Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut:
  • 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 is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should 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?[edit]

Shortcut:
Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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.)
  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, 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.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Shortcut:

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. Climategate → Climatic 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[edit]

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[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect is to a template that is currently in use, you will need to use {{rfd-t}} instead (see that template's documentation for instructions).
II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents

Current list[edit]

June 30[edit]

June 29[edit]

Death Note (2014 film)[edit]

This redirect was created when no one was sure what year the film would come out. However no such film from the year 2014 exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Death Note (2015 film)[edit]

This redirect was created when no one was sure what year the film would come out. However no such film from the year 2015 exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

HSDPA+[edit]

Proposing deletion of these four redirects with all other existing redirects listed here: Pages that link to "Evolved High Speed Packet Access" to keep (not part of this proposal). Reason: WP:COSTLY. All listed redirects seem to be adressed by this argumentation. Detailled reasons for listing those four here are below. --> HSPA+ and HSDPA exist. There is no HSDPA+ which makes this one an uncommon misnormer (with enough other plausible redirects already existing to aid misspelling during search).

Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Long term evolution advanced[edit]

Proposing deletion of the following redirects with only LTE-Advanced, LTE-advanced and LTE-A to keep (not part of this proposal). Reason: WP:COSTLY. All listed redirects seem to be adressed by this argumentation.

Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fotiallian[edit]

Can't find any evidence that the creature in "The Man Trap" has ever been called this. Miyagawa (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any of the Star Trek guide books that use this term instead of the salt vampire, only one old fan web page. [1] Salt vampire is the known term for the creature. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of honor[edit]

This phrase seems to refer to books more than honorary degrees Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete or Retarget to Alexander Shirvanzade who has a book with this title, the latter if the book is notable. There's also a book by Stephen Stallard but that author is not notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support retarget to Alexander Shirvanzade since Shirvanzade's a famous author. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D1. There's a couple other minor uses, so I think the search engine would be better here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Barons roster[edit]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Oklahoma City Barons where the circumstances of the team move are mentioned. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If we keep this, I'd prefer Bakersfield Condors (AHL)#Players as it gives the roster for the current iteration of the franchise. However, I don't see how that's useful and could cause confusion, so I'm leaning towards deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the help in having this at all so it should be deleted. If it were to be redirected it would be more appropriate to direct it to Oklahoma City Barons article. We treat geographical moves as separate entities so it would not be appropriate to redirect to the current franchise location. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 in Chinese football[edit]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix - Yellow Dingo (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget - these kind of articles can be notable (see e.g. 2015–16 in English football), this one is just non-existent, so agree that a retarget to 2016 Chinese Super League is more useful than deleting. GiantSnowman 18:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2010-11 in Egyptian football[edit]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix - Yellow Dingo (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget - these kind of articles can be notable (see e.g. 2015–16 in English football), this one is just non-existent, so agree that a retarget to 2010–11 Egyptian Premier League is more useful than deleting. GiantSnowman 18:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2009 in Malaysian football[edit]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix - Yellow Dingo (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget - these kind of articles can be notable (see e.g. 2015–16 in English football), this one is just non-existent, so agree that a retarget to 2009 Malaysia Super League is more useful than deleting. GiantSnowman 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

1974-75 in German football[edit]

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix - Yellow Dingo (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget - these kind of articles can be notable (see e.g. 2015–16 in English football), this one is just non-existent, so agree that a retarget to 1974–75 Bundesliga is more useful than deleting. GiantSnowman 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose that, fairly strongly actually. Retargeting there implies that the Bundesliga is the only thing happening in German football that year, which is blatantly false. Other things like, 1974–75 DFB-Pokal and whatever the national team that year is also important. We shouldn't pigeon-hole our readers into one specific facet of German football, when there's more out there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop the Outrageous Abuse of Our Fellow Magical Creatures and Campaign for a Change in Their Legal Status[edit]

No one would ever search this Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sorry, this name isn't notable like Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. This was a singular quote by Hermione about how she came up with the acronym S.P.E.W. It isn't a catchphrase or a term that has transcended the Harry Potter world and fandom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MISS[edit]

These two redirects are very similar in use, and go to similarly titled articles. There should be consistency here. (In addition, MISS could plausibly go to the Mississippi WikiProject.) MelanieLamont (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a hatnote we can put in front of each as with WP:Television and WP:TV? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both as the shortcuts are both over 10 years old and have since then targeted their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    Alternatively, weak support converting the redirects into individual disambiguation pages per the nom's rationale of ambiguity. However, I'm more for "keep"ing these redirects since hatnotes could probably suffice better in this case since they are "WP:" shortcuts. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I have fixed the nomination in this edit (the nominations should contain the entire name of the namespace), changed the section's name while adding an anchor for older edits in the edit history, placed {{Rfd}} on both nominated redirects, and notified the redirects' creators about this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Dislexia (telenovela)[edit]

There is no telenovela mentioned at the target, and I'm not finding one by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. FWIW the redirect used to have some content claiming there was a Brazilian telenovela by this name, but searching for "dislexia" and the names of the actors mentioned doesn't find any support in WP:RS. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, Revert and List at Afd I think this article turned redirect is better off deleted through the right channels. I don't want RFD to be a shortcut to deleting articles even if this case is obviously going for a delete--Lenticel (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should be careful about not using RFD for "backdoor deletions", but for an article in this state for which two editors tried and failed to find evidence of existence and which is obviously going for a delete, I think the appropriate path would be WP:PROD. (If the creator hadn't turned it into a redirect, that's probably what would have actually happened; ironically, that would mean even less attention & discussion than this RfD.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Quite ironic actually. I'm fine with a PROD or CSD as well --Lenticel (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete according to the history Lidia Brondi had created the article, was the sole contributor, and then deleted it and redirected it. If such a telenovela comes up as notable it can be recreated from scratch. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the content is in a foreign language, so there's nothing to salvage unless someone wants to translate it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

AssCreed[edit]

Since this doesn't seem like a referenced nickname for the series (the redirects' target), this is probably vandalism. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Juvenile humor at best, intentional vandalism at worst. JohannSnow (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vandalism CSD may apply here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is shortform that refers to the series as used by reliable industry sources ([3], [4], [5], [6] - in the URL as shorthand for the last one) and by regular gamers in an entirely non-puerile way [7]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep At first glance it looks like someone is having a laugh and a half, but I've seen this used unironically many times. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. This redirect ultimately does no damage to the project. MelanieLamont (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Kid icarus wii[edit]

There was never a new Kid Icarus title release on the Wii. The target was released on the Wii's Virtual Console, but readers looking up this term would probably be looking for a nonexistent game released "new" during the Wii's generation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep being released on the Wii's Virtual Console is close enough for me, since there aren't other Kid Icarus titles on the Wii IIRC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the only mention of a Wii was a rumor. virtual console is not mentioned on the page either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: the virtual console is mentioned in the lede, the infobox, and several times in the reception section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that works. Striking vote. This is the format of how Wii games are titled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eh, it's kind of misleading if you think about it, but it's better than deletion and a Virtual Console release could plausibly be argued to be "Wii". MelanieLamont (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Iron loss[edit]

June 28[edit]

Name of Luxembourg[edit]

This is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE. While the etymology of "Luxembourg" is at the target article, you'd expect Luxembourg itself as more logical place for that information. It's not there, though it is at History of Luxembourg. That looks like the better target of the two right now, though ultimately it probably belongs at the country article. BDD (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Luxembourg, which mentions "Lucilinburhuc"" (from which the modern name "Luxembourg" is derived), though I wish the article explained the etymology of the country's name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect to Luxembourg City#History. One would expect Name of Luxembourg to point to the place where the etymology of the world Luxembourg is explained, and the best place for this is the Luxembourg City article, because the country takes its name from the city (as hinted by -bourg), not the other way around. Actually, it takes its name from the Duchy, which takes its name from the city. Place Clichy (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Confusingly ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Matterfall[edit]

I don't see any connection between the redirect title and its target. It's possible that the redirect title is a game which was or will be published in the specified year, but the redirect isn't useful as the category page doesn't mention this. Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation, or Redirect to Housemarque which is its developer. It's got some coverage by gaming websites and magazines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Preference to redirection to the developer, which is a typical solution with video game redirects, but I won't be hardover if someone comes along with a WP:REDLINK deletion reason. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I were playing this game and searching for it on the internet, a redirect to a Wikipedia category would be useless. A redirect to the publisher's article would also be useless. Somebody searching for this game probably wants a walkthrough or game play tips outside the scope of Wikipedia. If somebody actually wants to find encyclopedic material on this game (release date/platforms, critical reception, development history, etc.), Wikipedia can serve that need with an article. Delete redirect to encourage creation of a useful article from a red link. Plantdrew (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Zhixun, Xu[edit]

Who will type given name, comma, surname for a name? I don't see the Michael, Jackson redirect. Timmyshin (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I see what you're saying now. While I enjoy the {{R from sort name}} redirects, it doesn't make sense from names using the eastern name order. I'll ping the creator, BD2412, to get his input on the matter. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that westerners unfamiliar with Eastern name order would be likely to assume that the name order is given name, surname, and might search accordingly. bd2412 T 21:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412. Plausible search for people looking for the target page if they are not familiar with Eastern name order. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Week keep as plausible error but please do not tag things like this as {{R from sort name}} when you create them; use {{R from incorrect name}} instead. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, delete and optionally create the valid {{R from rearrangement}} Zhixun Xu instead. If someone types Zhixun into the search box (either because they don't know which part is the surname, or they can't remember someone's surname) they'll get to where they're trying to go. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per 210.6.254.106. This search term is kind of plausible (although still below my plausibility threshold), but it's much better serviceable by the search engine. Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Knock, Ireland[edit]

Propose retargetting to Knock#Republic of Ireland, because there is more than one place in Ireland named Knock. SSTflyer 15:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep at current target as it seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and hatnote. The other places listed as the DAB page for Knock are a village that according to our Wikipedia article is 1/10 the size and the shrine and airport of the current target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Glenn abbott cricketer[edit]

