Open main menu

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)

Administrator instructions

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

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussionEdit

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

The guiding principles of RfDEdit

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

When should we delete a redirect?Edit

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Reasons for deletingEdit

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

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

Reasons for not deletingEdit

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirectsEdit

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notesEdit

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 discussionEdit

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current listEdit

July 22Edit

Force of lawEdit

I think "force of law" means something quite different from force (law): see search results for the phrase, which mostly use the phrase to mean something like the status of being legally binding or obligatory. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to criminal justice (or maybe just law). The phrase is used, as you point out. The context I most associate with the phrase is "the full force of the law", meaning the maximum punitive action of the law. Law enforcement is also a possible retarget, but I think the meaning tends to be about the action of the courts. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I would prefer law to criminal justice, as I think the phrase is used in civil law or private law contexts as well: contracts can be said to have force of law, I think (though IANAL and my grasp of almost all these terms is tenuous). I'm inclined to think that deletion would be preferable to retargeting though, unless an article that explains the phrase can be found or an explanation can be added to an existing article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Definition of law' which would be a good target is a redirect to Philosophy of law#What is law? a no-longer extant section. I think this would potentially be an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Delete. This is ambiguous, and trying to guess what a searcher may have meant is likely to lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Godawari, BagmatiEdit

I redirected this last year to Godawari Municipality on the basis of this erroneous PROD (which if carried out would have caused WP:ATTREQ problems). Godawari Municipality was subsequently moved to Godawari, Lalitpur. I now see, however, that Lalitpur_District,_Nepal#Administrative division lists Godawari Municipality and Bagmati Rural Municipality as separate administrative divisions, suggesting that Godawari cannot be in Bagmati. This seems to have to do with the establishment in 2015 of the Provinces of Nepal: Godawari may have been in the now-defunct Bagmati Zone (though that article doesn't say it was) but is not in the Bagmati Rural Municipality, itself established in 2017. In short, I'm not entirely sure what's happened here, or what's correct, or how to find out, but having created the redirect I feel a degree of responsibility and would appreciate others' input. WP:ATTREQ still applies, so deletion is probably not an option here, but if the current target is inaccurate a new one will have to be found. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Bagmati, Lalitpur is a rural municipality in Lalitpur District established in 2017. Godawari is in Lalitpur District, a part of now-defunct Bagmati zone. Godawari municipality and Bagmati Rural Municipality are local levels in Lalitpur District. Arms & Hearts, I think you little confused. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • comment Previously a lot of local levels were followed by zonal names in article title. Now all are moved to replace zonal name by district name. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm more than happy to admit that I'm confused! So the gist is that "Godawari, Bagmati" is no longer strictly accurate, but is a plausible search term because Godawari was previously in Bagmati Zone? In that case, can we add a mention of this to the article? Otherwise the redirect strikes me as potentially confusing, especially given the existence of a new entity called Bagmati that Godawari isn't part of. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, Godawari was previously in Bagmati Zone. I'll mention it in the article. ~SS49~ {talk} 14:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It can be deleted or be kept. Either would be fine. Previously, the full address of someone in Godawari would have been "[community], Godawari VDC - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Bagmati zone, Central Development Region, Nepal". As such, for example weather, map or travel websites would pick "Godawari, [one of the three], Nepal" so, all combinations of the above would have been valid redirects. People actually familiar would look for Godawari first (could lead to a ton of other places), then they'd try Godawari, Nepal or Godawari, Lalitpur. People unfamiliar would have tried Godawari, Bagmati, as well which is as valid of an argument today as it was then. Zonal divisions were always defunct (had offices but didn't do anything) but they were used in addresses in good measure. The current address format is "[Community], Godawari Municipality - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Province no. 3, Nepal. But, putting "Bagmati zone" between district and province is still not invalid. Since we have a new Bagmati rural municipality, now Bagmati has to be disambiguated to Zone, River and Rural Municipality. But, whenever, one mentions Godawari, Bagmati, it's clear from context it means Godawari municipality, Bagmati zone. As far as the usefulness of a redirect goes, those people who'd have searched for Godawari, Bagmati are still likely to search for it, those that wouldn't have still won't. Regardless of the validity, the demographic that the redirect services hasn't changed, as internationally, the administrative restructuring has yet to be noticed, and even if it were, I wouldn't expect them to change anything to reflect it, as in practicality, the restructuring has little to no impact. So, it's as valid as it was before. It's also as invalid as it was before. It's also as useful and as useless as it was before. I haven't heard of a smaller place named "Godawari" in Bagmati rural municipality. If and when it turns out there's another Godawari there, we can redirect it to there. Otherwise, there's no problem. So, keep it; or remove it as you wish. I'd still expect some website out there to have "Godawari, Bagmati, Nepal" in there database though. Whatever you do, probably a good idea to fix that circular redirect though. Usedtobecool ✉️  14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

BestReviewsEdit

Not mentioned in the target, I can't figure out what the connection is between this redirect and the target. signed, Rosguill talk 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bring Your Own DeviceEdit

WP:XNR with no internal links, result of a page move on 4 April 2019 by User:Bradv to User:FlippyFlink/Bring Your Own Device which itself now redirects to mainspace (content fork, according to EC by User:Legacypac later on same day). Incidentally, there are caps difference on "Your Own Device", but fortunately Draft:Bring your own device is red (I haven't checked for other combinations outside of mainspace). 94.21.252.162 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep, we keep Draft redirects after moves typically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we? I couldn't find anything that says that we should or shouldn't. I would have thought this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis depending on internal links, e.g. from talk pages. Although I can't find anything to say so, I presume that external sites shouldn't be linking to draft articles expecting them to be stable. But even if we do generally keep draft links as redirects, this is a little more complicated because it was moved from user space, then back again, so really it's a vestige of those moves and nothing more. 94.21.252.162 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Struck part of mine out above, consensus is documented at WP:RDRAFT.) 94.21.252.162 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Feynmanium Element 137Edit

Even if element 137 had its own article or feynmanium was the official name, it is redundant to include two names in the title. Redirects like this constitute a Pandora's box (e.g. Fluorine Element 9 and Flerovium Element 114 do not, and should not exist). ComplexRational (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

July 21Edit

My User InterfaceEdit

Non-sensical term, does not appear to be established at all. Given that, changing the redirect target to "User interface" does not appear to make sense as well, therefore we should better just get rid of it. Too old for speedy deletion. Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FOLKEdit

Unused with no incoming links, could also refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore. Note that folk is a dab page. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Town HallEdit

Either the redirect target, The Town Hall (New York City), is the primary topic of the term, and should be moved back to the undisambiguated title, The Town Hall, or the phrase, "The Town Hall" is ambiguous, and should be retargeted to Town Hall (disambiguation). A third option would be to retarget it to Seat of local government (where Town Hall points), but I think the inclusion of "The" distinguishes it from Town Hall. bd2412 T 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. "The Town Hall" could refer to any number of buildings, not just the one in New York. - Eureka Lott 19:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

20346 ADEdit

Useless redirects from random far-future years. We could, in principle, have thousands, millions, or even billions of these redirects that no one will search for. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: -- CptViraj (📧) 08:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as meaningless search terms Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore original: 60056 is not a random year. The original article for it (which I created 12 years ago) was far more useful than the redirected article Timeline of the far future which doesn't mention 60056 or, as far as I can see, anything like it for another year. It read:
Year 60056 is a common year of the Gregorian calendar.
The internal date encoding system of NTFS and Windows NT (and their descendants) is limited to the range up until about May 28 in 60056. This is similar to the Year 2000 problem and Year 2038 problem.

EncMstr (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete the first two per nom. 52005 was previously kept at RfD in 2007 (see discussion) due to its history, but the KEO satellite hasn't even been launched yet so speculative dates for its return are unsuitable for a redirect. Unsure about 60056 due to that content having been merged, even of it doesn't appear in the current target; maybe retarget to NTFS where the year is mentioned in the infobox (though maybe the full date would make a more useful redirect?), but oppose restoring a few lines of unsourced trivia. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

LoveratriEdit

Unofficial name. -- CptViraj (📧) 06:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

July 20Edit

Sigma personalityEdit

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's actually really hard to sort through all the various personality type pseudoscience floating around online to find anything resembling a "reliable source", but generally alpha wolf/alpha versus lone wolf/sigma are used fairly interchangeably.[1] I'll add a mention in the target article. -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the term floating around on the internet. What ultimately pushed me to make the decision to nominate was that we don't even have Alpha personality. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
True, and yet we do have Beta male (slang), which could reasonably be a target for beta personality. Even for pseudo-science, the topic as a whole isn't being approached with much rigor as things currently stand around here considering it's a theory everyone has at least heard of. Linking the topics together was as far as I got with it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Akhilendra SahuEdit

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

Ali Pur(Punjnad)Edit

According to the edit history, this redirect may once (in 2007) have been a badly-written unreferenced article about Alipur (Muzaffargarh) (which is a redirect). I doubt whether the original article is salvageable The qualifier is not spaced. Punjnad is mentioned in the article, and is apparently not a misspelling of Punjab. Delete per WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

466453Edit

The former phone number for Google SMS Search, but it has been shut down a while ago and is not mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Google Assistant gives us the evidence that the domain 466453.com was used by Google. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 14:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

GOOGL (NASDAQ)Edit

Improperly used disambiguation ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Snow keep. Disambiguation? Invalid rationale. The nominator apparently didn't understand the purpose of the redirect. "GOOGL" is Google's NASDAQ symbol (see [2]), and we routinely link NASDAQ and other past and current stock market symbols to articles about the corresponding companies. (In cases where they are ambiguous for historical reasons they would need to be disambiguated, but this wouldn't be a reason for deletion either.)
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Uh, I do understand the purpose. GOOGL redirects to Alphabet Inc. already, as it should. GOOGL (NASDAQ) is pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you meant the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. Well, I agree that this is a bit redundant now that the other redirect exists, however, users searching for the NASDAQ symbol might routinely specify the (NASDAQ) extension as many (if not most) similar redirects follow this convention because without the extension many of these symbols are ambiguous and their place is already occupied by disambiguation pages. When I created the original redirect I didn't want it to interfere with potential other uses which could somewhen in the future be disambiguated on a disambiguation page at GOOGL, whereas links meaning the NASDAQ symbol and going through GOOGL (NASDAQ) could still remain unchanged.
I still think it should be kept for completeness and stability reasons, but I agree that the target of the redirect can be changed to Alphabet Inc. now.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Standard YouTube LicenceEdit

