enough, I suppose, even though the utility of these is probably marginal. I'm inclined to just leave them alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that more variants have been added to the RFD, so I will update my stance on this. The dashes and hyphens are not used in the news articles or websites, not even Japanese-styled titles like America ~Freedom to Facism~, which would definitely encourage using the dash/hyphen. They almost all use the colon. Some do not include the colon, and there was a foreign language site that used ellipses instead. So I would recommend:
    • Deleting the dashes and hyphens where there are no spaces between America and Freedom like America-Freedom, America-From Freedom
    • Delete double dashes, e.g. "America--Freedom", "America -- Freedom".
    • Delete ALL CAPS variants. This isn't helpful, otherwise you're setting a precedent to redirect every title in Wikipedia from all caps.
    • Keep single dash or single hyphen or ndash as long as there's a space between America and Freedom. This should satisfy those who are just searching by the cover title which displays no punctuation. Keep in mind that those who are looking up the title by search will receive options with the real title by then. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since more were added, delete all, same rationale as earlier. None have any significant activity: none have more than 1 hit in the last 30 days, most 0, one just gave an API error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete most per AngusWOOF. PCN02WPS 21:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd rather that these be broken up now given the differences. Some are far more plausible than others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • delete all. Finding articles despite some variation on punctuation or dashes is the obvious work for a search engine. We do not need to create every possible remotely plausible variation. This redirect have the exact opposite effect of the intention of having redirects. Redirects should help readers find the right page, instead if I type "america freedom fascism" in the search box I get 10 suggestions, all of them some of these redirects. So we are telling readers that we have tens of pages with similar names, which should they try? Then when they try one and another the pages are... the same? That is confusing... Also, this is taking up space in the search suggestions, thus taking away the chance for the reader to find other pages with similar words in the title. - Nabla (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
PS this is what the search page look like when I serach for "america freedom fascism". How can this be helpful in anyway?
"america freedom fascism" search
You may create the page "America freedom fascism", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
America: Freedom to Fascism
America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by filmmaker and activist Aaron Russo, covering a variety of subjects that Russo contends are detrimental to
31 KB (4,466 words) - 2017-02-05T05:58:33

America—Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:10

America — Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:35

America – Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:47

America–Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:42

America - Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:28:11

America-Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
419 bytes (105 words) - 2017-04-22T11:40:56

America -- Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:53

America--Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:09

%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:28:05

America - From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:59

America – From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:27:41

America–From Freedom to Fascism
%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete redirect America: Freedom to Fascism
381 bytes (16 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:22

Fascism and Freedom Movement
The Fascism and Freedom Movement – National Socialist Party (Italian: Movimento Fascismo e Libertà – Partito Socialista Nazionale, MFL–PSN), called simply
3 KB (277 words) - 2017-04-19T19:44:46

America-From Freedom to Fascism
irects+for+discussion%5D%5D+debate+closed+as+delete REDIRECT America: Freedom to Fascism To the same page name with diacritics: This is a redirect from
417 bytes (105 words) - 2017-05-18T19:26:56

Definitions of fascism
What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proven complicated and contentious. Historians
45 KB (6,137 words) - 2017-06-28T05:51:06

Aaron Russo (category American activists)
Libertarian-leaning political documentaries including Mad as Hell and America: Freedom to Fascism. After a six-year battle with bladder cancer, Russo died on August
6 KB (623 words) - 2017-03-20T21:57:38

Fascism and ideology
The history of Fascist ideology, or fascism and ideology, is long and involves many sources. Fascists took inspiration from as far back as the Spartans
164 KB (21,457 words) - 2017-06-24T19:42:02

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration
27 KB (3,008 words) - 2017-06-25T18:36:00

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control
171 KB (16,736 words) - 2017-06-27T12:34:48

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Nabla, you're seeing these bizarre results only because these redirects are all RfD-tagged now and the search engine treats them as normal pages. – Uanfala 19:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but it still goes to show that the search engine does not need help with the punctuation. And readers do not either (if they do they need to learn something much more basic than what "america--freedom:fascism" is - Nabla (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... wait... So we write a all bunch of variations, in order to help searching the right page, but then we instruct the search engine to ignore the variations? - Nabla (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Nabla. If any are kept (and I can see there might be reasons for this to happen only for the spaced hyphen/dash ones), then they should probably be marked at least as {{R unprintworthy}}. – Uanfala 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Idol Minds Digital Entertainment