OnionRing tried to fix this broken redirect, but this cannot be right though, for the following reasons. First of all, parentheses are missing around the last word. Second, Glenn Abbott (2 ns) is not a cricketer and has nothing to do with the cricketer Glen Abbott (1 n; this is also why, as a page mover, I have suppressed the redirect while moving Glenn abbott (cricketer)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up: turns out I should have redirected to Glen Abbott (the cricketer), and not Glenn Abbott (the baseball player). I've now fixed my error, and I'll stick a dab hatnote on both now. Sorry for making you share my confused and febrile mental state. :-) OnionRing (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Pow Sows[edit]

Implausible search-term. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment appears to be the Cornish language name of the target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I would far prefer to see this retargetted to somewhere that actually discusses "Pow Sows". Redirects are not a system for implementing a translation dictionary; a user who looks up this name wants actual encyclopedic information about it. In previous discussions, we've retargetted non-English names to "names of Fooland" where they are actually discussed. Incidentally we have a very well-developed Terminology of the British Isles article, but it gives the Cornish name for England as "Pow an Sawson" rather than "Pow Sows". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per 210.6.254.106, is the Cornish name for England [8]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FORRED #1. SSTflyer 00:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yankee land[edit]

Implausible search term. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Book searches show a bunch of old books that use the term. However there's no clear target for this. Maybe Yankee? There are mentions of Yankeeland and Dixieland, but Dixieland there refers to Dixie and not the music style. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:4[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Four Award. Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nominator. Current target is astonishing, while the proposed target matches the long-standing WP:FOUR. The large number of incoming links is attributable almost entirely to a welcome message template which includes every single-character shortcut (User:TomasBat/Welcome), and a few other cases where people whimsically linked every single-number shortcut. I see a grand total of one "natural" use in the wild with the intention of referring to the current target: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 28#Edit request, and as the editor who responded to that request noted, it's an unlikely & confusing shortcut. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nominator. WP:FOUR makes so much more sense. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom since WP:FOUR also points there --Lenticel (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:GAC[edit]

June 27[edit]

Magnetosphere of Earth[edit]

The magnetosphere is not the same as the magnetic field. The redirect should be left as a redlink so that an article about it can be created in the future. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing considering that the section retarget has a hatnote "Main" to Earth's magnetic field. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The hatnote should probably be changed to see also. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Larry the Tomato[edit]

I would like this redirect to be deleted. The concept of Larry the Tomato does not exist. What's next, Bob the Cucumber? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • That concept actually does exist. Larry the Cucumber has a brother named Bob. That being said... Morfusmax (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Body swaps wouldn't count either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to the entry on List of Drawn Together characters per Yoshiman6464's findings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Good find, given they are classified as recurring characters. As long as they aren't episodic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to the aforementioned character's section at that Drawn Together page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Helga Zepp LaRouche[edit]

SDRT[edit]

The target page doesn't seem to explain what this abbreviation means. Looking at the page history, it seems that the entity has been renamed and that a previous name is Samantha Dickson Research Trust, but there is no mention of this previous name in the article, and I'm not sure if this article is the expected target for the abbreviation. I suggest either retargeting the page to Stamp duty in the United Kingdom#Stamp Duty Reserve Tax or disambiguating to mention both abbreviations. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Stamp Duty Reserve Tax. Prominently mentioned as an acronym in news articles covering recent Brexit events, this is the most likely search term for now. If the charity mentions SDRT add two dabs hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we should match the redirect Stamp Duty Reserve Tax? I'm wondering if we shouldn't retarget the Stamp Duty Reserve Tax redirect to Stamp duty in the United Kingdom#Stamp Duty Reserve Tax. Is there a tax with the same name in other countries, or is this something UK-only? A few countries like Ireland and France have similar taxes but use different names for those, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The one that the acronym most commonly refers to is the British one so Stamp duty in the United Kingdom#Stamp Duty Reserve Tax would fit. I have no clue if there are other stamp taxes named the same way. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Windows 97[edit]

No such thing, there are some rumours on various websites, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep this was published in magazines like PC Mag. Microsoft Office 97 was also released with titles such as "Word for Windows 97", so this is a likely search term comparable to Windows Memphis. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete: The information is not mentioned in the article itself. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. If RS at the time referred to it as such, it's a plausible search term. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

The Needle Drop[edit]

There are scores of pointless redirects to this site, and I can't see how anyone would search for any of these terms in the first place. Google shows no relationship to these names and the The Needle Drop. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete all except The Internet's Busiest Music Nerd which is his slogan. Everything else is within his program and does not have independent notability in secondary sources. We don't need every example of his name dropping style as with "The Internet's (superlative) Music Nerd" or "(name)-thony (name)-tano". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

More popular than fx[edit]

Not a reasonably conceivable search term. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It links to an overlinked common term "popular", and if it's a meme it is not covered in reliable secondary news sources. No other similar idioms or phrases except for More popular than Jesus. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. What is "fx"? --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mage of Poems[edit]

As far as I can tell, he isn't known by this name Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. no English term for this nickname. Not mentioned in News or Book searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Leih Baahk[edit]

I don't know how to connect this redirect to its target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support 210.6.254.106 (talk)'s proposal. Redirect Leih and Baahk only if they are proper romanizations for Cantonese and there aren't other likely disambiguation targets with the same spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A Letter[edit]

Seems to me like A Letter could refer to just about anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY. This could refer to a number of topics listed at Letter, A (the letter found in the Latin alphabet), or other similar letters that appear in different alphabets (see, e.g. the various diacritic variations at Template:Latin alphabet). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's also a book subtitle that isn't the common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's best to just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

2016 gubernatorial election[edit]

The title of this redirect is too broad for current realities. Even in Nigeria, Edo State is not the only state with a gubernatorial election in 2016. Ondo State, Bayelsa State, Kogi State, etc all had some form of governorship elections dragged to 2016. It is also very likely that there will be some governorship elections in some other countries around the world. In my opinion, this redirect serves little positive purpose. Darreg (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There have been (and will be) many gubernatorial elections this year. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment which other 2016 gubernatorial election? can you list them please. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stanleytux: see, for example, United States gubernatorial elections, 2016. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, seen. well then, this could serve as a disambiguation page instead. What you think? Stanleytux (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I also support disambiguating this title, if an appropriate disambiguation page were to be created. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of elections in 2016 as that covers multiple gubernatorial elections and in case the person needs to look up other similar elections. I just found another one from the Philippines on that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Added Nigerian elections to list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it not be best to turn it into a DAB page? Number 57 16:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to list of elections in 2016 per AngusWOOF. Disambiguating would effectively mean yet another set of "lists of elections by year by type" to maintain in addition to the main articles (since once there's a consensus to disambiguate 2016 gubernatorial elections, we'll get another for 2015 mayoral elections, 2014 judicial elections, etc.). Might be better just to have the yearly article include a table sortable by type of election. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reunion (band)[edit]

I think this redirect should be deleted in order to encourage a creation of an article. I'm not sure if redirecting a band to a song is appropriate. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • keep: I don't see how deleting the redirect is going to encourage anyone to create the article. Once when I created a redirect someone turned it into an article the next day! I have updated the target with a redlink to the band and added {{r to related topic}} to the redirect, both of which changes may help. The redirect will help anyone typing Reunion in the search box and hoping for information about the band. --Mirokado (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment having a WP:REDLINK will show people that an article needs to be created. On the other hand, was this actually a "band" (the target describes them as "an ad hoc group of studio musicians")? And on the third hand, for those of you who have one, did they actually produce any notable works besides the target? 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Transfiguration (song)[edit]

I think this redirect would be more appropriate to Open Heaven / River Wild because Transfiguration of Vincent has songs titled Transfiguration #1 and Transfiguration #2. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Added Transfiguration #1 and #2 to the DAB list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Divided W Fall[edit]

Georgia state capital[edit]

WP:XY. Tbilisi is the capital of the sovereign state of Georgia. SSTflyer 14:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Robby Dee[edit]

WP:XY; see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli Joeykai (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Being selected in a draft doesn't mean the person is notable enough to get a page or a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think we have reasonable precedent for this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Lots of precedent that there are too many possible redirects for this possible person. Being redirected to just the draft article which barely mentions him does not seem appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bullet King[edit]

Gary Glitter/Archive[edit]

These redirects are not useful because the name of the subject does not include a slash, subpages are disabled in mainspace, and the redirects were created in 2012, not in the early days of Wikipedia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

June 24[edit]

Euroville[edit]

Not a valid synonym, many non-notable topic with that name. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - The term is used in a lot of different contexts, and the redirect as it stands isn't right. Lets just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget It was originally intended as a redirect to Auroville, which has grown into a substantial article. I think it should be retargeted there, as {{R from misspelling}}. — Gorthian (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. Retargeting to Auroville would be WP:R#D2 confusing: there are topics actually called Euroville, some potentially notable (see Google News), and some mentioned in Wikipedia; at the moment the best thing we can do for users is to show them our search results. Also, Auroville is not the only possible typo here, giving us a WP:XY problem: e.g. Duroville, Eurville (as in Eurville-Bienville), etc. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per the anon 210.6.254.106. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nάνα[edit]