The target page does not contain a license. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The Standard YouTube License is what users choose when they want to retain copyright of their videos, instead using of a Creative Commons license. It's discussed briefly (though not by name) at YouTube#Content accessibility. - Eureka Lott 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not discussed under the term "Standard Youtube License", which is what this redirect implies. It would still be confusing for someone searching for it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

EUtubeEdit

Implausible redirects created by the same editor. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. "EUTube" appears to have been used by a number of news sources to refer to the European Commission's YouTube account when it was created in 2007, but the name does not seem to have caught on or be in official use. There is, of course, no Wikipedia page dedicated to the European Commission's internet presence. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Youtube TermsEdit

No list of terms mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If taken to mean "terms and conditions" (which was not the creator's intent), it could redirect to YouTube#Community policy, but given just about everything on the internet has terms and conditions, I don't really see much plausibility in this redirect. Anyone search for YouTube's terms and conditions on Google will not be hoping to find the Wikipedia article on YouTube; they'll be looking for YouTube's page on the matter. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

YouTubeCanDoBetterEdit

Not mentioned in the article at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam The WooEdit

Seems like a self promoting redirect that has nothing to do with the target. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Video ManagerEdit

Too vague to redirect here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nom. While "video manager" and "creator studio" might appear in the target article text, they are not clearly distinct to YouTube. For similar reasons "File Menu" and "Help Menu" should not redirect to articles on particular softwares. - Ryk72 talk 12:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC) amended Ryk72 talk 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the ping. I've added to my !vote. - Ryk72 talk 12:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

WeTubeEdit

Not mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Ryk72 talk 12:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. WeTube is a channel on YouTube. There is also a website, wetube.io. But nothing appears to be notable. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

DurezzaEdit

There is no mention of "Durezza at Hardness. I suggest retargeting to Dureza. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom. wikt:durezza tells me that "Durezza" is Italian for hardness and a few related meanings (the Italian wp article looks to be a sort of broad concept article) so that's a WP:FORRED issue, however it is also a synonym of and plausible misspelling of the grape variety. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-Esteem, Self-LoveEdit

Delete per WP:XY Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment there are lots of google hits where these terms are basically treated as synonyms for a broader concept that encompasses both our separate articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not a thesaurus list. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

EſteemEdit

Delete: it's unclear why a redirect with a long s is required (or failing that retarget to Esteem) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No obvious relevance to the use of an archaic character. PC78 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, which will make the search engine automatically find esteem. (Retarget there as second option). —Kusma (t·c) 11:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing at target article indicates that this spelling is related. - Ryk72 talk 12:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I redirected to "self-esteem" because at the time "esteem" redirected to "self-esteem" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=esteem&action=history . I think I saw the long s character on the title of an old book or in a work, but I did not record which one it was :( WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This could be a potential stylization for some brand / neologism, but not likely. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:R from nounEdit

Disambiguate both, as their titles can also refer to proper nouns (see Template:R from proper noun and Category:Redirects from proper nouns, respectively). Geolodus (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment It's always worth making @Paine Ellsworth: aware of discussions related to redirect categorisation, and I'd like to hear their take, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • It's even better if you spell the username of the person you are trying to ping correctly: user:Paine Ellsworth. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I did notify on their talk page. Geolodus (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I hadn't looked at the history to see they were the creator when I wrote that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. In all these years I've never seen any reason to qualify the R from noun template redirect since I've always seen "common noun" to be a sort of primary topic for the term "noun". A "proper noun" is more of a special case for the term, and common nouns are vastly more, well, common. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  13:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Star Wars planets (M-N)Edit

Implausible redirect, as it uses a categorization scheme that isn't used in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. There used to be a whole series of lists, organised in this fashion, but named with an endash not a hyphen, e.g. List of Star Wars planets (M–N). These were deleted in October 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars planets (A–B) along with the redirects from titles with a hyphen (including an earlier one at this title), but this redirect was created in 2016 without any of the others apparently being. The current target list article has existed since 2005 but doesn't seem to have been brought up in the deletion discussion. I'm rather confused to be honest. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

An acequiaEdit

WP:NCAN. Wikipedia redirects inappropriately beginning in indefinite articles. An enormous WP:Pandora's Box. I have not included any titles of works, famous quotes, words such as A frame, A fib, or A flat where the A is not an article, phrases whose acronyms use the article a in their first initial, etc. I have also left out any ones that I thought particularly likely to spark specific debate, some of which I'll probably end up listing in separate noms. All of the redirects above that did not begin as redirects (such as A frog or A jump point) were redirected without merging, and therefore none have consequential history. Many of these were created by the same user. I am sorry it is such a long list, I know some of you prefer shorter lists, but (unless I am much mistaken) none of these have previously gone through RfD and none of these were merged upon redirection (I have checked them all twice); and the issue at hand is the same for all of them. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Just spam that makes it more difficult for users to search. None actually aid in finding pages.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These redirects are unnecessary and only make navigation harder for most users. Geolodus (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all – ill-judged namespace weed that serves no purpose and increases chaos levels. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ridiculous, thanks for cleaning up, —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I looked over the list thinking surely there'd be one or two worth keeping, but that's not the case. @The Man in Question: I'd imagine there are a few that start with 'the' that probably need to go the same route. –Fredddie 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • EDIT: I tagged the wrong person. –Fredddie 12:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. But I figured, one thing at a time. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above arguments, and WP:SNOW. - Ryk72 talk 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A pillar, as the "A" is a designation, not the indefinite article. A number has a disambiguation page it can be redirected to. The others can probably be deleted. Peter James (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching that! I've removed it. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A pillar per Peter James. The A is part of a compound noun, not an indefinite article. - Eureka Lott 15:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    You are right. I've removed it. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all except those with some consensus to keep. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, unambiguously takes searches where they want to go. For example, if someone searches for "A penguin", the article Penguin would be the correct article for that search. Under the same logic, retarget A Shark to Shark, A rubber stamp to Rubber stamp and A mole to Mole. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep some but dump the rest:
    1. A pillar for reasons above
    2. A programmer weak redirect to Assembly language, like C programmer
    3. A Ball weak redirect to Single-A baseball as in Minor League Baseball and hatnote to A's baseball
    4. A Number redirect to A-Number which redirects to Calling party
Basically keep ones where they would likely be hyphenated like bring your A game AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. As stated above, though, A pillar is not on the list. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

July 19Edit

The one with the whalesEdit

Wikipedia is not a search engine, plus this is a extremely vague redirect- it could refer to plenty of things. It also should be noted that the only thing that comes up when I search for this exact phrase on Google is a completely unrelated book, and a post on the Star Trek subreddit discussing the existence... of this redirect. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Dunno, a Google search for me brings up 14 pages of results, while Google News has four pages. Almost all of them seem to be for the Star Trek film. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference is not US/UK, at least as far as I can tell in the UK, it's whether you search for the exact phrase ("The one with the Whales") which gets me nearly all Star Trek related results, or just all of the words (The one with the Whales) that brings up almost no Star Trek references. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep. All of the first 40 hits on google for me are either about Star Trek IV, references to it (e.g. "Whales can now be tracked from space. This is not a repeat from Star Trek IV: The One with the Wales" [3]) or allusions to it, e.g. [4]. Other than one result talking about this redirect - and that discussion itself is a reason to keep, because it shows there are external links to this redirect that would be unnecessarily broken. There is nothing else competing with the target for use of the phrase, let alone anything that comes close to competing for primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. Redirects shouldn't be ad-hoc definitions or descriptions, even if they're common. That is the function and purpose of a search engine, not an encyclopedia. This Reddit thread even seems to exist for the very reason that it seems absurd that Wikipedia has such a redirect. However, there are instances where the phrase "The One With the Whales" is used not simply descriptively, but as a phrase of significance unto itself: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and I'm sure many more. Just because a phrase is in use, or even commented on, that does not, in my assessment, merit a redirect; but as these sources are so consistent in their phrasing, and as there is clearly not simply a familiarity with the phrase suggested in these sources, but in fact a warm-hearted sense of attachment to the phrase expressed, that implies (to me) that the phrase is more than just an easy and common nonce way to refer to the film—and therefore that it's a redirect probably worth keeping. (Not that sentiment merits a redirect, but that widespread sentimentality doesn't tend to exist for things that aren't really things.) — the Man in Question (in question) 08:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thank you to the above editors for the up-to-date research. The justification for this redirect, as stated on its talk page, was recorded at Talk:Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home#"The one with the whales". – Fayenatic London 13:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a set phrase with one specific referent, and I think the fact people are joking warmly about the redirect probably speaks in favour of its utility (as The Man in Question points out). A little silly but basically harmless. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

1000th millennium and othersEdit

Unlikely redirects, unneeded. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay then. Just delete them if you deem them unneeded. Matthew Cenance (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
MatthewCenance, none of the CSD apply to these redirects, nor does PROD apply for redirects. As such, this would be the only appropriate venue. (That said, delete per nom.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Em engineEdit

deletion. EM Engine is not an established term for the RF resonant cavity thruster. Someone confused it with "EM Drive", which is an established term. The sites that can be found by searching EM Engine all use EmDrive or EM Drive. Heptor (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – I created it, and I'm fine seeing it go away. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    ...Well, technically, Nightscream created the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fourth EmpireEdit