Delete as not official. Our reliable sources search engine only finds results in user-contributed game overview pages on IGN, but zero in actual news articles. Lordtobi () 11:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I saw it mentioned here for some event. [34] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    That event, however, seems neither reliable nor notable, and a single unknown mention does not justify a redirect. Lordtobi () 19:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. If used at all (even in sources of questionable reliability) then it is a term that readers are likely to search for on wikipedia after encountering it in the wild. Concerns about its status could always be reflected in tagging the redirect as an {{R from incorrect name}}. – Uanfala 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


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


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

Talk:Sally Jones

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

Idol Minds L.L.C

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


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

  • Keep. Unless and until the nearly 500 transclusions (and any other links from file description pages and policies) are bypassed (and consensus should be sought for this before doing so) this needs to stay as it is. After that nominate it again and I'll consider other factors. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13 and Thryduulf: Added four more very similar redirects to this nomination. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Godsy: my above comment holds exactly the same for these redirects as well, i.e. keep until all transclusions and references in policy, etc. have been updated by consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: I don't believe you're familiar with how things typically work surrounding template deletions/merges/etc. No-one is ever supposed to bypass template redirects, merge templates, etc. until there is consensus to do so. That consensus is typically developed at TfD. Here, it's being developed at RfD since these are redirects. In other words, this is the normal sort of venue for the consensus discussion you're asking for. The reason we do this is to avoid influencing the XfD process (e.g. Delete: No transclusions anyway, might as well). I personally volunteer to handle bypassing these redirects once consensus is developed here to do so, and I'll do it before the redirects are deleted. It's a very easy task with AWB. There's no other venue particularly suited for such a discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't keep (edit conflict) - this is not a delete !vote, only an "action is required" comment. Thryduulf is correct that we shouldn't blanket-delete the template because it will break many licensing statements across the project. However BU Rob13 makes an urgent point with legal ramifications that this situation must be dealt with, as copyright is not a thing that we can get sort-of right, and many of these statements are already broken because they are legally ambiguous. Rob, is it safe to assume that transclusions of the template older than numbered versions of CC-BY-SA can be safely bypassed to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: Yes and no. Yes, that's what we should do. No, it's not "safe" any more than it's safe to apply this template in the first place. It won't harm anything further than already harmed to bypass to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, though. ~ Rob13Talk 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) It's true I don't normally deal with TfD, but I do deal with with RfD daily and the convention is that we almost exclusively deal with redirects as they are, not as they might be in the future (certainly when nothing of that nature has been mentioned in the nomination). I don't see evidence of there having been any confusion about which license was intended either before or after the target was moved from this title to it's present location in 2013 so I'm inclined to keep it as is. However, I note that in January this year the equivalent template on Commons was changed from the redirect it had been since 2008 to a warning, effectively deprecating the tag. That descision was very contentious, but based on the relevant points made there I think we can say that files using this template fall into several categories.
        • Those first licensed before 25 May 2004 (the date the version 2.0 licenses were released [35]) can safely be assumed to be version 1.0 and migrated there.
        • Those directly uploaded to, and first licensed on, en.wp after 10 December 2004 (when the template was changed to explicitly mention 1.0 [36]) can be safely assumed to mean 1.0 and be migrated there.
        • All other files will need looking at individually to determine whether the correct license is 1.0, the latest version (as of the licensing date) or unspecified (which I think means the latest version as of the licensing date or any later version, but check that with a copyright specialist). This includes all those files not first licensed at en.wp.