The first letter is Latin N. The properly spelt Νάνα also exists (although it was created a year later than the misspelt one) so it's conceivable this could have been an intentional {{R from misspelling}}. Redirects with misspellings that mix Latin with Cyrillic or Greek letters have their place here (like "CCCP" (all Latin) redirecting to USSR, which in Russian is spelt in Russian as "СССР" (all Cyrillic)). But in this case there's a mix of recognisably Greek letters with a Latin letter. Of course, these can come up as typoes if you don't time well enough the switching of your keyboard layout when typing. But the cases where this can happen are extremely numerous, this is something that should ideally be dealt with by the search engine (even if it doesn't seem up to the task at present), and if we started making redirects to take care of these what we'll end up with will be a veritable mess. Delete seems most sensible. Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Nana (Greek mythology). If it's a possible typo, then there's no harm in keeping it. But there's only one article on the DAB page Nana that a Greek version of the name would apply to, so that should be the target. (I already retargeted the other redirect, Νάνα, to Nana (Greek mythology).) — Gorthian (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It can also refer to Nana (given name). Anyway, this typo does not seem like a useful one for an English-speaker, so I support deletion. Gorobay (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • There is no Νάνα in the name article, whereas Νάνα is explicitly mentioned in Nana (Greek mythology).
        • Did you read the article? It is a Greek name and that is how it is spelled. It shouldn’t matter whether it is written in Greek letters or not. Gorobay (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I read the introduction to Nana (given name), which begins: Nana is a given name that has different origins in several countries across the world. I took that to mean that it isn't Greek per se. — Gorthian (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Gorthian. Seems like the best target.---- Patar knight - chat

/contributions 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Eπανάσταση (Mixed Latin/Greek letters)[edit]

This was a redirect created in error: its fist letter is Latin E and the rest are unmistakably Greek. It can't have been an intentional {{R from misspelling}} as the properly typed redirect Επανάσταση doesn't exist. We would want to create the proper redirect and delete the misspelt one, and the best way I can imagine of doing it, as suggested above, is by moving without leaving behind a redirect (in order to keep the page history). There are 20 or so more redirects like these (where the first letter is Latin and the rest are Greek or Cyrillic) and I'm trying to gauge the best way to handle them. If it's best to move them (as I suggest), then maybe they can most efficiently be dealt with by a bulk request at WP:RM#TR (technical moves). An alternative, which I've tried on a couple of these, is moving them myself and then requesting the speedy deletion of the leftover redirect per WP:G6.

19 more redirects

Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep What I'm noticing is in that every one of these, it's the initial letter that is ambiguous. I, for one, cannot see any difference between "MЛПУ" and "МЛПУ". I can easily imagine someone starting to type with the Latin letter, switching to Greek for the rest, and not noticing any difference. Why not go ahead and create the non-mixed-alphabet versions of these redirects, so we can cover both the Greek-keyboard user and the user who switches keyboards? I see no harm in letting these be. — Gorthian (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
One reason not to create redirects like these is that not a single one of them seems to have been created on purpose. Of course, the fact that they were created by mistake indicates such mistakes are possible, and I would definitely back up any sensible proposal to deal with such typos as I myself make them often enough. However, doing that by creating redirects is unworkable. In the Cyrillic scripts, one third of all letters are complete Latin lookalikes, and these are also among the most frequently used ones. Layout-switching errors affect not only the first character in a word, but also longer strings both at the beginning and at the end (and sometimes isolated ones in the middle). What this means is that for every single Cyrillic redirect we'll have to create at least half a dozen mixed-script redirects to cover only the most plausible switching errors. This would be extremely laborious, and it will be pointless as well: the sensible way to handle that is through the search engine. It's much easier to implement a simple rule to detect and fix mixed-script strings, than to create tens of thousands of extra redirects. Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that we create any more of this type of redirect, any more than we create redirects for all possible typos in English, but that we leave the ones that exist alone. These could have been created by someone that actually made the typo, then just made the redirect out of it for convenience. If so, then someone finds them useful.— Gorthian (talk)
It's very unlikely that an editor would deliberately create redirects with a certain typo when not even in a single case have they (or anyone else) created the corresponding redirect without the typo. Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It is quite likely if they didn't realize it was a typo.— Gorthian (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
My point precisely! The typos in these redirects can't be there on purpose. Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
If a typo happened once, it can happen again, so the redirects are useful as they are, even though they were created accidentally.. — Gorthian (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but we don't keep every single accidentally created redirect (a case in point is the recent discussion about Divided W Fall. There exists a threshold of plausibility for typos. Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all as plausible redirects for when people switch between keyboards (especially on mobile). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all, and create the "proper" redirects as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Book of Glory[edit]

Cænugeard[edit]

A batch of redirects in various languages and misspellings of languages, all to the city Kiev. I checked through the article; none of the redirects listed here are mentioned. I can intuit that several of them are misspellings, but I can't differentiate between Cyrillic and Latin letters to tell if the misspellings are in English or not. None of them appear likely in English.

Also many languages that seem to have no close relationship to this subject: Bengali, Chinese, Hebrew, Persian, etc.— Gorthian (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom's due diligence in scrubbing the entries for WP:RFFL. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the Yiddish קיעוו (but not the Hebrew קייב) and the Belarussian Кіеў as the names in the languages of the city's largest historically established minorities. Keep Kænugarðr as an alternative spelling or a plausible misspelling of Koenugarðr, which according to the Ukrainian article is what the city was known as in the sagas. Delete Cænugeard as this appears to have only been the Old English name. I haven't looked at the other Latin-script ones. Unsure about Кијев: it's deletable if it's just the Serbian name, but I don't know if it can't coincide with a spelling variant in one of the Slavonic varities historically spoken in the area. Delete all other foreign-script ones. Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Kieu, Kiiev, Kijew, Kiyew and Kiyiw look like possible (informal) renditions of the Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations of the name. Now, how plausible they are, I don't know, but I'd tend to consider them worth keeping unless given a reason not to. Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 23[edit]

Draft:Apakah FINGERPRINT GEMSTONE or GF Gemstone or Batu Akik GF layak GO INTERNATIONAL[edit]

Delete, becuase the title is too long, confusing, spammy-looking, and misleading. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete implausible search term that was renamed to a proper title. Houseclean this one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long and implausible the title of the redirect is, the title is the title where the target draft's creator originally created the draft. Deleting this redirect hinders their ability to find the draft in the event they ever want to pick it up again. (Note: the draft was moved to the new title by the nominator of this RfD about half a year ago, not by the creator of the draft.) Also, the "spammy-looking" concern with the redirect's title is not really an issue in the "Draft:" namespace since all "Draft:" namespace pages are not indexed for third-party search engines. (See Wikipedia:Drafts#Finding drafts.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that as a problem considering that the creator's talk page has multiple notices about where the draft is currently at. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's assuming that the draft's creator knows how Wikipedia works. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943. Harmless redirect not in mainspace. Deletion has no benefit and could potentially hinder the original contributor. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - the draft article is actually about the Sunrise Ruby. As described in that article, "pigeon's blood" is the stone's grading. The editor created the article almost 10 months ago and hasn't been back to Wikidepia since, so they don't seem too keen on expanding their article. Perhaps that's because they since found out that a more detailed article already exists. I will nominate the draft for deletion also. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'll add that Steel1943's rationale is fair - normally I would have agreed that keeping the link would be kind to the author. Just that it is unnecessary in this case. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oostenryk[edit]

These are mostly redirects to their target articles from unlikely languages (e.g., from Afrikaans to Austria, Arabic to Saxony, etc.). The redirect page names do not appear on their target articles. I'm no language expert, but I think these should all be deleted per WP:RFFL. — Gorthian (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding two more to this group. — Gorthian (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe keep Freistaat Sachse as a likely misspelling of the German name Freistaat Sachsen. Uanfala (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. The names in these languages are not official or historic, so they would fall in WP:RFFL. They are covered in the non-English Wikipedias. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bro-C'hall[edit]

Redirects to France from every language known to Google and then some. I have not checked on every single one of these, but none of them seem to be mentioned in the target article. I think they should all be deleted per WP:RFFL.

Note: Two of these don't even show up in my browser, so they are tricky to get to!— Gorthian (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Uanfala, could you specify which ones are the names in the languages of neighbouring countries (including the two old English ones)? — Gorthian (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
These are: Dutch (Franse Republiek, not a neighbour in the strict sense of the word, but that's not what we're after), German (Französische Republik, Franzosische Republik, Franzoesische Republik) and Italian (Republica Francesa). The Old English ones (Francland, Frencisc Cynewīse), if kept at all, had better be retargeted to a historically more appropriate article. Uanfala (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting that the first four aren't the traditional names of France in these languages (and those do exist as redirects not listed in this discussion), but rather translations of "French Republic". This might an official name, but it doesn't seem to have the established historic association with the topic that would normally be needed to justify keeping. Uanfala (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Formation (album)[edit]

Delete as misleading. Despite what this redirect says, Beyonce does not have an album entitled "Formation." -- Tavix (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Lemonade (Beyoncé album) as a plausible search term. The corresponding concert tour is named Formation World Tour. SSTflyer 07:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete still not an album. The tour is called The Formation World Tour, or Formation World Tour, or Formation Tour, but it is not referred to as Formation by itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SSTFlyer. I can see myself putting in the name of the tour and the word 'album'. --Izno (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per SSTFlyer. Plausible search term given the name of the tour. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete anyone using this should be helped to quickly understand that there is no such album, a redirect just leaves them scratching their heads. Siuenti (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Also typing in the term "formation beyonce" would find Formation (Beyonce song) rather easily. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Of no use and misguided. —IB [ Poke ] 12:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speciously[edit]

I don't really like wiktionary redirects as they are rarely useful. These are no exception. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't believe readers regularly search for "speciosity" as per {{wi}} and the hits that do show up are because they are looking for other terms and find it curious. There is an article for Specious present though. A search on news and books for speciosity refers mainly to a particular quote by Thomas Carlyle "Seek only deceitful Speciosity, money with gilt carriages, 'fame' with newspaper paragraphs, whatever name it bear, you will find only deceitful Speciosity; godlike Reality will be forever far from you.... " So it is not used in regular communications. But are you trying to frame it like Specious? If so, redirect all variants to that and add wiktionary lookups for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as I'm not convinced by the page view stats. I usually consider 1 page view/day to be in the plausible range and these are well under that, keeping WP:NOTDIC in mind. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. PaleAqua (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tomana[edit]