Yes, "Reich" can be translated as empire, but the Nazis are hardly the only group to have multiple numbered empires (hypothetical or otherwise). This is too vague for a redirect, given that "Fourth Empire" doesn't appear to be used in sources discussing a Fourth Reich signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Geolodus (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig as above. Off the top of my head I thought of Daniel too, and George Rawlinson's famous (in its time) book series about the "great oriental monarchies" or "empires", where the fourth is Babylonia. Fifth Empire seems to have an overwhelmingly common specific meaning in historiography, but that doesn't look to be the case for Fourth Empire. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Nom comment I have no objection to a disambiguation if someone wants to draft one. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I started a draft after some research. As it turns out there are much fewer fourth empires than you might expect—I think the only two plausible real-world targets are the kingdoms of Daniel—which represent the overwhelming majority of references to a "fourth empire", in both historiographic and religious literature—and the Fourth British Empire. At the moment Historiography of the British Empire only mentions the concept of a Fourth British Empire once in a quote, but there seems to be a fairly wide range of usage in recent literature (e.g. [12], [13]). There do seem to be a few sources using "Fourth Empire" for the "Fourth Reich" so that could potentially be kept as an item. Rome could be listed as the traditional meaning of the Danielic usage. Other plausible options (like "Fourth Persian Empire") seem to be very rare and ambiguous. Haven't added the fictional ones Thryduulf pointed out yet. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thai peoplesEdit

In plural, this is more likely to be a typo meant to refer to the multiplicity of ethnic groups known as Tai peoples, of which Thai is one out of many. Originally redirected to Tai peoples by User:Saimdusan in 2008, retargeted to Thai people by User:Unreal7 in 2012. Paul_012 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY. It may have started life erroneously, but it's not an implausible typo. I don't actually see any benefit in deleting it, but am more than happy to hear the rationale explained in more detail by the nom. per my response below. I suspect that the more common search would be for "Thai people", and that "Thai peoples" should remain as a plurals error rather than a Thai/Tai error. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    I was suggesting to re-target it back to Tai peoples; sorry if this wasn't clear. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    Aha, I see. Not a straight forward call. If anything, I think there's a strong case for renaming the article space for the former to "Thai (people)", and the later to "Tai peoples" in line with other encyclopaedias and our own WP:NATURALDIS. I haven't actually got a clue as to whether the majority of readers would be looking for the multi-ethnic contemporary nation-state, or the article on the Tai ethnic group. I suspect it would be the contemporary nation-state, ergo (sans article move) I'd suggest that it remain pointing to Thai people. I notice that the "Tai peoples" article lacks a DAB hatnote. It's probably worth checking the talk page to find out whether there was consensus to not have one at some point. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    For better or worse, titles like Thai people (not Thai (people)) are standard (e.g., Romani people, Olukumi people, Khmu people, etc.; just take a glance at this category to see dozens of examples: Category:Ethnic groups in China). — the Man in Question (in question) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I do agree with you, the Man in Question. It was a passing thought as it was used on occasion for ethnic groups in the past where things were a little ticklish over a region or a people, but would only be of any value for consideration if 'Tai (peoples)' were the NATURALDIS... which is not the case. As we've both concluded, retaining the current redirect to 'Thai people' makes the most sense. In the infrequent situations such as this, hatnotes are the dominant source for clarification for the reader. I don't believe the reader is going to overthink the disambiguation, therefore there's no need for us to do the same. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I say: Weak keep the redirect to Thai people and trust that the hatnote will guide those looking for Tai peoples. The Thai spelling clearly belongs to Thai people, and the peoples/people distinction is slight enough to be subordinate to the aforementioned spelling. [But I see Deryck's point too.] — the Man in Question (in question) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget Tai peoples. The Tai languages make an aspirated vs unaspirated distinction and "Thai" is a valid spelling of the wider people group as well. "Tai" and "Thai" are simply two different romanisations of the same term, which English-language literature co-opted to distinguish between the broad people group vs the narrow ethno-national people group. I would say the plural "peoples" should swing this title towards the broad people group. @Chaaak: Any comment? Deryck C. 14:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    This is a good point. I'll change my vote to only a weak keep. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I suspect that Tai languages, the DAB page for Tai, and various arguments over how this should be handled has created no end of problems. Again, I'd stick with the redirect in question remaining targetted at the Thai people article, but would strongly suggest that what is being implied (a merge of the Tai peoples and Thai people articles should not be addressed here, but brought to the attention of editors who work on the broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups project. It's a separate question to that of a redirect and should not be !voted on in this limited venue. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not convinced by Deryck's argument as most people searching on the English Wikipedia will be unaware of the nuances of the Tai languages and will be looking for the same target as if they searched "Thai people". Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to close this as no consensus, but maybe I'll throw out Ethnic groups in Thailand as a possibility. Tai peoples is listed in the first sentence; Thai people isn't, but probably could be. Semantically, I think there's a solid argument for parsing "Thai peoples" as "wikt:peoples that are wikt:Thai", compared to a misspelling of "Tai peoples" and an uncommon/irregular plural for Thai people. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Resident evil movies, games, and booksEdit

Unlikely redirect due to being written like a sentence rather than a title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fancy foodEdit

It's close enough semantically that I wouldn't nominate this for deletion in a vacuum, but there's possible confusion with the pet food brand Fancy Feast. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • If there's possible confusion, why not add a hatnote ({{redirect|Fancy food|cat food|Fancy Feast}})? (Though that might lean into "Greek philosopher" territory.) Eman235/talk 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a Fancy Food Show from Specialty Food Association. Fancy is not the name of a brand for Fancy Feast, rather, it uses (whatever) Feast for their products. Nothing's really using Fancy as a brand though, besides non-notable businesses (some grocery stores). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hatnotes can be added if there is anything worth hatnoting - I can't find any references to the Fancy Food Show that omit the word "Show". I will create Fancy Food Show as a redirect to Specialty Food Association#Activities though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

ØstenEdit

Not equivalent. Østen is Norwegian for "east", whereas Øystein is a given name that means something along the lines of "good luck stone". signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm finding lots of uses of Østen as a given name, although not immediately for anyone notable. I'm also finding a lot of genealogy hits for people who used one name but were formally the other, especially for people who lived circa 1800-1950. It's also worth noting that no:Øystein notes it both as an old fashioned/archaic form of the name and as the Danish equivalent. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Create set index article for the given name. We have pages for Østen Østensen, Østen Bergøy, Eistein Kjørn (aka Østen Kjørn), and possibly others. - Eureka Lott 00:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Now I'm not so sure about that. no:Østen (andre betydninger) says that Østen is Swedish form of the male name Øystein. Perhaps it would be best to retain the redirect. - Eureka Lott 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hannibal (2006)Edit


None of the subtitles for these redirects appear to actually be associated with the film. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill What do all these notices saying the redirects I've added have "been reviewed" mean?

I suspect it means someone has complained about me correcting the title somewhere, so have asked for it to be checked, along with all the alternative titles.

I'm not entirely sure where I got all the alternative titles from but I suspect I got:

  • Hannibal: The Nightmare of Rome from the translations of Aníbal - La pesadilla de Roma which is what it was called in Argentina on DVD, and Hannibal - Der Albtraum Roms which is what it was called in Germany.
  • Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage and Hannibal: Fall of Carthage from the following websites (where they got that title from I have no idea) [1][2][3][4]
  • Hannibal: Legendary Commander from the translation of Ганнибал: Легендарный полководец which is what it was called in Russia.
  • Hannibal: Nightmare of Rome from the translation of Hannibál - Róma rémálma which is what it was called in Hungary.
  • Hannibal, Rome's Worst Enemy from the translation of Aníbal, el peor enemigo de Roma which is what it was called in Spain.

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I had no idea that these were from foreign language versions. That having been said, that means that they fall under WP:FORRED––because it's originally an English-language production, we don't need to have redirects for all the different translations. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Raccoon ForestEdit

The word "forest" is not mentioned in the article, and this could probably be easily confused for "raccoons that live in forests". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure that there's any legitimate cause for such confusion. This page has existed since 2005, it was originally an article which was merged to Raccoon City which was in turn redirected to Resident Evil. I don't think it's necessarily useful, but I also don't think it's particuarly harmful either. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pedantically, "Raccoon Forest" sounds more like a forest with raccoons than a raccoon that lives in a forest. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there's no coverage then the redirect should not exist, doesn't matter how unambiguous it is. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as not specified in franchise article or any particular video game. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Mercy NY peopleEdit

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

YouTube (YT)Edit

Unnecessary disambiguation with virtually no usage. signed, Rosguill talk 14:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Then why are redirects like United Kingdom (UK) still existent? It's not really fair if redirects due to unneccesary disambiguation made a long time ago like United Kingdom (UK) should be kept but those by me recently should be deleted. Barracuda41 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Simonov Monastery of the Dormition of the TheotokosEdit

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

Λ2Edit

"Lambda 2" is far too vague of a redirect to point here. Unclear why this was accepted as a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete (or maybe disambiguate). Looks problematic to me, partly because it could refer to several other articles, but also because a Google search for "Λ2" doesn't seem to bring up anything relevant to the game. PC78 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very unlikely search term. As far as I know, not used that way for HL2. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 113Edit

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for an I-113. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment [14] notes that this was the originally proposed number for the road that was built as I680. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete kurumi.com is a self-published source and is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia articles. This shouldn't even be included as a footnote (i.e. a trivial reference) in the target article without a better source. -happy5214 22:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979  13:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 109Edit

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for an I-109. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment [15] notes that this was the originally proposed number for this road. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my argument on Interstate 113 above. -happy5214 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979  13:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The redirect Interstate 109 (California) should also be deleted. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 106 (California)Edit