        In any case, I think that after all the current transclusions have been migrated to an explicit license and all references in policies and upload forms, etc. have been updated that it would be better to deprecate (as Commons has done) rather than delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Thryduulf: As noted above, I encourage deprecation to a warning message rather than outright deletion. This is redirects for discussion, after all, so I considered this to still be the right venue. This puts me in a bind. Our community norms surrounding templates say I may not bypass any of these redirects to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} if I intend to bring this up for discussion in the future and that such discussions must be part of an XfD, so if this closes without consensus to accomplish a specific something, I effectively can't do anything with this template even though we all agree the current situation is very sketchy from a legal point-of-view. (As an aside, if no version number is specified after version numbers were introduced, we can't assume anything and the license is invalid entirely. There are some legally meaningful differences between versions, so we can't just guess. As a second aside, perhaps what should be happening here is that template redirects go to TfD.) ~ Rob13Talk 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
          • @BU Rob13: Generally template redirects are fine here, but it really depends what you're trying to do - if it's part of a plan to reorganise templates then TfD is possibly better. In this case it seems like the better place for the discussion would be wherever file licensing is discussed (Wikipedia talk:Copyrights? WP:MCQ? I'm not sure) as there are copyright issues at the heart of this that RfD isn't best placed to handle. Thryduulf (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Hmm, last I checked, redirects for discussion would be the correct place to discuss redirects. That being said, it seems like it'd be a good idea to alert those places of this discussion if wider participation is warranted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to error message per nom since there are many CC-BY-SA licenses. -- Tavix (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not keep Apart from the fact that transcluding template redirects does slow down the website a tiny bit, this one creates legal ambiguity if people use it without reading the actual template page. So its transclusions should be cleaned up and this redirect be turned into an error message that transcludes {{No license}}. Same for the other redirects, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I've left messages at WP:MCQ and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Hopefully knowledgeable users will follow. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't assume. In copyright matters, any speculations about what someone may have meant are dangerous. We have several redirects here that produce, as an end-result, a by-sa 1.0 license on the corresponding image pages. Assuming uploaders may have possibly meant anything else is not sound. So from the perspective of a low activity WP:CP volunteer, you can merge them to a single redirect, you can replace them by the redirect target, you can delete all files as unlicensed, but what you cannot do is change a valid license statement to a warning or error message, or a different license statement, without subverting each uploaders' copyrights. MLauba (Talk) 21:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @MLauba: What has been proposed is to convert all existing occurrences of the five redirects nominated here to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}, so all pages currently bearing the license would retain it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not the only thing proposed in the discussion here, and where the !votes stray from that simple conversion, it becomes problematic. MLauba (Talk) 22:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Before there were CC-BY-SA 2.0 or higher, was CC-BY-SA 1.0 actually called CC-BY-SA without version number? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The official deed of the license seems to have included 1.0 from the start December 2002 archived version. The January 2003 version of the Creative Commons website homepage starts "On December 16, 2002, Creative Commons released version 1.0 of its Licensing Project...". I presume that when there weren't other versions that cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa-1.0 were legally equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to error message given the ambiguity. They shouldn't be deleted since CC By SA is a commonly known license type, so it's more useful to have a helpful reminder to use a more specific license than to leave those who would use these redirects with nothing. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • do not delete. If a "unnumbered" licence is appropriate (can't I just say "I licence under CC-BY-SA"?) then make it a full template. If a licence needs to be "numbered" then turn into a warning and help to choose one. In any case, keep as little redirects from different spellings as needed. ("Template:CC-BY-SA license" is probably best replaced and deleted) Uses must, really must, be assessed case by case in order to check, to the best of our judgement, what was the intended licence placed by the original user of the redirect/template. We should not change someone else's licence (Looong time ago I uploaded a few pictures, with whatever licence I felt better by then, right or wrong. Then some editors decided to change both the template's content and the template in use in those images. I doubt I will ever again upload any image. Not much of a loss, I know :-) but we do not want to lose more and more contributors, do we?) - Nabla (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks sorely ripe for closure, but I'm relisting in an attempt to encourage further input before any decision is taken on a matter that might have important ramifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 10:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Tess Haubrich