Delete. “Tomana” has nothing to do with macrons. Gorobay (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Surinamese general election, 2020[edit]

This is premature, and seems to have been created solely to add to the template {{Surinamese elections}}.— Gorthian (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Episodic Characters[edit]

Boro language (Atlantic-Congo)[edit]

I don't think that those who are looking for an article about a language expect to find a subpage to a wikiproject. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

These are the names associated with two now retired language IDs on Glottolog. And while we're waiting for the creator of the redirects to weigh in, I'll just note that the only ref for glottolog's entry for Bangbay[10] is also a reference for Bang-bay, which is alternative name of the Ngambay language, which can then be a likely alternative target. Uanfala (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would be looking for these unless they heard about them from Glottolog. I created links for all language names in Glottolog, but I don't know how best to handle these. I don't know why they were retired, whether spurious or not distinctive. That would influence how we target the rd. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation if there's evidence of them actually being used as an alternative name for any languages. I think kwami's concerns of spuriousness are enough for me to oppose a retarget unless more evidence can be found. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not listed in Atlantic–Congo languages so even putting it as an entry in Boro language is difficult. Bangbay can be redlinked to encourage creation if it is notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC) updated 01:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget Boro language (Atlantic-Congo) to Boro language (Ghana). Glottolog's "superseded" entry for Boro language (Atlantic-Congo) [11] doesn't tell us what other entry it's superseded by, but it gives us enough information to figure that out. Its only reference is Sommer (1992:113) and all the information this text gives about the language is consistent with what wikipedia says about Boro language (Ghana): both are spoken in Worawora and Tapa, both became extinct in the 19 c. and both have been argued to have been either unclassified or belonging to the Togo-Remnant subgroup of the Atlantic-Congo group of the Niger-Congo family. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The other redirect seems to hinge on the whats and wherefores of glottolog's inner workings. Pinging Jasy jatere in case they might happen to be able to help. Uanfala (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rendering APIs[edit]

A rendering API doesn't necessarily deal with 3D stuff. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • would you change it to a disambiguation? the term is often assumed to mean (gl,vulkan , d3d etc) but I can see it might appear in other contexts. Fmadd (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a bad redir anyway, the page content was 
    #redirect [[Category:3D graphics APIs]]
    and you can't make a redir to a cat page in that manner. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OpenVG and anything else classed as a 'Rendering API'. Indeed 3D graphics library isn't actually synonymous with 3d rendering api. A graphics library usually sits on top of a rendering API (possibly multiply back-ends). I see the library page already covers 'low level ...', but that could just link to a new "list of rendering APIs" page. Fmadd (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Economic analysis[edit]

Unexpected target. I'd expect to find an article which discusses economic analysis, not a portal page which lists six articles and six mathematical formulæ. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Economics. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Economics is far too bulky to satisfy expectations about the central aspect analysis with the modifier economic. The portal subpage while not ideally suited, certainly fits the expected content. And that is analytical methods in economics. I would not vote against summarizing these items in a short overview article of its own, if the general feeling is against a simple redirect. Simplicity and therefore non-inflation sometimes has its merits. -- Kku 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's bulky but it does mention economic analysis multiple times. If there's an article that focuses on that specific term, that would be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment How would you all feel about creating a WP:DABCONCEPT at this title, incorporating the links from the portal subpage? -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support making a broad-concept article per Tavix. This subject seems to be a poster child for WP:DABCONCEPT. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Papal ban of Freemasonry/catholicism and freemasonry[edit]

Mrs Denis Thatcher[edit]

She is not known at all by anyone as Mrs Denis Thatcher. If anything, Denis himself is more likely to be known or referred to as Mr Margaret Thatcher. --Neve–selbert 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. This can only refer to Margaret Thatcher, and although uncommon now, was in fact used in reliable and official sources back in her day ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc.). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    "Her day" was predominately back in the Eighties and not in the Fifties as per your third source. Quite frankly, I believe referring to the former UK PM with Mrs in front of her husband's name is rather sexist and anachronistic. There are merely 548 Google results for "Mrs Denis Thatcher" versus an astonishing and overpowering approx 29,700 results for "Mrs Margaret Thatcher". For what its worth, Denis married twice—so that indeed renders your "this can only refer to Margaret Thatcher" argument as thoroughly debunked.--Neve–selbert 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The third source is from a newspaper from one of Margaret Thatcher's failed runs as a candidate in the 50s, which is when her political career began. Today it is sexist and anachronistic, but it was used by reliable sources back then, is still used to an extent by reliable sources (evidenced by 44 hits in Google Books with several from 2015), and is thus a plausible search term. How many people searching "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" do you think are searching for Denis Thatcher's first wife as opposed to one of the most famous politicians in history? How many times do reliable sources use it to refer to the first Mrs. Denis Thatcher vs. the second? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would clearly apply here, and the current article already describes Denis Thatcher as divorced when the two first met, and if anyone is curious, they can click through where the first marriage has two paragraphs.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I am pretty sure and indeed confident that most people searching for Margaret Thatcher would not under any serious circumstances search for "Mrs Denis Thatcher". I believe, quite frankly on the contrary, that it certainly would be more likely than not that people happening to search for his first wife Margaret Kempson would search for "Mrs Denis Thatcher". Your arguments in favour of keeping the redirect are still considerably weak, this redirect was created for absolutely no reason. We should either delete it or retarget it to Denis Thatcher.--Neve–selbert 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Could refer to his first wife. Google News only shows 4 articles, one from the telegraph calls that name "ridiculously labeled" [17] In books, it is used as an example of how not to refer to someone [18] [19] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Google News isn't that great for news before its founding, unless Denis Thatcher only did appear in one news story between 1950 and 1990.
The redirect is ridiculously labeled, that's why it's not mentioned in the target article or (thankfully) the target name. However it was how many reliable sources referred to her in the 1980s and earlier (Opening the bazaar, Mrs. Denis Thatcher, former Conservative candidate, Dulwich has an influential new resident...Mr. and Mrs. Denis Thatcher). Now it crops up frequently in reliables sources usually in the context of how sexist the use of the name in past years was, but it is still written about and is a plausible search term ("Thatcher continued her trawl of constituencies in the south east, invariably described as 'Mrs Denis Thatcher' in the minutes of selection meetings", It is necessary to recall that the most famous political figure in modern times was called 'Mrs. Denis Thatcher'...", "Her itinerary, still marked Mrs. Denis Thatcher MP").
As for Denis Thatcher's first wife, the first mention of Denis Thatcher in the Margaret Thatcher article (which is clearly the primary topic between the two) describes him as already divorced, and readers can click through if they want to know more. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This redirect is overwhelmingly more likely than not to refer to his first wife than the more notable one. Why on earth would one refer to one of the most influential politicians in the 20th century by the name of their spouse? It is truly and absolutely absurd. Has anyone heard of Mr Nancy Reagan or Mr Raisa Gorbacheva? Of course not. Thatcher should not be an exception, that renders as mere undiluted sexism. In response to "How many people searching "Mrs. Denis Thatcher" do you think are searching for Denis Thatcher's first wife as opposed to one of the most famous politicians in history?" I think my answer to that would be undeniably most people, without any doubt or equivocation whatsoever. Thatcher was undeniably famous in her own right, as nobody can dispute. In my opinion, it would be far more legitimate and credible to refer to Denis Thatcher as Mr Margaret Thatcher. Yet, for some odd reason? That redirect is nonexistent.--Neve–selbert 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. MSJapan (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is a necessary redirect. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. If not re-direct, then delete. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ryukyu Broadcasting[edit]

Professional Soldier[edit]

Now that the redirect professional soldier has been deleted, this redirect should get the same treatment as well. RekishiEJ (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as variant of recently deleted term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Support move of film to Professional Soldier as the film uses this title and can be the primary topic. A hatnote can be added to soldier if you are concerned people want to know if soldiers get paid. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Google/[edit]

SSJW[edit]

June 22[edit]

STAINLESS Steel[edit]

Lynix[edit]

Shaliyuan[edit]

Delete WP:R#D2 confusing and WP:RFOREIGN. Chinese name of a North Korean city. The target is not known by this name in English, while some Chinese localities are known by this name (see e.g. zh:Template:PRC admin/data/44/02/04/101/201 for one in Shaoguan; Google says there's another one in Huizhou; etc.). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Edric Egberuare[edit]

Chåmpionship[edit]

Google Spain[edit]

WP:REDLINK I doubt readers will get what they want, they would just get a domain name. It makes sense for we have Microsoft Japan and Google China, for example. All of them basically have links from other articles. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete . Not a directory #7: "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." So Google China has notable stuff as a single entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Some of these may be notable in their own right, and even the non-notable ones aren't well served by the current target or any other existing target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Some of these are likely notable and could have articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

MacOS[edit]

Should this redirect to Mac OS instead, as it is now renamed macOS (note the lowercase m). Please see Talk:OS X for more information. (I am neutral about this redirect, but just thought I'd bring it up here)- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • To be clear, this discussion is about whether macOS should be its own article or should remain as a redirect? 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to make way for moving OS X to it. We probably need appropriate hatnotes to accommodate "Mac OS" too. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It appears it has already gone through an RM and failed to achieve the consensus to move. More interesting is the fact that the result of the RM is being repeated here... For now, I believe it is appropriate to convert to a dab page until "macOS" becomes the common name. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for now as the RM did not go through to rename to make MacOS the article title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, in a case like that, this discussion probably should have gone to WP:MRV or a new move request started at Talk:OS X. The "delete to move OS X here" seem to be the equivalent to "support" votes in the referenced closed move discussion. (In fact, I think I may ask the closer to relist that discussion...) Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete- Per Codename Lisa. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep since the redirect is useful (even as seemingly the current "delete" votes have stated, in one way or another.) If the target article needs to be moved over the nominated redirect, that can be done through WP:RM to allow the proper audience to assist with establishing consensus for the move. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Given the the related RM has been closed as no consensus, this should be keep for now pending a potential future RM possibly after the September. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Codename Lisa. Dane2007 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to macOS Sierra. Keep until actual release of macOS Sierra. NasssaNser 13:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Change of name mentioned in several reliable sources and many people may search for this on Wikipedia thinking that their article is named that.--Proud User (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, until pages actually get moved (or not) later in the year. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Calculatable[edit]