There is no proof of any actual, official proposal for an I-106. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: The redirect Interstate 106 should be deleted, as well. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment [16] notes that this number was proposed for what became Interstates 105 and 110. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no I-106. There's no I-6. I'm wondering if I-106 was a typo somewhere along the line when somebody meant to write I-105. pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Purplebackpack89: if you read the source I linked you'll find that this is not a typo, it is the number proposed by California but rejected by the DOT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • If the source is to be believed (and its footnotes are dead links, FWIW), this route only existed on paper for a few months. Also, the source suggests that this isn't the current 110 that was originally proposed as 106, but the original I-110 (now a spur of I-10 between I-5/I-10 and US-101) and the original I-105 (now an extension of US-101) pbp 13:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not arguing this is a good redirect (of the Interstate redirects listed today this is certainly the weakest), I just object to redirects being deleted for reasons that are incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @WashuOtaku: It does exist - just not with this number. It the proposed number for a route that got built with a different one, not a proposed route. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: Basically confirming the fact it does not exist. I-106 is a footnote for I-105/I-110 and should not be mistaken as something that was at any point in time real. We cannot setup a redirect for every proposed route that was thought up and never made it past the drawing board. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Both per my argument on Interstate 113 above. -happy5214 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979  13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Interstate 102Edit

There is no proof of an actual, official proposal for I-102. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment [17] notes that this was the originally proposed number for what is now I-102. I'm also seeing google results relating to Virginia, but nothing that immediately makes sense. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not exist. Proposed routes are not the same as actual routes and should be treated as footnotes, not actualities. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per my argument on Interstate 113 above. -happy5214 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete—unneeded and essentially unsourced. Imzadi 1979  13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The redirect Interstate 102 (California) should also be deleted. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

MrAristotleEdit

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

AristutalisEdit

Arisṭūṭālīs and Suqrāṭ are Persian. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Aristotle wrote on the Persians, though I'll leave it to others to decide if that's enough to declare affinity. Doesn't look like the same can be said for Socrates. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Plus that would be Old Persian, not modern Persian. If that's affinity, then Julius Caesar having written about the Germanic tribes would be a basis for having Julius Caesar's name in every West Germanic language (German, Dutch, Low German, Frisian, etc.) as a redirect on the English Wikipedia. But thanks for looking into it. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning keep. They are Arabic words, not (originally) Persian, and are potentially useful because they are terms used in the context of the Islamic reception of Greek philosophy, so this isn't a straightforward case of FORRED. "Aristutalis" is listed as an alternative name for Aristotle in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, and has its own article in the Encyclopedia of Islam. "Suqrat" is less convincing, but our own article on Socrates mentions him being called Suqrat by Islamic philosophers, and the redirect gets a steady stream of hits. (I would wager it's less obvious from the word who "Suqrat" is than "Aristutalis".) —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Gebäudekomplex GallileoEdit

Appears to have no reference in article, and is a mispelling of Galileo. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I am seeing plenty of google hits for this exact spelling, but all of them are in German so WP:FORRED would apply even if this were the correct target (which seems unlikely as "Gebäudekomplex" translates as "building complex" so it's almost certainly something named after the person). Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to its original target, Gallileo (skyscraper) (which has been since moved). —Kusma (t·c) 18:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and retarget per Kusma. I can't see why a human would have retargeted it to Galileo Galilei (the retargeting was done by a bot after a pagemove), because the current target indeed doesn't make any sense. Good work, Kusma, tracking down the history; otherwise I'd be supporting deletion. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Africian ragaEdit

Unhelpful misspelling, no reference in article. The article Africian Raga was deleted in 2015. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a misspelling of "African raga", but that phrase does not appear anywhere in article space so whether it is a plausible misspelling or not we don't need to consider as there is no suitable target for it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ludwig vanEdit

A first name and half a last name do not make a helpful redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep due to the well-known references in A Clockwork Orange (both the novel and the movie). See Q:A Clockwork Orange (film). - Eureka Lott 05:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    What would the argument be for that being well-known as opposed to fancruft? Will anyone be searching "Ludwig van" hoping to find Ludwig van Beethoven rather than List of Nadsat terms or similar? — the Man in Question (in question) 06:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Potentially someone could have read/heard the name in A Clockwork Orange without knowing who it actually was and decided to look him up on Wikipedia. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per EurekaLott and M.Clay. There are lots of references to this that assume you know who is being referred to but not everyone will. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Beethoven is the primary topic for "Ludwig van" pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Zigi FrojdEdit

Appears to be nonsense. If it is from another language, then WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED - this does get a little bit of use, but only in Albanian or Bosnian/Serbian contexts and even then it seems informal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for identifying the Albanian/Serbian/Bosnian association. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ledi GagaEdit

Unhelpful mispelling. The redirect was created as transliterated Cyrillic (and thus WP:FORRED). — the Man in Question (in question) 04:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible misspelling per the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    How is this a plausible misspelling? As one user commented in the previous discussion, "It is hard to imagine a person who doesn't know the spelling of the word 'Lady'"; and if someone was uncertain, ledi hardly seems like a plausible guess. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Michaël JacksonEdit

Michaël is French. WP:FORRED. Unlikely search term. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Mary Magdalen, SaintEdit

Implausible search term. Mary Magdalen is a redirect in its own right. Not a proper use of {{R from sort name}}. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SófoclesEdit

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Archimedes scientific achievementsEdit

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Also redirects to ad-hoc Wikipedia sections are not useful redirects. Also punctuation failure. — the Man in Question (in question)

  • Comment I cannot agree with you at all that "redirects to ad-hoc Wikipedia sections are not useful redirects.". There are nearly 200,000 Redirects to sections almost all of which are correct. Per that category, "Redirects to sections are often created [...] when there is not enough information to write a whole article, project page, etc., about a subtopic, but there is enough information to include a section about it in another article or page. [These] redirects are good search terms and may have the possibility of becoming full articles someday.". I also don't understand why it is relevant here, given that this is not a redirect to a section? Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    +1 --BDD (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Great LenardoEdit

Misspelling in what is already a questionable redirect title. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Definite delete! Ham II (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You Kant Do That On TelevisionEdit

Implausible search term, WP:SURPRISE. A bit of an odd redirect history for this one. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find any obvious connection between the original target, You Can't Do That on Television (a Canadian sketch comedy TV programme) and the philosopher. However, given that the programme (1979-1990) long pre-dates the internet it's entirely possible that they did a sketch about him that is difficult to find. It does seem to be the title of a Professor Hobo comic [18] and loads of one-off puns, but nothing we have content about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Steve MobbsEdit

A Simpsons parody of Steve Jobs. If there was a page dedicated to Simpsons parodies, it would be an appropriate redirect there; in its absence, it should be deleted. Retarget to List of recurring The Simpsons characters#Steve Mobbs per Tavix. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The SteveEdit

Not a plausible search term. Because of its generalness (many Steves, famous and otherwise, are probably called "the Steve"), it has also been the repeated (3×) subject of vandalism. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can find no evidence that he was particularly known as "The Steve", let alone more so any anyone else. Vandalism is never a reason to delete a redirect though - that's what protection is for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I did not mention the vandalism as a reason for deletion; I mentioned it to demonstrate that "The Steve" has any number of vague associations, as seen in the specific acts of vandalism. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Jose StalinEdit

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul mc cartneyEdit

Unhelpful spacing and Pandora's Box. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Google shows that this is a spacing that is used, making it a plausible search term. Speaking as someone who also has a "Mc" surname, seeing it spaced is not unusual from those who are unfamiliar with English-language surname conventions but are used to other conventions with multiple surnames. Finally, WP:PANDORA is an essay that is incompatible with WP:OTHERSTUFF and that precedent is generally not a thing - whether this is a good or bad redirect has no impact on whether other redirects are good or bad. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, also catches searches for the not-too unreasonable "Paul Mc Cartney". —Kusma (t·c) 18:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

J. S. BackEdit

Anyone who is comfortable enough to know to abbreviate his name 'J. S.' surely also knows how to spell his name. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: I don't remember making the redirect eight years ago, but I likely either searched for it or followed a red link. What's the point of deleting these redirects? M.Clay1 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep' this is a perfectly plausible homonym error that will be made by someone who has heard the name but doesn't know or doesn't remember how it is spelled. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • N.b., I checked for notable people with this name, and we don't see to have any. See Back (disambiguation)#People. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Bach is commonly pronounced here in the United States with a hard “c” sound at the end. Therefore it’s very possible for this error to be typed in the search bar. There is virtually zero point in deleting this and I would strongly suggest that The Man in Question withdraw this nomination. —Zingarese talk · contribs 18:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Coprenician systemEdit

Double misspelling (-pre- and -ician) to DAB page. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Saul/Paul of TarsusEdit

Not the stuff of redirects, not a useful search term. No Paul Hewson/Bono or Jacob/Israel. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Joan off arcEdit

Implausible search term. Let's not set a precedent allowing all "ofs" to be "offs". What a nightmare that would be. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per all, strong PANDORAing here. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, but explicitly without any creation of precedent - even if one discussion could do that (which it can't), each redirect needs to be evaluated on its own merits. That this is not a good redirect does not imply that other instances of "off" used for "of" are good or bad. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mis'ess ThatcherEdit

Implausible search term. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Unlikely typo. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a typo, it's a non-standard spelling of "Mrs Thatcher" - the Mrs article notes "It is rare for Mrs to be written in a non-abbreviated form, and the unabbreviated word lacks a standard spelling. [...] A variant in the works of Thomas Hardy and others is "Mis'ess", reflecting its etymology.". However, I can find no evidence that this spelling is commonly used these days and no evidence that it has ever been used to refer to the former British prime minister. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete might also be derogatory/non-neutral (c.f. "missy" et al.) if I'm not mistaken. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pope FrancusEdit

Implausible search term. Probably a mock-Latin joke on Pope Frank. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Catherine greatEdit