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


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

Hater Shit

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

Bone flowers

I am unable to confirm that this plant is known by this name. If not, probable delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Another facepalm head-scratcher from Neelix. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Softlavender, I brought this here because most of Neelix's common name redirects are correct and reasonable. So, I presumed that Neelix knew something that he didn't explain when he created this redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • In nearly all instances, you can check a revision of the article around the time when Neelix created the redirect. Invariably, the article will mention the term as an alternate name. It is not his fault if the scope of the article changes at some point in the following decade. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Dabify. It's the literal meaning of the Nahuatl name for the target: this shouldn't normally warrant inclusion on dab pages, but the phrase seems to appear often enough on its own (without reference to the either the English or the Nahuatl name). It's also a common name for a species of daisy. A dab page has been drafted below the redirect and mentions added to the two articles. – Uanfala 10:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Borana languages

Not alternative name of subject article and confusing with Borana language; only Borana Oromo language comes up in Google search results SpikeballUnion (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Borana was what was used in either Campbell or Kaufman, which is primarily what i was using for South American langs at the time. (Probably Kaufman just by looking at the name, he created many names by Españolifying.) As i recall, i redirected since Kaufman treated Boran(a/o) as a separate unrelated family (or language) and there was no page for the Boran(a/o) family (just as there is no page now) and i was only concerned with creating pages for the highest level uncontroversial genealogical node at the time.
Why are you consulting google? What can it possibly know about these languages? It's just a search engine. Did google even scan the sources used for the article? I think consulting the sources mentioned in the article makes more sense. (Also, we already know that google frequency counts dont correlate to experimental lexical frequency measures in native English speakers as well as other corpora. So, it's not even clear to me why wikipedia should even allow this type of 'original research.' However, i'm not going to be the one to fight that fight on the talk pages.)
It's possible i made a mistake at the time. Go ahead and check it out. It's good to have copyeditors. peace. – ishwar  (speak) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was able to catch a glimpse of only one of the two Kaufman texts cited in the article, and it does say (on p. 43) that the Spanish name for the Boran languages is familia Borana. The redirect then (solely on the basis of that) seems like it's mixing English and Spanish, but in a way that seems plausible for a reader encountering the term in a Spanish text. – Uanfala 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Blowing the coat

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

July 2

Merrimack,New Hampshire

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5

HX Magazine

Target article does not include any mention of the subject. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title of the magazine is HX [37], which is also the title of another magazine from New York [38]. If text relevant for any of the two is added to an article at some point, then that article should hopefully appear high in the search results. – Uanfala 11:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uanfala. There's a few brief mentions in a few articles, so search results will be able to guide our readers to the scant bits of information Wikipedia has. Also, I'm adding HX (magazine) for the same reasons. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relisting to allow the closing of the day's log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 19#Londonist

Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7

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

List of Apple Software

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 9#List of Apple Software


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

Parlimentary republic

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

July 1


BP2 is also an abbreviation for Bipolar II disorder (although BP-II is more common, at least in formal contexts). I'm split as to which article this should point to, but I lean toward retargeting. Since it's a 3-letter string, Google's not as helpful as it might be. However:

  1. A simple search for BP2 yields the disorder as the second result and the subject of the Knowledge Graph bar. The following results are a mishmash of topics, but the disorder commands a plurality.
  2. The first result is an acronym dictionary that lists both the album and the disorder (although only the album is in the search-results excerpt). However, as best as I can tell, the album is not mentioned again in any of the following 10 pages of results.
  3. BP2 mental has 290k GHits to BP2 album's 278k. But I concede this may be within the margin of error.

Thoughts? Ultimately, I'll be happy either way, as long as the end result has a hatnote pointing to the other page. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I think we can safely redirect this to the dab page bp-II now -- (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with the disambiguation done above, but it would seem that given what most of the entries look like Bp-II is a somewhat odd title for it. I think it's better to move it to the simpler and more common BP2 (or something similar). Also, I'm really weary of including the Amoco entry as web search results don't seem to return anything meaningful for the combination of "Amoco" and any variants of "BP2". – Uanfala 11:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cultural decay

No mention of this term in the target article, so no indication of relevance of the redirect. PamD 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: The Cultural diversity article states that monoculturalism is "cultural decay", analogical to how multiculturalism is "cultural diversity". From the article: "Cultural diversity is the quality of diverse or different cultures, as opposed to monoculture, the global monoculture, or a homogenization of cultures, akin to cultural decay." I have edited the Monoculturalism article to reflect this in both articles. 93 22:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete The first sentence of cultural diversity is an eyebrow-raiser, but in any case searching for "cultural decay" in GBooks shows that it isn't synonymous with monoculturalism, but indeed means pretty much what you would expect: any kind of cultural breakdown. It could be argued (as one ref I found said) that cultural decay leads to something more like a monoculture, but that doesn't exhaust how people use the word, and it seems to me to be a somewhat uncommon usage. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not keep. The fact that one thing has been regarded by some[who?] as being akin to something else,[citation needed] gives us no reason for redirecting one to the other, even if a mention has been added (and even if that mention were sourced and contextualised). Cultural decay should be explained either in an article of its own, or in some related general article, like Culture. – Uanfala 23:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The general concept of "cultural decay" is something that deserves its own article, probably? To be frank, I feel like the current cultural diversity probably violates Wiki guidelines in terms of its lack of sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Draft:Gele Seckstein