The ability to calculate, the implied meaning of these redirects, is distinct from calculation. I assume calculatability is an important topic in computer science, but I don't know what article to point to. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to computability? That's the most general article on the topic, and sources I can see seem to be using the terms more or less synonymously. (Effectively calculable points to and is discussed at effective method; but in general the authors who mean "effectively calculable" say "effectively calculable"). Though I do see one from Stewart Shapiro where he's using them to mean different things [20]. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary this They are prominent terms used in news and books, but no article that treats this specifically. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to computability per 210.6.254.106. Consider adding wiktionary boxes to article. Note that the See also section of calculation has a link "Calculability" that actually links to Complexity class, so that might be a possibility as well. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: May be speedied because Neelix. NasssaNser 12:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • "Neelix G6" is restricted to cases where "the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion", which really does not apply to an already-open discussion with three non-delete opinions. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to computability or wiktionary per the hits received. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Magnet quench incident[edit]

Delete. The redirect doesn't make sense, many magnets quenched in various places (random example), it's like redirecting capital to a specific capital of a country. See also Bosley John Bosley's talk page. mfb (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Can you provide a link to another Magnet quench incident that is sufficiently notable that it has or should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That is reversing the burden of proof. Can you prove that "magnet quench incident" without further context clearly refers to the LHC one? As an example, is there any news talking about that which doesn't mention the LHC explicitly? --mfb (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep/Retarget. I simply asked for further information and this has not been forthcoming...the LHC magnet quench incident remains the only notable magnet quench incident of which I am aware. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by "decommissioning process"? Disassembling magnets happens without current in them - no quench. --mfb (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Loafer (upcoming film)[edit]

List of upcoming Hannah Montana episodes[edit]

Lullaby (upcoming film)[edit]

Master's House[edit]

Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)[edit]

Intertouchdownception[edit]

What is this redirect good for? I can not see the word being used anywhere in target page, and "what links here" turns up blank so it is not used. Qed237 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Patar knight. Redirects are cheap and this term is used enough to warrant for it to stay. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The term is not listed in the article at all. Is it used by reliable sources as more than just that one site (sbnation)? If so, it should be added to the list up front and bolded. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes it is. "Golden Tate is most recently known for the "Intertouchdownception", and has since been a great receiver." It also was a pretty well-known hashtag on Twitter [22]. Again, redirects are cheap and it seems like something someone could search for, so it seems helpful to our readers. The original nominator's purpose for deleting is that this phrase won't be used in target pages and nothing shows up in the "what links here." Both of these reasons don't make sense, as redirects are not supposed to be used in articles. Ideally it wouldn't show up anywhere in a Wikipedia article. Redirects are meant to redirect users to the correct page they are searching for. Honestly, this should probably be speedily kept. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237, I never said it was a well established term. I said it was common enough to warrant a redirect. I also said that your rationale for deletion is not consistent with WP:R#DELETE, and my rationale to keep is consistent with WP:R#KEEP, specifically items #3 (aiding a search) and #5 (it is useful). Your deletion reasoning was that there is nothing linked to the redirect within Wikipedia, which I find lacking since most people try not to link to redirects. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – If it is a well established term, then why is there no mention of it in the target article? Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Seoul International Airport[edit]

Gimpo International Airport also serves international destinations. SSTflyer 09:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. Before Incheon Airport was built, apparently Gimpo was Seoul's major international airport. —Kusma (t·c) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote. Incheon is currently the largest and busiest airport in SK. If someone is searching for "Seoul International" they are looking for Incheon, not Gimpo. Having a hatnote to Gimpo would be sufficient, especially since there are only two major airports in the city per List of airports in South Korea. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote per WP:TWODABS, add list of airports in South Korea to hatnote if there is a third one in Seoul. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate like Houston International Airport or retarget to Seoul Airport like Moscow International Airport and Paris International Airport. Should be treated like all the other not-really-correct titles which could refer to multiple airports (and which are not pointed to a single airport even when there's wide traffic disparities). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent history of ...[edit]

"Recent", in these redirects' case, is ambiguous and subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding the Thailand one: I created the redirect so that there'd be an easy way to get to the latest History of Thailand subarticle without having to remember the specific cut-off year. Yes, it's arbitrary, but no more than the date chosen for the target article is arbitrary. I'd be fine with deletion if nobody is using it; I don't any more. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep last two, retarget first to History of Alicante#Modern history. "Recent" can be ambiguous and subjective, but not in this case, as the target articles are where the most recent "history of X" articles available. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-objectively[edit]

Didacticly[edit]

Should these target Didacticism, Didactic method, or just be deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • My first preference is delete, especially for Didacticly. For the others, I believe didactic method is a better target than the current one, but deletion is still probably better. —Kusma (t·c) 08:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Renationalizing[edit]

A bunch of silly forms of nationalization, Neelix speedies declined. No version of re- form is mentioned in the article, and may not be a real word. Nationalizer doesn't seem legit either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Patar knight Except these redirects suggest that Wikipedia addresses renationalization as a topic distinct from nationalization, when we don't. No form of renationalization even appears in the article. Just because a word is used doesn't make it a helpful redirect, and in this case, it ain't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We can safely assume that people are familiar enough with the English language to know that the prefix "re-" usually means to do the following verb again. Re-make, Re-nominate, Re-consider, Re-nationalize. In this case though, not only it used as the central focus of reliable sources as I've shown above, it's also in the article (just with a dash): "A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called 'reverse privatization'. " ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The definition should be added up front and the term bolded in the lead paragraph as with Reunification if you want these variants to stay around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) updated 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added a sentence to the lede. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, discussed at target. Siuenti (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Business related redirects[edit]

Implausible redirects. There were more similar to these but they have already been deleted under G6 Neelix. One or two may be viable but ~10 isn't necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

These need to be bolded in the lead in the non-profit article. Is "non-business" a term or it is always associated with organization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Non-business entity is bolded so that set is okay to stay. I just have to question whether the term non-business is used like non-profit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Doing a Google search shows that non-business seems to more commonly apply to non-business activities of companies, so those should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete the lot I do not automatically make the jump from non-business to non-profit or for that matter from organization to corporation. Governmental agencies are non-business; so is the weekly bridge club. "Nonprofit organization" is a term-of-art, but "non-business organization" is hardly synonymous. THis is just another Neelix "trap every search whether it makes sense to or not" case. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeopardisers[edit]

Should Jeopardy and related forms really point to endangerment? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Patar knight, I'm sure Template:Wiktionary redirect's "readers search for it" is intentionally vague, but do you really think two hits a month qualifies? That's absolutely noise level: at the most two actual human beings, in reality probably one or none, trying them in an average month. And who knows why? They may just see it pop up in the search box suggestions and get curious. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
BDD, I would redirect anything with two hits a month or more, while pages with between 1–2 hits are possibly redirected based on how commonly used the word is and how simple the changes to the base word are (e.g. a word that seems widely used in reliable sources would get redirected and something that adds just a "-er" to the base word is usually a far more likely search than adding an "re-" to the start and an "-istically" to the end.). If you click on the Agent drop-down menu, this new page view tool divides views into actual users, spiders (i.e. web crawlers), and bots, so unless the tool is inaccurate, these are in fact real users looking up the word. Redirects are cheap and if they're helping out a reader or two a month, that's fine with me. In any case, 7 of the 12 redirects in this RfD are getting more than 4 hits per month, while the top for get between 10 and 100 hits a month. Those should certainly be soft redirected, since the Jeopardy (disambiguation) page is entirely unrelated to this meaning of this word and thus a poor target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary -- The Anome (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - two hits a month could be a crawler. There's no need to essentially replicate a dictionary inside the encyclopedia. MSJapan (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • delete all. If a user can not search for a altrernate form of a word they do not need an encyclopedia they need to finish second grade. (i.e., we do not need to spoon feed readers, readers are not idiots) - Nabla (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Jeopardy (disambiguation) where the reader will find relevant information, including a link to wikt:jeopardy. Yes we should spoon-feed the reader where there is something appropriate to spoon-feed them. Deryck C. 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Deryck, the Jeopardy (disambiguation) page seems to be entirely links to TV shows and songs named Jeopardy and then a see also link to double jeopardy. The thing most useful to the people searching the terms in this RfD is probably the wiktionary box, so wouldn't it makes sense to just soft redirect? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I still think people who search for these words will be looking for a general article on the concept of "jeopardy" (which we don't have). So we should give them a Wiktionary link for "jeopardy", which is at Jeopardy (disambiguation), which I still think is preferable to individual Wiktionary redirects. Second choice Wiktionary redirect per Patar knight. Deryck C. 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there isn't an article about danger but there is relevant content at risk. Siuenti (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Patar knight. Redirects are cheap and if people are hitting these pages then they are useful. Retargeting to risk would be my second choice. PaleAqua (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent history of Stonehenge[edit]

The use of "recent" in this redirect is ambiguous and subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Star fox wii[edit]

There was apparently not a Star Fox game released for the Wii, making this redirect somewhat misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • That actually seems like rationale to delete the redirect per WP:REDLINK, unless it is mentioned and identified in an article, then the redirect could be retargeted there so that readers can find the information they are looking for rather than no information about the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Why don't you know redirected, with a mention, to the correct source, ref included. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

کریولیس[edit]

Dry wash[edit]

Re-targeting to Dry wash (disambiguation). The target article doesn't use the phrase "dry wash", and the disambiguation page offers the term "waterless car wash", which itself redirects to car wash. Alternately, re-target to arroyo (creek) which does use the term "dry wash" and add an Other Uses there. Morfusmax (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support move to base title per IP. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Move disambiguation per 210.6.254.106. PaleAqua (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wavedashing[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. A redirect at this title was nominated at RfD in the past and deleted, but before, it targeted a different subject. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry that you are not following WP:AGF. It was made in good faith. It is a likely search term. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your first part of your statement, given the tone of the comment on SSTflyer's talk page, as well as the tone in the comment above (specifically the sentence Live with it.). Either way, "likely" search terms are only helpful if the term is either identified and defined at the target page, or if the search term is a likely alternative name or spelling variation for the alternative name (and the alternative name is mentioned on the target page.) This redirect currently meets neither of these criteria. In fact, the section which the redirect targets, Bunny hopping#Wave, currently doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That, and "wavedashing" and "bunny hopping" (as defined in the article) are not the same thing. "bunny hopping" involves jumping; "wavedashing" involves somersaults or "somersault-like" movements. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Wavedashing is the most famous move in Super Smash Bros., a major e-sport, so article creation with proper sources should be encouraged, instead of hindered by a useless redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I created this redirect 3 April 2015 at the same day I put in the anchor it pointed to: special:diff/654728147

The anchor was removed at some point during the last 14 months. Not sure exactly when or by whom. I would like to keep the redirect up and restore the information.