Missing article, either mistake or lazy typing. Not a box we should leave open. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Unlikely typo. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a well used redirect (134 hits last year) with a single unambiguous target. Our job is to enable readers to find the content they are looking for, not to impose arbitrary rules and standards that make it unnecessarily harder. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Thryduulf's stats. Also, redirect was intentional. pbp 11:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, since typing in "Catherine great" will show the article as the first hit in Wikipedia search even if the redirect didn't exist. Therefore, it is not necessary to lead people to the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    It is always preferable to take people directly to the article than to force them to navigate via the search engine (which is sometimes several clicks away depending on how they navigated), requires unnecessary page loads (more data = more cost for many), and is not guaranteed to produce the correct result - the presence of this redirect is why the target is presently number 1 in the results. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    I do not exactly agree with this philosophy. If that were the general Wikipedia guideline, then there would be no WP:FORRED. I think that structure and continuity (though not rigidity and unchangeability) make Wikipedia more effective. Wikipedia, like anything, is something you learn how to use well. If you type in "alexander great", the first option in the search results is of course Alexander the Great. If you type in "alexander the grat", Alexander the Great will not show up in the search results at all. People will see they've made a typo and fix it. Simple as that. The same goes for catherine great or anything else like that. Just because someone might type something in, that doesn't mean it should be a redirect, even if it's clear what they meant (again, compare WP:FORRED). — the Man in Question (in question) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    FORRED has almost nothing to do with "what people might type in" it's a combination of homographs - the same sequence of characters meaning completely different things in different languages (e.g. "tant" has meanings including, "tact, so much, doctrine, so, tooth, old lady, power, aunt and string (music)".) and even when they are unique we don't want to give the impression that we have information about a thing in a language when we do not. Wikipedia is not something you should have to learn how to use - we are a general purpose encyclopaedia whose aim is to make knowledge freely accessible to the world. Erecting unnecessary barriers to that knowledge is directly contrary to the entire purpose of the project. We can't cater to most typos, because they are often ambiguous and would unnecessarily hinder other searches, but we do have redirects for the most common because that fulfils our goal of increasing access to knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

ÄpfelEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep per WP:SK point 3 "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the [page] in question."

His StevenessEdit

Nonce name applied to any number of Steves. And of course not a plausible search term, if the reader is looking simply for Steve Jobs. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. By at least an order of magnitude the primary topic for this frequently used appellation, which makes it a plausible search term for those who do not know who is being referred to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Che GüevaraEdit

A spelling that would only be typed by a Spanish speaker, and yet a spelling that would not be used by a Spanish speaker, as it would be obviously incorrect per the pronunciation. (An umlauted ü in Spanish means it is pronounced, whereas the u in Guevara is not pronounced.) — the Man in Question (in question) 04:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm on the fence about this one, as there are lots and lots of google hits for this spelling, all referring to the same person, so it's not an implausible search term at all. However, nearly all the results are in a Spanish language context (particularly in Chilean sources it seems) so the nomination statement is clearly incorrect that a Spanish speaker would never use this spelling, but it does get a few English results so it's not exclusively a FORRED issue. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

John f kEdit

Implausible search term. People don't search "Franklin d r" or "Martin l k". — the Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whether people do or don't search for other people using similar constructions is irrelevant, the stats show that people do use this redirect to reach the article about Kennedy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible formatting that isn't used to refer to him. I do agree that the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument is irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

King who had six wivesEdit

Wikipedia is not Google. Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. See also King who died with a hot poker up the ass and Tallest Native American. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this because it is a useful search term for the target article. Before I created this redirect the search engine did not find the correct target when using this term, and that will likely be the case again if it is deleted. Redirects like this exist to help readers find the content they are looking for - either directly using the internal search or direct linking, or indirectly by providing results for external search engines. Even if we ignore all the harm that deletion will cause, it will bring absolutely no benefits. I still stand by my arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass that that redirect was also appropriate - especially as now the search engine does not find the correct target in the first two pages of results so we are doing readers a disservice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    It seems to me this is a clear issue of Wikipedia not being a search engine. There is no expectation that inputting a description into Wikipedia's search engine should yield the target in its results. I would not expect "man who died on a cross" to turn up Jesus, or "woman who said let them eat cake" to turn up Marie Antoinette. Thank you, though, for giving your reasons. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google is an article content essay about notability and linkspam, it has nothing to say about redirects. There is no policy or guideline I'm aware of that precludes redirects from key descriptive phrases to article content, especially ones that the internal search engine completely fails with. We don't need every form, but the existence of this redirect means that searches for similar phrases produce meaningful results (and it will also help external search engines too). Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but from a British perspective this is absolutely a plausible search term and exactly the sort of search term that we need to have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems plausible pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Where it was broadly agreed that this redirect is plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's clearly a popular search term, and for readers without any specialist/academic (etc/) interest, trhis could literally be the single factoid that they remember from their schooldays. And I'm sure we all know how hard an internet search is—when you don't know what it is you're looking for. FWIW, I think something like "King with six wives" is proabbly tighter; I'm not sure how the aforementioned reader will care about their past-participles! But, yes, a redirect of this nature is clearly useful and plausible. ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Overcoat pistolEdit

Not mentioned in the target, an internet search would suggest that "overcoat pistol" can (also?) refer to styles of pistol that predated the Derringer. I'm open to this being redirected somewhere more appropriate, but I'm not currently aware of any obvious targets and thus would suggest deletion unless someone can provide a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Added note: I just came across Duelling pistol, which includes the following text Traveling pistols, also known as overcoat pistols, were intended for use by travelers to protect themselves from highwaymen and footpads; unlike dueling pistols, they were commonly rifled.. So, it would appear that this article has information about the subject (note that Derringer also fails to mention traveling pistols), but it's primarily about another topic. I'm thinking that the most appropriate solution is likely to expand Overcoat or Travelling pistol into an article of its own, but I lack the sources and domain knowledge to do that myself. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The boxlock overcoat pistol or muff pistol was the 18th century precursor to the deringer. It was a large calibre flintlock pistol with a short barrel designed for concealment. Retarget to Queen Anne pistol. 53zodiac (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No objection to this retarget proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect wasn't tagged for most of the discussion period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was prematurely changed and untagged by 53zodiac.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 02:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Just retarget to Queen Anne pistol, and stop wasting my time. 53zodiac (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

July 18Edit

Who is an ArabEdit

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: This was deleted in 2009. Who is English? does not exist for English national identity; Who is Canadian? does not exist for Canadian identity; Who is Palestinian? does not exist for Palestinian identity; Who is Scottish? does not exist for Scottish national identity; Who is Serbian? does not exist for Serbian national identity; Who is Taiwanese? does not exist for Taiwanese identity; there is no Who is American?, Who is Romani?, Who is European?, etc. Who is a Jew? exists only because it is the name of a page. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the Man in Question (in question) 23:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per not a search engine. signed, Rosguill talk 03:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and permanently WP:SALT to prevent recreation per nom.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This one looks benign. Many of the other national identity articles cited are more about national culture. Arab identity shows the question of "Who is an Arab?" to be both less clear-cut and encyclopedic in its own right, very much like Who is a Jew? --BDD (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable question and plausible search term. –MJLTalk 03:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    Also, I'd like to point out that the reasoning behind Who is Palestinian? does not exist for Palestinian identity; is pretty simple, Palestinian is a nationality while Arab is an ethnicity. Many Palestinians are Arabs, so they'd factor into this question already. –MJLTalk 03:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a plausible search string, and we apparently have no other redirects of this form. Who is a Jew is a translation of a Hebrew phrase that's the standard Hebrew name of that concept, but I've glanced over Arab identity quickly without seeing any indication that Arabic commonly refers to the question of Arab identity with a phrase that translates to "Who is an Arab". If I've missed it, please point me to the spot where this Arabic phrase is mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does the Universe exist?Edit

I am relisting this separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that this redirect receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on this redirect:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: A Google Books search shows that this phrase is found in very few books, and in inconsistent contexts. (A simple Google Books search turns up many matches, because Google Books will approximate a search even if it is put in quotation marks; you have to actually check the individual entries to see if the phrase occurs.) — the Man in Question (in question) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the Man in Question (in question) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep because the redirect phrase is actually a fairly plausible rewording of the question in the title of the target article. Although presumably it should be changed to point at Why is there anything at all so as not to double redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasonable alternative name of the topic. Article could as easily be titled this. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Mars redEdit

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: I feel like "Why is Mars red" is just like "How many ounces are in a pound?"—a reasonable and probably fairly common search for Google, but not a valid redirect for Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the Man in Question (in question) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as was pointed out in a previous RfD, it's arguably a more intuitive title than the actual article title. signed, Rosguill talk 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the nature of life?Edit

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: I agree that "What is the meaning of life?" and "What is the meaning of life" are worthwhile redirects because they are actually questions that are notable in and of themselves, and I did not nominate them. The questions listed in this nom, however, are not famous questions in and of themselves. The "nature of life" questions could, in fact, just as easily (and needlessly) redirect to Life or Abiogenesis, since they sound as much scientific as existential. "What is the reason to live?" is as much suggestive of suicide prevention as it is of the meaning of life. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the Man in Question (in question) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all – "What is the significance of life" and "what is the value of life" are very awkwardly phrased and appear to have very little usage. The two "nature" redirects don't even seem to be asking the same question. And I agree with nom that the "reason to live" sounds more like suicidal ideation than a metaphysical question. signed, Rosguill talk 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Laura McAndrewsEdit

Delete, unnecessary redirect. This person is only known for being an Air Force spokeperson, who commented on the "Storm Area 51" event. Natg 19 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Body measurementsEdit

Propose retargeting to Anthropometry. No reason to prefer this more specialized subtopic. BDD (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as is, seems to already be at the correct redirect for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget; there are tons of other body measurements unrelated to bust, waist, and hip. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There's an even more general relevant article than Anthropometry, and that's Biometrics. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • disambig, as everything suggested so far is a plausible target. Thryduulf (talk)