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

Redirects from dates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The AfC proposal was rejected as there is no general consensus on these redirects, per the no consensus closure at #October 10, 2010

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
April 10, 2011

Delete - The page redirects to the year but the date mentioned in the redirect's name is not mentioned on the year page. 2601:584:100:E310:5C77:12BC:F26F:B4D (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
April 9, 2011

Retarget to Portal:Current events/2011 April 9 per Tavix's reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 13#October 10, 2010. Delete if redirects to portal pages from the article namespace is redundant. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget as nominated. There is nothing wrong with going from article to portal, as both areas are intended for readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
October 10, 2010
No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Easily confused words

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

  • Retarget to Common English usage misconceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Looking at the project page at first I thought it looked like something useful for readers and wondered why we don't have something similar. That is, before I noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commonly misused English words. feminist 16:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to Common English usage misconceptions as that article's topic is misconceptions about English grammar and usage, not confusable words. The current target, though in project space, is probably the nearest thing the average user will have in mind when searching for "easily confused words". However, there's no reason for the topic to be restricted to English, and the phrase is vague enough for there to be relevant content in several articles: Homonym, False friends or Paronym (the English wikipedia is was until recently the only major wikipedia without an article on that). – Uanfala 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to stub - We really have no good article for this, although we ought to. In the meantime, I prefer creating a short stub that lists all the targets mentioned in this discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That's more or less the point of Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words... -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words back to mainspace. It'll solve this problem and the AfD I read through was pathetic. Instead of moving the list to Wikipedia space, an easier solution would have been to prune the list of unsourced and/or uncommon entries. That can easily be done now. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - Seems to refer to more than one thing. Also, "Commonly misspelled English words" should be added as the second or third entry. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relisting to allow the closing of the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

364 (film)

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete all except for Spy vs. Spy (film), where I'll call that one no consensus. After being open for over a month, I'm going to go ahead and nuke all those that have not been objected to. (Someone else might call the Spy vs. Spy one as "delete", but I'll be conservative as it's my own nomination, keeping WP:INVOLVED in mind.)

Daedelus catalog

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

  • Keep at least some. I don't think WP:CATALOG applies to redirects. If it did, we could feasibly delete every single redirect that has ever existed for something that is not an article. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and there is no valid reason to delete most of these. Ss112 16:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    Other than WP:CATALOG, a redirect would require that a user looking for the item he is searching for finds valuable information on the subject, but in all of these cases, we would redirect the reader to a page where it is only included in a list, maybe sealed with a release year, but nothing the reader would actually want to know (development, release, length, genre, etc.), which makes these redirects rather confusing. This reasoning was with a lot of good deletions recently. Lordtobi () 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    A user may actually create the article(s) in future, and I don't think the redirects are confusing anybody because it's directing readers to the artist who made it/them, i.e. a more general topic (the reason why Template:R from album exists to place on redirects, is it not?) There just seems to be no real point to deleting redirects when they only appear to help and not hinder. These redirects are like placeholders until/if somebody wishes to expand them beyond that. Ss112 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Keep those that are mentioned in the list. Generally, redirecting non-notable topics to a list in which they appear is encouraged (if there is no more in-depth coverage elsewhere) as it gives people some information and discourages the creation of articles on non-notable topics (see also {{R to list entry}}). It sounds to me that the best way to address your concerns is to add more information (e.g. length, genre) to the target list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's my mix: Delete Experience (Daedelus song). It's not mentioned at the target article, nor at any of his album articles. Keep the rest. If you were to follow WP:CATALOG, it would inform you that Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. There's no pricing at play here, so WP:CATALOG does not apply. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is moving towards a clear outcome, but I'm relisting it to enable the closing of the day's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 12:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