Patar knight the redirect was and.can be useful again. It is more useful to build a section on a bigger concept page and later split it off. Expecting a perfect article out of scratch on such an obscure topic is not realistic. I will take it was a redirect with possibilities. I will restore the lost section and feel.free to nominate it via the split section temate if you think it grows large enough to merit it's own page. Ranze (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Menu 1[edit]

This is a name of a song used in multiple Super Smash Bros. series games. However, the subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the target article or the aforementioned series article. If there is a retargeting option, it would probably be Super Smash Bros.#Music, but the subject of the redirect is not mentioned there either. Without a specific mention, the title of this redirect makes it a vague search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, seems as though I nominated this about a year and a half ago, but then changed my mind. Interesting how time helps form different opinions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Iconic music from a major gaming franchise. Article creation with sources should be encouraged. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XY, I know this song but its not even what I first thought of when I saw this RfD.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not a notable single. Not even mentioned by name on the article. What makes it notable? Did it chart on Oricon? Did it win some music award? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Stages in Super Smash Bros. Melee[edit]

The information identified by the redirect is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep page mentions that there are some stages in the gameplay section.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete someone looking under this title would be expecting a list of the 29 actual stages, not a paragraph that says it has 29 stages. Not a game guide. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the target does have a paragraph on stage design under gameplay, as well as a mentio in the lede, reception section, and a mention in the sequel section on how some stages were incorporated into the sequel. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Blast-Line[edit]

Per the history of this redirect as an article, this topic refers to the imaginary boundary of a stage where if a character walks over it, the character loses a life. However, the term of the redirect itself is not not mentioned in the target article and the former redirect as an article did not have references citing that the redirect is even a valid term. Either way, identifying the redirect on Wikipedia probably violates WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not a dictionary. The term does not show up in news or books searches, outside of the military one. And the explosion article does not define this. So there is no notable coverage of this specific term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee's Debug Menu[edit]

Pokémon Appearances in Super Smash Bros.[edit]

Besides the fact that such a complete list as identified by the title of these redirects doesn't appear in this article, creating such a list on Wikipedia would probably fail WP:NOTWIKIA since due to the way the Super Smash Bros. series is set up, these redirects as redirects have an almost unavoidable WP:XY issue since in the series, Pokémon have appeared as playable characters and as items when summoned by in-game use of Poké Balls. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Target article lists the playable Pokémon characters in a table and mentions that Pokéballs are items that can summon other Pokémon to the field. Having a complete list of all Pokémon summonable by Pokéballs is not a necessary condition for keeping this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see a precedent of "(franchise) appearances in (2nd franchise)" for video games (e.g. Final Fantasy characters in Kingdom Hearts). There is a section called Pokémon_(video_game_series)#Appearances_in_other_games but it is not big or notable enough for its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

L-canceling[edit]

Ridley is too big[edit]

Smash bros hd[edit]

These terms seem to not refer to any specific game in the Super Smash Bros. series. The only game in the series that is compatible with HD is Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, but the redirects were never an official name for the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't exist or its at least WP:CRYSTALBALL. Many fans of Melee want to see an HD remake of that game, but there hasn't been any sort of announcement from Nintendo at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt no such title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could plausibly be used to refer to HD trailers and media associated with the game series [25]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Paternity (Biology and Medicine)[edit]

SSBW[edit]

Super smash division[edit]

The target page doesn't identify what a "division" is, and neither does Super Smash Bros., the series article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl secrets[edit]

Cook Kirby[edit]

This is basically a "super power" used by Kirby. It's not exclusive to Super Smash Bros.; it is also used in the Kirby video game series. The subject of this redirect doesn't seem defined in any of the aforementioned articles, so redirecting this to any of them could be misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Snow Keep as a likely search term. It doesn't seem to matter if there's anything about a subject in an article if someone, sometime, somewhere might look for a term, even if the article doesn't contain one iota of information about the subject as can be seen by the closing of the redirects to songs below. The precedent has been set. Live with it. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

San Angelo[edit]

Since this redirect has existed since 2004, the current situation may be correct, but I'm not completely sure. I recently discovered the disambiguation page Sant'Angelo, and it seems that several of the subjects listed on this disambiguation page could be referred to as "San Angelo" as an English transliteration. With that being said, the current situation makes me wonder if it is actually not a WP:WORLDWIDE view and needs to be "fixed" to remove any possible systemic bias. So, is the current situation correct (which means that the target page may need to be moved over the redirect as a primary topic and essentially the only topic spelled like this), should the redirect be retargeted to Sant'Angelo or is there another option that may be more plausible? Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the Sant'Angelo dab. It's hard to pin a good primary topic for this term given that this can pertain to both the angel Michael and St. Angelus. --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote to the dab as with San Francisco which has See also to the other spelling variants AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with this proposal too --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album[edit]

Drug house[edit]

Not all drug houses are crack houses. Is there a better target out there in the world? I think this could potentially be a viable topic for an article too. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Not all drug houses are crack houses — is there some other use of the term "drug house" I'm missing (aside from the unintentionally hilarious WP:PTM Drug Houses of Australia)? As far as I can see, "drug house" isn't a supertopic of "crack house" but simply an alternative, less common name; crack house itself notes that the term isn't literally limited to crack ("illegal drugs, including crack cocaine"). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to use the term "crack house" as a metonymous definition for any house at which any drug is bought, sold, consumed, or produced. The term "crack house" has a rather complex history in the United States, and it is often used pejoratively (often with racist connotations). Another option would be to move the current article at crack house to drug house (over the redirect) and make the article about drug houses in general. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It really depends on what the most notable term is. If that's crack house then use that and alias the others to this one, listing and bolding them in the lead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The term "crack house" is ubiquitous, but it is not the preferred term when referring to locations that involve drugs other than crack. Indeed, "drug house" is the preferred term for the BBC, New York Times, U.S. Supreme Court, state supreme courts, and state narcotics agencies. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Move target to drug house per NCFF's sources and because "crack house" would be a sub-set of "drug house." I think the article should have a broad scope that would encompass all of these terms. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move renaming crack house to drug house and making it the primary topic, with crack house and meth house being the new redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move per above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Assault weapons legislation[edit]