Abrahahm linconEdit

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

The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can EditEdit

What a strange phrase to make a redirect of. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You are the same one who keeps complaining about every my redirect, when my redirects are correct. Either you don't pay attention to the logos and the Wikipedia slogan "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", or your IQ is 25. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Explain why. Because Wikipedia's main page slogan IS "The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit", just go click on the Wikipedia logo at the top left and read it. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The phrase in the logo is just "The Free Encyclopedia", without any mention of editing, and I don't think slogans are good redirects unless they are themselves notable.– John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
On the MAIN PAGE, it calls it the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Click on the Wikipedia logo on the top left, then read the top of the main page. Or go to here: Main Page and read it. Barracuda41 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, Barracuda41 is right, this is an upper-casing of the slogan of the encyclopedia. Since I can see no reason to delete the upper casing of the sites slogan, all that's left is to toss a "keep" its way, and hope that common sense is enough to carry this one (and is there a reason to delete it?). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, you're already on Wikipedia so I'm not sure what more is gained from typing in Wikipedia's motto.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep an extremely plausible search term for Wikipedia. Remember that using the internal search engine is far from the only method to navigate to Wikipedia content. Some people may also be looking for content specifically about the openess to edit, we don't have a specific section on that as it is spread through the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is the classic Wikipedia line. I'm not sure it's so well known anymore, but I would think any brief slogan meaningfully associated with a company or organization of note is probably a worthy redirect; I would normally raise an eyebrow at capitalization, but since the first half of the phrase appears capitalized in the upper left, I demur. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

WikipediA, The Free EncyclopediaEdit

I'm sorry, but how is this a useful redirect, with its capital A, and subsequent appositive? Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

For god's sake, the Wikipedia logo has the first and last letters big! Do you even pay attention to Wikipedia logo at the top left? Barracuda41 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not enough. Wikipedia's logo is "WikipediA" as it is in the top left of every Wikipedia page you are on. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You know what the problem might be? The skin. I use monobook (and can't understand why everyone doesn't), which still has the traditional Wikipedia logo ball and slogan at the top left. But I don't think or actually know if some or the other skins have the ball or the slogan. I'm not going to look right now, and like monobook just fine. If they've lost them in other skins then the day that happened was a sad day for Wikipedia (or, as some purists may call it, WikipediA). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Barracuda41, and lal (laughing a little) at they're frustration at having to point out the obvious through another deletion nomination. Yes, this is how WikipediA is written on the logo. So I'd think it would have common sense standing as a redirect as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Randy Kryn. I, too, find it amusing to see Barracuda41 helplessly trying to explain the rather obvious rationale for this one. lmao –MJLTalk 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe it's all in the skin (as nudists would point out). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    What do you mean by nudist? Barracuda41 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Barracuda41 and Randy Kryn: I use vector ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Barracuda, it's a pun I believe, but this is getting off-topic. Therefore, I am making this text a wee bit smaller. –MJLTalk 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entire logo is capitalized, and this is an implausible search term. I've added a second redirect of the same character. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The logo is in smallcaps. For it to actually make sense, it would have to be like WɪᴋɪᴘᴇᴅɪA, which it isn't. Unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Zxcvbnm: Some fonts are written in smallcaps though, and translate would likely translate to WikipediA; so I don't agree. –MJLTalk 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; if we're relying on the logo, why is there a comma? This precise combination of characters is not plausible. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Barracude41. This is how Wikipedia is styled in the Logo, and WikipediA is also how the article was rendered in CamelCase. I'm rather surprised to be honest that something this obviously useful is getting delete votes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, I'm surprised that no one saw fit to explain some basic rules of engagement to Barracuda41. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: Barracuda41's reply to the nomination could be a little better phrased, but other than that I don't see any problems with their engagement here and I see no reason at all to revise my opinion here or to reduce the weight attributed to their opinion. I've seen significantly worse behaviour at RfD from editors who very much should know better without being told. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Whatever, Thryduulf. And "your IQ is 25" is fine also, I'm sure. You're bullshitting, but hey. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
          • @Drmies: you will not that statement was part of the comment I explicitly did not approve of, but regardless I have just removed a whole host of personal attacks in a comment they made after mine (and yours) - that is very much not acceptable. This does not change my opinion about the redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Thryduulf, thanks--but let me just point out that I wasn't trying to sway your opinion. You're a sensible person, and it is entirely possible you're entirely right since, I think, you know more about this place than me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    Without prejudice to the rest of your comment, the camelcase form from 2001 was actually WikiPedia. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
[Personal attack removed] Why did you write a cuss word on Wikipedia? What was your point of that? [Personal attack removed] How could you report two innocent redirects, then cuss at a valid point I made about [personal attack removed] you? [Personal attack removed]. [Personal attack removed]. Barracuda41 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Personal attacks by Barracuda41 against Drmies removed by Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

List of StarFox planets and locationsEdit

No such list in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Biohazard 1Edit

Too easily confused for Biosafety level#Biosafety level 1. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • There's already a hatnote to Biological hazard which is a different article but appears to cover the exact same thing (at least in this context). PC78 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is, I don't see why it needs a hatnote when "Biohazard 1" isn't a legitimate name just a typo. (The game is simply called, Biohazard). As a typo that could potentially cause confusion, it might be better off deleted and letting the search function do its job.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Also remove associated 2nd hatnote at Resident Evil (1996 video game). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep given the existence of multiple Biohazard games, searching for the first game under this name is very plausible, and this is supported by it being by far the primary topic when searching for this exact phrase. The hatnote (which should remain) deals with any possible confusion (it's the entire purpose of hatnotes existing). Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the pageviews, I'd say it's actually very implausible. The fact of the matter is, 99.999% of visitors already know the games are called Resident Evil in English. Given that, the usefulness of having a "Biohazard 1" redirect when it could be easily confused is doubtful.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well that 99.999% figure is a significant exaggeration, but it doesn't matter what proportion of people use the redirect only that it helps the people who do - and it clearly does, as backed up by evidence such as google results. The claim of confusion is however not plausible given the existence of the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Puebla capitalEdit

This redirect is an artifact of a move war; unused; delete. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. As the city is the capital of Puebla state this is a perfectly plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheolwon CountyEdit

Cheolwon County is a divided county between South Korea and North Korea. So We need neutral Article about Two Cheolwon Counties. Sugyoin (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Likes Gangwon Province (historical), We need a neutral article. --Sugyoin (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It is definite that WP:Hatnote distinguishes between Chorwon County, North Korea and Cheorwon County, South Korea. These two Romanizations of Korean is different from each other. Disambiguation is no use. User:Sugyoin want to create the historical place name. The current place names are more common than the historical place name. Sawol (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sawol, if RR (Cheorwon) is primary topic for South Korea, and MR (Ch'ŏrwŏn, Chorwon) is primary topic for North Korea, then let's continue using that. (historical) article can be created, but then the TWODABS hatnotes have to change, and be serviced with Chorwon (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I found the disambiguation page Chorwon (disambiguation). Sawol (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

ΜBTCEdit

There is no "microbitcoin" (μBTC) subdivision of the Bitcoin. It is not a plausible typo for millibitcoin (mBTC) because it is a mixed-script redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per similar noms. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm seeing plenty of uses of μBTC for microbitcoin on the official bitcoin wiki, and in various forums and discussions so it's a plausible search term. I'm not seeing it in reliable sources, but then I'm not seeing milibitcoin used in those sources either, only Bitcoin, fractions of bitcoin and Satoshi, so I don't see this as a barrier. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

AoTeAroaEdit

Delete. This capitalisation ("AoTeAroa") is never used. (Nothing links to this redirect, and there is already a page for "Aotearoa" (the usual capitalisation for the Maori-language name for New Zealand).) Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Notes: This dates from December 2002, almost a year after CamelCase was deprecated. There are no internal links to it in the mainspace, and the vast majority if not all of the links that do exist are related to this discussion. Per Small SEO Tools the only external link I could find was this. I'll leave the decision of whether to keep this up to the community in light of this info. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Next Luxembourg general electionEdit

Delete. Out of date. No article for the next (2023 presumably) election exists yet. User38453838 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's a bit a waste of effort to always recreate the redirect and nominate it again for deletion, depending on whether an article for an upcoming election exists. Sounds like an endless loop applicable to any election. Maybe redirect it to e.g. Elections in Luxembourg as is done for several other such redirects? SPQRobin (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Elections in Luxembourg#Chamber of Deputies where I have added a sourced mention of the date of the next election. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia.Edit

Useless PANDORA error. Compare 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and many more. — the Man in Question (in question) 09:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I usually don't object to deleting redirects with trailing punctuation, but this one continues to get regular use, averaging 99 pageviews per month. Deleting it would be a disservice to visitors. - Eureka Lott 14:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I would argue that its continued use derives solely from its existence, and that without it all of these searches would search Wikipedia directly without the searchers having any trouble at all finding what they were looking for. I imagine if "Wikipedia," were made again, it too would receive high traffic. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we can tell if the traffic is mainly from internal or external links. There's a good chance that many of the pageviews come from other sites, and deleting the redirect would break those links. - Eureka Lott 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless is a good term, and not broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheikh ZubeirEdit

Really? — the Man in Question (in question) 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a theory that Shakespeare was actually an Arab called Sheik Zubair/Zubayr/Zubeir. It's fringe even by Shakespearean authorship question standards. Could be retargetted to List of Shakespeare authorship candidates#WXYZ where the Zubair theory is mentioned. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for that enlightenment. Ugh. There are other Sheikh Zubeirs though, such as this one, who seem more notable (consider WP:SURPRISE). Before anyone says DAB (there is nothing to DAB to), I really think it should just be deleted to allow the search engine to do its work. The redirect has no pageviews, and the name is given as Sheik Zubayr in the article you mentioned. But I won't be too fussy if its retargeted. — the Man in Question (in question) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    On further investigation, no other spelling of Sheik Zubayr appears to exist as a redirect to anywhere, and there are no redirects for the three other "candidates" who don't themselves have articles. So perhaps there isn't that much point keeping the redirect (an impression reinforced by the fact that there were only 11 views in 2017, 21 views in 2018, and until yesterday only 2 views this year...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ezra (2016 film)Edit

Did not release in 2016. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21Edit

Unlikely search term, almost no usage, VLUU isn't mentioned in the target in any capacity. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This page is used to accommodate redirection from Wikimedia file JPEG EXIF DATA, taken from Samsung SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21. Aris riyanto (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per what's said at {{R from EXIF}}. There's no way to ascertain precise usage. Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Allcaps country namesEdit

Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Россия already exist, I don't see any need for an allcaps version. WP:PANDORA seems relevant. signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You know, my redirects are correct. Do you even know about this template: Template:R from capitalisation and if RUSSIA and SRI LANKA redirects exist due to all caps, why are you reporting MINE?Barracuda41 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
And besides, these redirects were made over a month ago. HA! Barracuda41 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Russia. There are places where all-caps are more easily found than first-capitalised-only, e.g. postage stamps. This doesn't matter with Sri Lanka, since we expect readers to be familiar with decapitalising SRI LANKA, but we should provide more leeway with other alphabets. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep РОССИЯ' per Nyttend. We cannot expect English readers to know (or be able to easily input) the lowercase forms of non-Latin alphabets. If someone copies and pastes this into the search bar they should be taken directly to the article they are looking for. Anecdotally, I also see a lot more all-caps usage of Cyrillic for Soviet/Russian contexts than I do for almost any other topic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, maybe you know this already, but another issue is that Cyrillic has fewer distinct-looking capital/miniscule letter pairs than Latin. For example, B and K and H look different from b and k and h, but in Cyrillic the miniscule forms of В and К and Н are в and к and н. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Nyttend: I sort of did know that but hadn't made the connection to appearance of increased uppercase usage and lack of awareness that something is in all caps. That is another reason to keep this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep' DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA as that is correct and harmless but less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the Sri Lanka one. It's not something that would normally be written in all caps, so there's no basis for having a redirect. PC78 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Church of MilanEdit

Milan has many churches, this is way too vague. Given the amount of work required to create a good disambiguation for this, and the total lack of use for this redirect, I think it's best of deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Rutiodon priscusEdit

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

Saira Khan (Pakistan actress)Edit

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

RomansEdit

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

Internal Security actEdit

This should be a disambiguation page - there are numerous articles about Internal Security acts in various countries. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 17Edit

USSR 2Edit

I get the connection, but this plan was never referred to as USSR 2 signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I could've sworn I've seen this project mentioned as “СССР-2” in some Russian-language sources, but I can't find them now. I have nothing against deleting it. Dr. Fatman (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • On the Russian Wikipedia, "СССР 2.0" redirects to their article for the Union of Sovereign States, though it doesn't seem to be used in the article. Not having known about the Union before, I might've expected this to go to Commonwealth of Independent States, but there doesn't seem to be any warrant for that. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the search results I'm seeing talk about a "USSR 2" or more usually "New Soviet Union" all date to the 21st century and are in the context of Russian expansionism 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018. I can't find a single good article about that though, but aspects of it get mentions in Post-Soviet Russia, Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, History of Russia (1991–present), Foreign relations of Russia, Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and probably other places. If there was a single good place then I'd definitely say disambig between the current target, CIS and that, but as it is I'm unusure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What wp is notEdit

I mildly support limited use of cross-namespace redirects, like How to edit a page, How to start a page, How to move a page, How to rename a page, and How to cite Wikipedia, because they may help potential new editors break in. But WP:What Wikipedia is not is hardly an entry search, and WP:NOT is an appropriate shortcut for editors, who know better than to go looking for WP in the article namespace. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was kept in the past, so it is at least worth a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the relist and lack of participation so far, I've gone and added the other mainspace redirects to this discussion. Wikipedia is not appears to have been deleted several times before. PC78 (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and XNR. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:R#DELETE No. 6: It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace.Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • keep those starting with Wikipedia is not, not doing any harm, lots of incoming links from talk pages, no point in breaking these. —Kusma (t·c) 19:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

President SnowflakeEdit

Commentary, not redirect material. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuck a duckEdit

Not mentioned in target article. Now meaningless. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per [20], [21], [22], and [23]. There are plenty of books with this phrase and it is used in current lingo. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for providing sources. Based on your sources, it seems to me it would preferably be retargeted to a nonexistent article about List of expletives in the English language or similar. As it currently stands, no one searching "fuck a duck" would be hoping to simply be redirect to the "fuck" page, especially since there is no mention of the phrase in the target article. Therefore I still favor a delete, as a form of deletion to encourage article creation. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    @The Man in Question: I see where you are getting from, but deletion does not seem to encourage creation. Deletion shows users that the page has been created and been removed. This phrase is common within our crazy modern society and wikipedia adjusts to lingo changes. We will see how this turns out, I do see your point. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps you are right about encouraging article creation, but this is based on Reason for deleting #10. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary wikt:fuck a duck where interested readers can find lexical information about the term. There isn't at present any encyclopaedic information about it on Wikipedia, but if that changes the soft redirect can be revisited. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTSLANG. The sources that AmericanAir88 identified above enforces that this will likely never go beyond a dictionary definition.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Air pollution in IranEdit

No related content on target page (was removed in November 2015) Dawnseeker2000 05:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Note – the target section was removed a while back in this huge uncommented deletion. Maybe that material should be restored? Or some of it? Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The content was split off as Health in Iran, presumably because this is not closely related enough to the intended topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Health in Iran#Air pollution. That seems to be where the content ended up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Environmental issues in Iran is the more natural target IMO (note that its See also section includes this redirect). The article needs a lot of work, but puts a lot of emphasis on air pollution. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Health in Iran#Air pollution per Ivanvector. The other article has less content and only mentions air pollution in passing, so a redirect there makes less sense. Both articles link to each other in any case. PC78 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Il TalisminoEdit

deletion, unlikely misspelling In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Procedually, the nomination is problematic. This used to redirect to The Talisman (ballet), until nominator In ictu oculi had blanked it at 09:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC), before this nomination (09:17). Smjg reverted it back at 15:00, 9 July (UTC).[24] As far as I can see, it's never been targeted to Il talismano as stated in the nomination. As far as the real target of The Talisman, it looks it might be translated from Italian.[25] As the composer was Italian Riccardo Drigo, it seems that WP:R#DELETE No. 8 does not apply: 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. It talismano was at "The Talisman (ballet)" until it was removed by In ictu oculi at 09:21, 9 July (UTC), after this nomination. At worst , redirect to Il talismano for disambiguation. A one-letter misspelling is not implausible.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
10:19, 7 December 2006‎ Mrlopez2681 Redirected page to The Talisman (ballet). Can you please link to the policy that supports a one-off Wikipedia editor misspelling of an Italian word being preserved for "keep". This was clearly created in error, a repeat of that one-letter misspelling is totally implausible. We have here a simple i/a error on a single bad link from 2006 in a single article. A Google Book check confirms that this an unlikely error - evidenced by the fact it has not been repeated - I am not aware of any policy or guideline that we are obliged to preserve unlikely spelling errors. It was made in 2006, it went unspotted, but why do we now in 2019 need a redirect from a one off misspelling of a rare Italian word to anywhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that a misspelling is not found in books is proof that a human won't misspell it in a search window? Good night.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. In fact the autocomplete function of top right search box is more likely to cause a mispelling. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've left notification with the redirect's creator, Mrlopez2681, regarding this RfD (though they edit irregularly).—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Long Thai name of BangkokEdit

A redirect that was generated by a bot more than ten years ago which has never been linked to. The only probable use would be in the search box, but even the spelling is not the most well-known; that would be "Krung thep mahanakhon amon rattanakosin mahinthara ayuthaya mahadilok phop noppharat ratchathani burirom udomratchaniwet mahasathan amon piman awatan sathit sakkathattiya witsanukam prasit". See the Wiktionary talk page on: Talk:Unsupported_titles/Thai_name_of_Bangkok. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's consensus at this point to delete the single redirect nominated. I'm relisting because I'm not clear on whether the editors who mentioned any of the variants wanted them deleted as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all It's the historical, ceremonial name as described at Bangkok#Name. Granted, there's multiple variants because there are many forms of Thai romanization. And people cut and paste these days, moreso than typing manually. It justs looks silly if a modernized encyclopedia couldn't recognize such a name, esp. if it's a conscious decision regarding a non-Western country.Redirects are cheap!—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment re: bots For the record, the redirect from the specific name mentioned in the Bangkok article (different than the nominated one) was not by a bot, but a retired editor with over 1,000 edits: Vanished_user_9oijnsdfknefijh3tjasfi34 (talk · contribs · logs · block log).—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It does not serve any purpose to have this as an article name. No one will ever type it. Any search for a part of it will find the right target. −Woodstone (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above and how we have frequently treated long redirects in the past here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Extremely long redirects are defeating the point of a redirect, which is to be something that would plausibly be typed in the search box.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all - arguments about being a valid search term are invalid. As I understand it these redirects are correct, excepting that some may be {{R without diacritics}} which is still a valid and useful category of redirect, and if someone does type it, they'll be taken to the subject they're looking for. There is no reason at all to remove valid encyclopedic information just because some in the west find it unsightly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No precedent There is no guideline cited by the "deletes". Precedents for long place name redirects from Western countries include Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg in the United States that redirects to Lake Chaubunagungamaug and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch in Wales to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Ivanvector and Bagumba. Lack of links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia (the only thing whatlinkshere shows) is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Being typed into the search box is not the only reason for a redirect to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all mainly per Ivanvector and Bagumba. It's not implausible that someone might find the full name and google it. And if you google it, the first link is actually one to the redirect. So it might be useful for people not using the search box but a search engine and that is all WP:R#KEEP requires. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Someone mentioned Krungthepmahanakhon Amonrattanakosin Mahintharayutthaya Mahadilokphop Noppharatratchathaniburirom Udomratchaniwetmahasathan Amonphimanawatansathit Sakkathattiyawitsanukamprasit before, and I just want to point out that it's mentioned in the article (letter-for-letter). I'd be a strong keep on that one. For the rest, I just want to point out they aren't mentioned in the article (but maybe could be?) –MJLTalk 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    The others are variant Romanizations. They are plausible search terms, but not worth repeating in prose (esp. at that length).—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we have an article on a subject that has an official name, that official name always needs to be a working page. Maybe it's the article's name, or maybe it's the name of another article that's the primary use, or maybe it's a disambiguation page, or maybe it's a redirect to the article that goes by some other form of the name. But the important thing is that we should never convert such a page into a redlink unless we're deleting the article itself or unless there's been a mistake and the claimed full name isn't. See WP:NOTPAPER; this is a great example of a useful redirect (long full name) that wouldn't be worth printing as a "redirect" in a printed book. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SMT3Edit