June 28

Three-fifths compromise),

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Naomi Newell

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

Big walnut middle school

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

Template:Riley family tree

Cross-namespace redirect, unlikely that anyone will type this in. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment this used to be a family tree that was transcluded into the article [40] , but has since been taken apart. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, it's cross-namespace. PCN02WPS 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Talk:Riley family/Template:Riley family tree or something similar, as this was copied to the article. Peter James (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move as suggested, without leaving behind a redirect. This can't be deleted because of the requirement for atrribution. – Uanfala 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the need for attribution. In case someone needs the history, it should be relatively easy to find. Moving it to a cryptic place does not help in that regard. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think a subpage of the article is a more cryptic location than a page in template namespace. If someone does follow a link to the template, they will then be directed to the deletion log entry which will point to the page's new location. Moving is better than keeping because of the need to prevent the template namespace from getting "polluted" (as they say over at TfD), that is free of things that are not templates and that will get in the way of for example people searching for templates. But all these benefits are slight, so I don't think it's that important in what particular way the page is kept, as long as it is kept. – Uanfala 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete Dànzica and Gdaņska, keep Gedanum.


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

Akos Agardy

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

Akil Adams

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


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

Dried citrus peel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 19#Dried citrus peel

June 27

Bae Yong

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

Big Walnut Middle Dchool

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


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

Best Bet Diet (multiple sclerosis)

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#MCDONALD'S


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

Hamilton Wyoming High School

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

Chinese mars exploration program

No decision Closed discussion, see full discussion.

SpaceX reusable orbital taxi

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

Jimmy Nalls

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

Lists of reptiles of the Dominican Republic

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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 5#💫


Propose retarget to Commercial software -- (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nomination as Business software is not an antonym of freeware. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - vague. Non-freeware is a large galaxy of things that are not commercial software. What about shareware, adware, FOSS, postcardware, .... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment should this go to Freeware as an {{R from antonym}}, as with unfriend? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget to freeware - I agree with AngusWOOF. No other target is a definition of "non-freeware", so let's give them what freeware is. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarget to Commercial software. If a person is searching for "non-freeware", I think it's more likely they are actually wanting to read about commercial software. That coupled with the fact that non-freeware very closely matches the idea of Commercial software convinces me. I see nominator had already retargeted. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 19:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with either a retarget to Freeware per Angus or deletion per Ivanvector. Shareware is a good example of non-freeware that's not (necessarily) commercial. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also think that going to 'Freeware' makes sense as that article goes into detail about what does and doesn't qualify. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retargeting to Freeware seems to have received the most traction so far, but there seems to be room for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 11:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete – Useless and not well-specified in the industry. Readers can use "freeware", "shareware", "free software", "business software", etc. Why should we have "Non-X" for every "X" when the "Non-X" term is not widely used in WP:RS? — JFG talk 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per JFG. Deryck C. 10:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not mentioned anywhere, and its meaning is unclear and ambiguous - does it mean software that is not freeware, or that is not free software? Peter James (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recently created wikt:non-freeware. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hater Shit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Hater Shit

June 24

Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song)

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

Revolution (Beyoncé album)

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

That One

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

CSS filter

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

Principality and Diocese of Monaco

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

This is a title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so that's why it's there. I think it should stay and keep pointing to Monaco. JASpencer (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The Catholic encyclopaedia article covers both the political and ecumenical areas in one article, Wikipedia covers them separately (see also WP:XY). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since Wikipedia treats these separately. They could equally refer to the Principality of Monaco (the country) or the Diocese of Monaco. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, if I'm correct in assuming that the diocese is coterminous with the country. If that's the case, I could just imagine a reader thinking this was the country's name and thinking it might need some sort of disambiguation. XY deletion would be my second choice; I don't see benefit in retargeting to the diocese. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 14:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • SIA (1st choice) or keep (2nd choice). So far the discussion has shown that this is a reasonable and unambiguous search term, used primarily by Catholic sources, to give a title to the place Monaco. This is more like a case of Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer than illness and death. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover these topics with a different article structure means that we should point readers to the right place by having either a set index or a redirect. I've drafted an SIA under the RfD template for consideration. Deryck C. 09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the full range of options that have so far been put on the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala 09:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both only used in that Catholic Encyclopedia, which would favor Diocese of Monaco. Not a common term used in other books on the subject. It doesn't seem to be a formal title, but if it is then redirect to Diocese of Monaco. The second term would open up a can of worms with search terms like "America, United States of". Alternatively, you could do something like Diocese of California, although that SIA two different possible dioceses and also links to California. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete both - Although, I'd be alright with the first staying and going over to 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Monaco' instead. The latter sets up a bad precedent as stated above. Pretty sure that it should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 8#Inchoate

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