The target article's title suffers from a problem I described at Wikipedia:In the United States. Extensive previous discussion about renaming it makes me think such a proposal would be unlikely to succeed this time around, so I propose dealing with these instead. Deleting per WP:REDLINK might be desirable. We could also retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation, where phrases like Gun laws redirect, though I don't know how much that would satisfy readers. Only the sections on Japan and New Zealand (not even the US!) mention assault weapons. Assault weapons ban (disambiguation) is worth considering too. Maybe a better candidate for a WP:CONCEPTDAB, but could move to the base title if the redirect is deleted. I would support almost any change here. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not a huge fan of Assault weapons ban (disambiguation) as a potential target because it only discusses U.S. laws at the moment, though if the DAB page were expanded, it could make a good target. That said, I am going to vote delete because I think there is a viable topic here for a standalone article (about assault weapons bans, in general). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there really Wikipedia:In the United States issue here? "Assault weapon" itself appears to be a U.S. term of legal art. Other jurisdictions either have different terms of art, or don't parse the distinctions between various types of weapons in such detail in the first place (e.g. where I am, AFAIK the finest distinction we draw is between "firearms" and "arms" in general). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If the term is being used in other countries, then redirect to the dab page. I've added Overview of gun laws by nation to the dab page in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Everybody Dies Young[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For instance, the album That's Why God Made the Radio's first song is Think About the Days. No redirect. The next two songs have articles while Spring Vacation , or more correctly spring vacation, is a redirect, but to spring break. Other Bach Boys' songs are redirects but only because editors created articles for them and they were not sufficiently notable. I have never seen this sort of behaviour before and would not like it to continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap. What's the issue? VQuakr (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
On the face of it, there's no issue with keeping the redirects. But what happens if at some point in the future an artist releases another song titled "Everybody Dies Young" and it becomes a huge global hit, and becomes the unambiguous primary topic on Wikipedia? Do we then need to create a disambiguation for the redirect, when almost certainly everybody will be searching for the big hit by the same name? Richard3120 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Do we then need to create a disambiguation for the redirect Nope, per WP:TWODABS you wouldn't need a disambiguation page in that case. You'd just overwrite the redirect with an article about the notable song, with a {{for}} hatnote to the non-notable song. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yet PC78 (talk · contribs) is making that exact argument at Talk:Where the Light Gets In (album)#Requested move 18 June 2016
And redirects are costly. And so the issue is that we do not create articles for every song name. There is no policy to do so. There is no guideline to do so. Just because an editor has done so for a while doe not mean it should continue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Irresponsible? Oy... --Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Quite irresponsible! As I stated, if this had been an empty article stating
"Everybody Dies Young" is a song off ...
and that went to a speedy, no redirect would have been left.
If that speedy was contested and it went to a PROD, no redirect would have been left.
If that PROD was contested and it went to an AfD, no redirect would have been left.
Why? Because it's not a likely search term. So why is it responsible to circumvent that and simply create redirects for unlikely search terms? If the song had charted, it might be a likely search term, but this is not a responsible action. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You are very worked up about these redirects, which are harmless and helpful to the project. I'm going to move on to other tasks now, so we'll see how this plays out. But I see no harm in creating these redirects and wish you would stop calling me irresponsible. Take care. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
They are neither helpful nor harmless. I would call any editor who created a redirect for an unlikely search terms irresponsible. Don't take it personally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just because you may not search for the term does not mean someone else won't. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just because you think that someone else will use it as a search term doesn't mean that they will. Could you please provide metrics to support that previously created redirects have been used at least once a month? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I am moving on to other tasks. I've spent too much time on this already. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to task you with something like this. It was simply a request to show that people are using your redirects as a search terms. Without empirical proof to support your claim, they should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Another Believer, I'm not sure it is helpful to the project: they seem to be creating a solution for a demand that doesn't exist. It's very unlikely anybody is looking for a non-notable album track on Wikipedia, and they are even less likely to try several possible spellings or disambiguators to find it, especially if the first one they try redirects to the album they are looking for. You're also implying that the song passes WP:NSONGS because it's worthy of keeping as a redirect. Why not simply delete the article? Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I note the creator also created a redirect for Everybody Dies Young (Jake Owen song), so we have two redirects for the same song. At this stage it is no longer an editor considering what redirects are necessary (i.e. a WP function), but somebody title grabbing for an artist (a marketing function). As song titles are used over and over again, as noted by Notecardforfree this means redirects are not as cheap as we think, nor does primarytopic or concise work as well and clearly as some would have us beleive- after all this redirect might actually be PT, but we have no information whatsoever other than a track listing. Again hard for some to comprehend, but we do song articles, not articles about recordings of songs. Walter Görlitz makes an argument that redirects should only be created via AfD/Prod process, but there are problems with that because it is patently clear we should have a redirect at William Clinton.
It becomes clear that mere existence is not worthy of a redirect, otherwise we can create redirects for all our friends, neighbours, family, or every song in our record collection and that creates a problem that needs addressing.
In the meantime all the redirects below should also be deleted, unless somebody can prove that one or two have some kind of separate notability yet still fails WP:NSONGS. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not my argument. There are many valid reasons to create redirects or to turn articles into redirects that do not require a discussion. I don't believe that all songs on an album need to have redirects, only those that are likely to be search terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Walter Görlitz I interpreted your words above, "Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching..." as meaning don't create redirects. My point is not to object to you, but to find a way forward to stop wholesale creation of redirects, without affecting the day to day necessity for redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. Yes. It should probably have read "when redirects are created as part of an AfD or similar deletion process" as it's reasonable to create redirects without a deletion process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

American Love (song)[edit]

After Midnight (Jake Owen song)[edit]

A Burning Soul (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I merged these two nominations together due to their similar nature and titles. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate (or set-indexify?) both. A Burning Soul (song) could easily be confused with the song "Burning Soul," which was released as a single by the Japanese band Matenrou Opera in 2015. A Burning Soul also will likely lead to confusion; The Flames released an album called Burning Soul! in 1967, Artur Adson released a collection of poems called The Burning Soul in 1917 (see Siuru), and I am sure there are other potentially similar titles that I am missing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete/disambiguate per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad Talkers (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As far as I can tell, this is the only song by this name. If we discover other songs by this name, then we should create a DAB page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree. If this is unique, then it is likely fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

An Island (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Set-indexify. There are a ton of songs with very similar names and if we leave this redirect in place, it is likely to lead to confusion. See, e.g., "On an Island," "No Man Is an Island" on No Man Is an Island (album), and "In the Middle of an Island." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Set-indexify per Notecardforfree. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad Talkers[edit]

Burned Out (song)[edit]

Good Company (Jake Owen song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid {{R from song}} and unambiguous due to its precise disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Empty Bottle (song)[edit]

Elements and Things (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. Apparently, the song will also appear in an album called Lady in Gold. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. I changed the target from Lady in Gold because this one is already out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Elements and Things[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. Apparently, the song will also appear in an album called Lady in Gold. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. I changed the target from Lady in Gold because this one is already out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You Gotta Try[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. A song by the same name appears on The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    Comment: Per some research, I found that the "You Gotta Try" song (which seems to be the correct spelling of the song) in The Great American Songbook: Live at Michael's Pub is a version of the song by Sammy Nestico titled "Ya Gotta Try". (There seems to be either a necessary article [WP:REDLINK] or a disambiguation page here somewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. Neither song has notability to require DAB listing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You Ain't Going Nowhere (Jake Owen song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Won't Go Back (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. Steve Martin released a song by the same name on the album So Familiar. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. Neither song has enough notablity to maintain a DAB page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Create a disambiguation page at Won't Go Back and retarget there per Notecardforfree. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree and Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Won't Go Back[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Where I Am (song)[edit]

Where I Am[edit]

Where I Am (Jake Owen song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid {{R from song}} and unambiguous due to its precise disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Desperate[edit]

Sleep Is a Myth (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, no such general term to have to throw in a (song) disambiguator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with AngusWOOF that in the absence of another article or redirect names "Sleep is a Myth," there is no need for the (song) disambiguator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{R from song}} (and maybe also a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} since the ambiguous title currently targets the same page) and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sleep Is a Myth[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Settled Down (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. An artist named Hyukoh has apparently released a song by the same name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree since both subjects seem to meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Notecardfree, Steel1943. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Settled Down[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lovers Come and Go[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lost". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: July 29, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Little Boy Preacher[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

LAX (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

LAX (Jake Owen song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete not a notable single, can be covered by LAX disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The album isn't even released yet, and there is only one notable single. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lady in Gold (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The song referenced is essentially the title song of the eponymous album, which currently seems to be the primary topic since it is the only notable topic. (See next comment for information.) (Notability for the song has yet to be proven since the album has yet to be released.) Unless the situation changes in a way other than I just described, the current situation makes complete sense. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually after reviewing this, I wonder if Lady in Gold should be moved to Lady in Gold (album) and redirect the ambiguous title to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I or make it a disambiguation page. Either way, my opinion of "keep"-in the redirect (or retargeting it to Lady in Gold (album) if the article is moved) hasn't changed. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Lady in Gold should refer to the portrait / primary topic. Add hatnote to album. Retarget song to album. Redirect for (song) should be kept as it is the only promoted single from the album which will be released in August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this point, the target article has been moved to Lady in Gold (album) and Lady in Gold is now a redirect to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. For this reason, the nominated redirect has been updated to target Lady in Gold (album) (which has been reflected in the nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's the title track of the album, and so has the strongest case for a redirect to the album. Thanks Steel1943 for making the move; I conservatively only added a hatnote before any of these discussions occurred and I fully agree with the move. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe consensus has been reached with Steel1943's recent moves. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

L.A.X. (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Retarget to DAB per Notecardforfree. Good find! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

L.A.X. (Jake Owen song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Song title does not have periods. No other songs with this title. Also the song itself is not notable, as it is on an album that is upcoming and will be released in July 29. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unambiguous disambiguator. Non-notable songs being redirected to their albums is fine, especially in cases like this where they cannot be confused with other songs because of the specific disambiguator used. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If He Ain't Gonna Love You[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment redirect creator has been making redirects for every single on this album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a {{R from song}} and since the redirect's possible ambiguity with mentions or subjects on Wikipedia has not yet been established. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I Felt a Change (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. The Williams Brothers (Gospel group) released a song by the same name on their album Still Here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other songs on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the songs would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943 or weak disambiguate per Notecardforfree, since The Williams Brothers's albums don't have articles.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I Felt a Change[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. The Williams Brothers (Gospel group) released a song by the same name on their album Still Here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only single on this album that has some notability would be "Lady in Gold". All others are just on the album, and have not been promoted in any manner. The album has not even been released: August 5, 2016. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other subjects on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the subject(s) would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943 or weak disambiguate per Notecardforfree, since The Williams Brothers album has a song of this name, but no article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Everybody Dies Young (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The only notable song on this album is "American Country Love Song". The album hasn't even been released (July 29, 2016). If others get released as singles and garner significant airplay and reviews then you can add back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as unambiguous due to there being no evidence yet provided during the course of this discussion regarding other songs on Wikipedia that could be used to create a disambiguation page where the song(s) would meet MOS:DABMENTION. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel1943.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You Gotta Try (song)[edit]

not a likely search term. We do not create redirects for every song on an album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No harm in redirecting song titles to album articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is. First, it goes against standard deletion policy. Redirects are only left in an AfD or similar deletion process if the term is likely to be used for searching, and redirects are costly. Finally, you're the editor who created them so I can see why you think there's no harm in it. This is a change to call you out for being irresponsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sleep Is a Myth[edit]

Suprahuman[edit]

Would it make sense to target to Übermensch? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete, Wiktionary it or Redirect to Superhuman as the terms are closely related. [28] Also not mentioned in the target article at all. The first two choices could also foster creation of an article proper that can explain how it is slightly different from the superhuman. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Superhuman. I'm not familiar with its usage in a philosophical context. Google attributes the term to writings about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, both of whom likely refer to very different things with similar terms. BabyJonas (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Song of God[edit]

Song of God can refer to a whole lot of things. Is disambiguation a plausible alternative here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What else is known as "Song of God"? older ≠ wiser 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The name "Sune" apparently also means "Song of God". There may be some recorded tracks by this name, though I've not come across them. I'm not sure if a disambiguation page is needed, though, since the connection of the term to the Gita text is by far the primary usage around the world. At least, I think... some more international perspectives here are needed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote if required to other uses. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Winnerland[edit]