Not a widely used acronym, and Nocturne isn't even unambiguously the third entry in the Megami Tensei/Shin Megami Tensei series signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I mean, the game title is literally Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne. I made the redirect because that's what I call it and I was surprised it didn't exist already. I don't really see how deleting this serves the SMT navigation better than keeping it. --30 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) That game is titled "Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne" in Japan, and the series title is regularly shortened to SMT. I do not see the problem here.--Alexandra IDVtalk 18:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Rename to SMT 3, without the typo, without leaving a redirect. It makes sense as a redirect, but not with the lack of spacing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That's not a typo. It's an abbreviation. I spend a lot of time in video game communities and I can say that everyone refers to for example Final Fantasy IX as "FF9" and Dragon Quest VIII as "DQ8", not "FF 9" and "DQ 8". --30 (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The Japanese title makes it clear that this is the third Shin Megami Tensei game. Omitting spaces is common in such abbreviations. It's worth noting that there is also a SUMO protein called SMT3; this can be handled by a hatnote. Reach Out to the Truth 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue wallsEdit

Bad redirect. Relevant section does not exist [anymore], and redirect term does not occur otherwise within given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

FIPA (software)Edit

Misleading disambiguator, the target is an organization associated with software, but it is not itself software. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Gulel (film)Edit

Not mentioned in the target article now (and neither at the time of creation of the redirect). Apparently, Gulel was an early working title of Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (at least that's what an earlier version of the article suggests), but a google search (admittedly a very perfunctory one) didn't come up with any reliable sources making the connection. – Uanfala (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I also couldn't find anything to support that connection. There are some sources from around 2003-2009 about an on/off Aparna Sen film project named Gulel, but with no mention in the target article I don't think this is a useful redirect. PC78 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Bobby JaffersEdit

Fictional character that isn't mentioned in any Wikipedia article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Lay PhoneEdit

I don't think this is a plausible redirect or alternate form, and I think this form of the name is rather silly and thereby unencyclopedic. As such, and given the lack of substantial edit history, I believe this redirect should be deleted.– John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Energy cardEdit

I thought to redirect this to the video game term "energy" as overly vague, but I realized this is also a tabletop gaming term. However, it is possessed by a large amount of deckbuilding-type games. It might have to be deleted as having no clear target. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Perhaps convert to a disambiguation page given the circumstances. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 16Edit

LancegateEdit

Not mentioned in target article, and seemingly not mentioned in any other articles about Lance Armstrong. Third party search engines seem to return primarily results for Bert Lance when searching for "Lancegate". Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know, User:Steel1943--it was a happening term on the TV when I wrote it up. Funny you should bring this up: Armstrong now is getting back in the mainstream, and he was interviewed as an expert by the doofy dudes on NBCSN. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sī DàlínEdit

WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Juana de ArcoEdit

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Juan Sebastián BachEdit

Spanish. WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

John Paul IiEdit

E.g. John Paul II and John paul ii are sufficient. We don't need inconsistencies in the capitalization of the numeral itself. (John Paul Ii gets decent traffic because it is the first search suggestion that pops up when you type in "John Paul II", as I experienced myself.) All of these were created by the same editor, who is no longer active on Wikipedia.the Man in Question (in question) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all to reduce search box clutter. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Nobody views these as words whose first letter (only) must be capitalised. If you know that the first letter of a Roman numeral (and the first letter of other words in these names) must be capitalised, you'll know that the rest need to be, as well. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per all. All uppercase is best; all lowercase is OK, mixed case is plain wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I understand the value in redirects which lowercase all the digits in the Roman numeral — but there's no need for versions which uppercase the first digit but lowercase the rest. Anybody who erroneously lowercases the Roman numerals is going to erroneously lowercase all of them, not type it as a word. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The YukiEdit

No apparent connection. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Mrs. BartimusEdit

Appears just to be the name of someone's teacher. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned in target. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was created as an unsourced article about a faculty member of no obvious notability, and then redirected to the university's article even though it doesn't mention her at all. And even if she did qualify for an article, it would be at her full first and last names, not as "Mrs." anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Early years of john f. kennedyEdit

Ad-hoc section names do not redirects make. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

St.PaulsEdit

Spacing error. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Micheal JordonEdit

All double typos. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all Is it not plausible to have two typos? Perhaps there should be a limit (though 2 seems too low). If so, it should be changed at WP:RPURPOSE.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Multiple typos is a rule of thumb based on common outcomes, though not a hard and fast rule. See WP:RTYPO. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create a redirect from every potential typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. There's no evidence that any of these meet that standard. For instance, "Michael" being misspelled as "Micheal" is a thing that observably happens a lot, so "Micheal"→"Michael" redirects are permissible — but "Jordan" being misspelled as "Jordon", and "Bieber" being misspelled as "Beebar", are only possible in theory, and not widely seen in reality. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

LucaniusEdit

Not mentioned in target article. There have been various Lucaniuses in history, though only one is mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or dab This was a pseudonym of John Calvin, LucianusLucanius being an anagram of Calvinus (v and u being interchangeable at that time). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
    Which was a pseodonym, Lucanius (which is this redirect) or Lucianus (which is what you said)? Also, thanks for that clarification. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    The redirect. (Well they are both anagrams, but that is the one I meant!) I have edited my comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC).

Mall Ze-dongEdit

Mall and More are not variant Chinese pronunciations of 毛 (Máo). — the Man in Question (in question) 20:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete might as well create "Mallsy Tong" if these exist. OP also made Lay PhoneLei Feng. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have added two more by the editor to the nom. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlikely search terms. Hzh (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep these are 6 years old. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Delete. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth ever making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. None of these are, and the amount of time that a redirect has existed is not in and of itself grounds for the retention of a redirect that has no substantive need. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unnecessary. We're not to do the search engine's job and suggest "you may be looking for" correction for typos, in any case this should not be done in terms of redirects, if the product team willing to optimize on that direction, I see no problem with it.

Leonardo D.CaprioEdit

Leonardo D. Caprio already exists separately. Therefore, spacing error in mistaken name. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep neither harmful nor new (12 years old). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Delete. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth ever making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. This is not. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo D`caprioEdit

Leonardo D'caprio already exists separately. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete There's no reason someone would use a grave accent like this. Reach Out to the Truth 18:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not necessary for us to preemptively anticipate and create redirects from every typo we can possibly imagine somebody somewhere on earth ever making — the test for whether a redirect-from-typo is warranted or not hinges on whether that typo is a documentably common sight in the real world. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Armstrong, Louis SatchmoEdit

Implausible search term. {{R from sort name}} exists for sorting; anyone who searches on Google or types into Wikipedia's search box "Armstrong, Louis" will get where they're trying to go. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the color of Louis Satchmo Armstrong. If "XYZ" doesn't exist, there's no good reason to have "Z, XY". Please remember, however, that there are plenty of other ways to reach an article; your envisioned autofilled search won't help anyone like me who goes places by changing the page URL. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep 15 years old, not harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

KeeuopatraiEdit

Not clear on the meaning of these redirects. Not Greek forms. If from some other language, then WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

FuthaghurasEdit

WP:FORRED. Arabic/Persian, Russian, Italian, Spanish, and what appears to be some sort of hybrid. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Pyfagoras, plausible typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

M. AngeloEdit

Since Michelangelo's name was not "Michael Angelo", this does not seem like a worthy redirect. Who's going to search for M. Angelo over Michelangelo or Michael Angelo, which already exists for those confused about that. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello. I created this redirect 11 years ago. If you check 'what links here', you will see that the redirect was created while going through a list of red-links at Talk:Albert Memorial, specifically the composers, architects, poets, painters, and sculptors depicted on the Frieze of Parnassus that forms part of the Albert Memorial. It appears that the files at The National Archives (in the UK) include a 'historical summary' that used this form of the name to refer to Michelangelo, using a list taken from the official history (see below). The form 'Michael Angelo' is rare (it tends to be used in older sources), but is used in some places, such as the work The Life of Michael Angelo (1912). So the form M. Angelo will likely appear in some places (e.g. it is used in the official history of the memorial, The National Memorial to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, that was published in 1873), so a redirect could be of some use. In a similar vein, the form of the name carved into the memorial is 'MICHAEL ANGELO', which you can verify for yourself in the photo here (he is the one in the middle of that side of the frieze). The same form of the name is used on the east side of the frieze (he appears twice in total). I am going to ask for some advice on how common the form 'Michael Angelo' is. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Not an uncommon abbreviation in 19th-century books & earlier & worth keeping. Did you check google before nominating? Apparently not. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Keep. While it certainly seems implausible in the contemporary context that anybody would actually refer to Michelangelo this way, the above commenters have presented significant evidence that he historically was referred to as "Michael Angelo" or "M. Angelo" in some sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

MichelangeEdit

Presumably meant to be French Michel-Ange. WP:FORRED. Retarget to Michel-Ange per PC78. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

MichelanEdit

Part of a name does not make a good redirect. (And could more easily redirect to Michelin.) — the Man in Question (in question) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete (or maybe retarget), I would read that as a typo of "Michelin" but it might also refer to Michelan Sisti. PC78 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Michelan Sisti as a {{r from given name}}, since he's the only person with this name for whom we have an article. (Good find, PC78!) - Eureka Lott 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per PC78. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

Gate billEdit

Fail at {{R from sort name}}. Also, could have numerous other meanings. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a plausible search term for the target, and it sounds like an invoice you'd get from a carpenter. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobody would ever search for Bill Gates this way. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

III Gates William HenryEdit