Quickie (divorce)[edit]

Pokémon on the Wii[edit]

These redirects have a bit of a WP:XY issue. For one, what the redirects mean at their current target is unclear since the current target is about the franchise as a whole, not its video games or its individual subjects. The WP:XY issue involves this question: Do these redirects refer to Pokémon games released on the Wii (Pokémon (video game series)) or Pokémon "species" that appear on Wii games (List of Pokémon)? Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Patar knight: Is this comment in the correct section? (The way this comment reads, it seems like it should be at #Pokémon Online.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Turn into a page that lists all the Pokémon games on the Wii. That seems to be the desired result of anyone looking for this, so we should provide it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Then retarget this there. Either works. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete no such title or video game precedent format to have "title on the platform". It's either "title platform" or "title (platform)". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: There's no reason why it shouldn't be a redirect, since this wouldn't be targeting any game in particular. Using "series name on the platform" is a common way to describe the availability of that series on said platform and is a plausible search term (e.g. "Pokémon on the 3DS, "Halo on the PC", "Call of Duty on the XBox"). Since we have a page with this information, this should target that section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that looks like the best target for the games by platform. The detailed charts are too much (shows years and multiple platforms). Question then becomes what about the "on the" verbiage. Halo on the PC is not a redirect, but Halo PC goes to Halo: Combat Evolved. Pokemon Wii or Pokemon Wii U would be legit searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to go out of my way to create "on the" redirects, but would argue to keep them if there is an appropriate target or can be turned into a useful DAB page. If Pokemon Wii or Pokemon Wii U were made as redirects to Pokémon (video game series)#Console games and brought to RfD I would support them being kept unless an actual game of that name was made, but I'm not going to bother to create them. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Pokémon Online[edit]

Pokemon forms[edit]

Pokémon drawing[edit]

Pokémon Dollar[edit]

O.J. Simpson tria[edit]

Pokemob[edit]

Pokemaniac[edit]

The Legendary Bird Pokemon[edit]

This term is a bit of an ambiguous term used in the Pokémon. This could refer to at least three subjects in the series. As it stands, the term is not defined in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Our friends at Bulbapedia seem to limit it to Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres. If I remember correctly, Lugia is the legendary master of the three Legendary Bird Pokémon, but not a Legendary Bird Pokémon himself, while Ho-Oh is the legendary master of the legendary dogs trio. I guess if it's a list, it would be a list of three. At that point, the difference between a DAB and a list page would be minimal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
To add confusion to this, our article Lugia itself contradicts that claim when it comes to defining "legendary bird" in terms of Pokémon. In Lugia#Design and characteristics, the first sentence in the section currently states "Considered a "legendary bird" within the setting of the games...". Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I believe the "legendary dogs" you are referring to are Raikou, Entei and Suicune. Ho-Oh, as far as I know with my "first-251" knowledge, is a bird that has no direct connection to the "legendary dogs". Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Our article is wrong then. Reliable sources only refer to Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres as The Legendary Birds/Legendary Bird Pokémon ([30], [31], [32]). Ho-Oh is definitely the master of the Legendary Beasts, see the Legendary Beasts article on Bulbapedia. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Batman in Barcelona: Dragon's Knight[edit]

AssCreed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 29#AssCreed

The real Bond[edit]

Kid icarus wii[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 29#Kid icarus wii

Yanagisawa Asami[edit]

Asami Yanagisawa[edit]

柳沢麻美[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:wikipedia[edit]

Sitka city and, Alaska[edit]

Competitive Counter-Strike[edit]

Marie-Andre Chenier[edit]

Sigehumi Hino[edit]

Delete per WP:XY and WP:R#D1. Shigefumi has had several roles, being the creator of Yoshi was just one of them. I don't think we should pigeon-hole our readers into just one facet of his career when search results would reveal that he's been a director for: Yoshi's Island, Pikmin, Pikmin 2, Pikmin 3, a designer for Super Mario Maker, and others. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • A restoration of the previous article would also alleviate my concerns, although I'm unsure of the notability. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
...Meaning that I also support restoration of the article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's a stretch that those looking for Hino are interested in his work on Yoshi, in particular (I don't think WP:XY applies, nor do I think D1 automatically applies for WP:XY...), but if you want to delete the redirects, AfD might be a better route. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Was he the original creator of Yoshi? Why is he not mentioned in that article besides the infobox then? Same with Pikman series. If he directed all three titles, he should have sections in the franchise article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Iron loss[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 29#Iron loss

Super-Grammaticam[edit]

Big state[edit]

Jimmyjohns[edit]

Would this Neelix redirect be more suitable to redirect to Jimmy John's? A carboy is a typed a demijohn, and a demijohn is known as a jimmyjohn in the U.S. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say that one's fine because of the lack of "s", though I did argue above that even with the "s" it should redirect to carboy, so others may disagree. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support hatnote it's an old term which the Books searches uses. All the "newer" searches to web articles point to Jimmy John's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep & hatnote. Historical usage trumps name of restaurant chain, considering that is most likely how the chain received its name. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    Now neutral since it is not mentioned in the target article, most search restore return the restaurant chain and ... Wikt:jimmyjohn and Wikt:jimmyjohns do not exist, so thus there is no reference for this even in Wiktionary. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Added hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jimmy John's. The restaurant appears to actually be named after the founder/owner Jimmy John Liautaud.[34] PaleAqua (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    Switched from comment to retarget per Tavix. PaleAqua (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Jimmy John's. "Jimmyjohn" isn't mentioned at carboy and my search overwhelmingly gave me the sandwich chain. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That's probably because its website is at jimmyjohns.com. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Which is even more of a reason to retarget it. It's a plausible search: someone checks out the website and wants to know more about the company. -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Counter-Srike[edit]

Indian America[edit]

I think this redirect maybe should be retargeted, but I don't know where. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Indian Americans which refers to Americans from India but has a hatnote to Native Americans in the United States up top. The term has been used to refer to either of the two main people groups. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Not a big fan of this. "[Nationality] America" isn't a common construction in the first place. You'd see it most often in discussion of historical claims of other countries on American (not just US) land—e.g., British America, French America, Russian America. And in that sense, there has never been an Indian America. But territorial considerations are a tremendously important topic in the context of indigenous peoples. That's obviously what the redirect is trying to express now, and I think we can fix that without changing its meaning altogether. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Changed my vote. There are a handful of books that use "Indian America" as their title, and this refers to the Native Americans group. Redirects here still applies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Miss Emma[edit]

These Neelix redirect fails WP:WINAD because it is slang. Nominated them for speedy delete, but some were declined. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe you'd better put all the others here too. I don't see how a redirect can constitute a dictionary entry; they're meant to aid navigation. That's just what these redirects do. Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WINAD also applies to slang. All of these are slang for morphine. There's also Morfa (drug) and Morphy (drug) but wasn't sure to nominate them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call a redirect a guide though. If the term refers to something (which these do) I wouldn't be surprised to see a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The redirects guideline states that "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Thus, delete all. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Many of these are listed as informal names for morphine in reliable sources such as this one [35] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all not in target article Morphine#Slang terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    Most of them are now, with sourcing from here: [36]. White Nurse and White Merchandise are not there, but I saw some reliable sources using the latter when I declined the speedy. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This still fails WP:WINAD. An alias is not needed for every street name for a drug, which the book attempts to collect. Only the ones that are used prominently in news sources and most likely to be linked from other articles should be referenced. Just as with track listings and singles names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep most as sourced, though I disambiguated "happy powder" and "joy powder" since the sources I found that led me to decline indicated that they could refer to several drugs. Those two should stay that way, and some of the other redirects may also need to be turned into DAB pages. "God's medicine" was redirected to Kenneth E. Hagin because he wrote a book of that name. If there's sources to link it to morphine or some other drug, that'll be worth a hatnote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've struck out the ones that have been deleted or no longer point to Morphine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Cat Claw[edit]

Redundant as the redirect "Cat claw" already exists. No need to capitalize the C in "claw." Proud User (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Such redirects from non-distinctive capitalisation variants are, to me, profoundly irritating. If they're kept, they add a maintenance burden: they're a hassle any time the redirect gets retargeted or recategorised. I think I remember seeing some of these get speedy deleted per WP:G6, the few ones I've tagged for CSD have invariably been declined. I nominated one here earlier this month and the outcome was keep (Although I think it's possible it was closed as "keep", rather than relisted, simply because I hadn't bothered to use bold typeface in the nomination.)
I think it's best if the WP:CSD criteria could be amended to explicitly include such redirects as eligible for speedy deletion. After all, even editors who support keeping such redirects would agree that they shouldn't have been created in the first place. Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Me again: It seems that in the case of Cat Claw, it is a distinctive capitalisation variant as it can refer to Cat Claw (comic book), to which I suggest retargeting. Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it'll be more sensible to move Cat Claw (comic book) back to Cat Claw as the disambiguator isn't necessary? Uanfala (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, as an alternative, "weak disambiguate" only the capitalized term, including the cat anatomy subject and the book on the list. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That sounds OK, but cat's claw should be a See Also or a hatnote if the capitalized term is a dab page. Plantdrew (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Move Cat Claw (comic book) to Cat Claw and add hat notes. That's the only topic that uses the second capital C. If there were more than those three terms, you could create a disambiguation page as with Zebra stripe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Crossed out "add hatnotes" since the hatnotes are already there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The Greatest Ever[edit]

Astoria (disambiguations)[edit]

For the sake of honor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 29#For the sake of honor

New flower[edit]

Us Airways Company Store[edit]

2018 AFC Champions League[edit]

2017 State of Origin series[edit]

2017 Philippines national basketball team results[edit]

Sundlaug[edit]

Tr8n[edit]

Acts of Mar Mari[edit]

E13n[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=727589954"