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

May 27Edit

May 26Edit

DWGWEdit

Not mentioned in the target, unclear what this initialism refers to. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on User:Bluemask/Operating radio stations in the Philippines by region and province as of December 2010#V - Bicol Region DWGW 684 is/was a radio station operated by the target. As it's not mentioned there though it's not a useful redirect to that. A couple of acronym finders claim this is used to mean "Drinking Water Ground Water" (or Groundwater) but I can't find any verification that this is an actual phrase in use anywhere, and certainly it isn't on Wikipedia. The only other prominent use is the username of a person on Twitter and a hashtag on Instagram (I haven't investigated whether they relate to the same person), but there is no evidence either of these is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

HypertetrahedronEdit

Doesn't appear to refer to the same thing, not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Melissa PetersenEdit

Not actually mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Greco-Chinese WarEdit

Not sure why this would be an appropriate title for the war, which was between the Han and Dayuan. The article only mentions Greek/Greco- (or any other derivation of the word) in connection to an image of the Sampul tapestry included in the article, but whose connection to the rest of the article's content is unclear. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – there was no Greco-Chinese War. The name "Greco-Chinese war" was sourced to a blog and Youtube video. However, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom had lost Dayuan (Ferghana valley) to the Saka some 60 years before the Chinese expedition reached the valley. The kingdom itself, in Bactria (Daxia), had fallen 20 years before the expedition. Kanguole 21:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23Edit

Redirect from an implausible search term that was created as an alternative to deletion for a fork. The redirect hasn't seen any use since it was created, and I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Eurasian race groupsEdit

The terms "Eastern Eurasian" and "Western Eurasian" are introduced in the lead of the target as alternative, more modern terms for "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" respectively, but no sources are provided to back up this claim. Sources elsewhere in the article referring to "Eastern Eurasian" groups do not appear to ever refer to the term "Mongoloid" in their text. I was unable to find any decisive evidence that these are synonyms in an internet and Scholar search. Eastern Eurasian is a new redirect, whereas Western Eurasian had been pointing at Eurasia since 2008, and was changed to point to Caucasian the same day that Eastern Eurasian was created. If sources cannot be found establishing that these are actually equivalent to race science categories, these redirects should be pointed back to Eurasia or deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Virtual assistantEdit

WP:Wikipe-tan is not a virtual assistant as this redirect implies. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ChatbotEdit

There is no connection between chatbots and WP:wikipe-tanBillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

ScabersEdit

This is a misspelling of "Scabbers", which would normally be fine, but scabers are actually a feature of certain mushroom species. There's no real coverage of them besides a mention in a few different species articles. A retarget to Glossary of botanical terms#scabrous might be an option, but I think a redlink would be even better. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

SuicidalEdit

This page has redirected to Suicide and Suicide crisis. I would like community input on what is the best title to redirect it to. Interstellarity (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Voter registration campaignEdit

Other countries also have voter registration and I would assume that their are voter registration campaigns in those countries as well Abote2 (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate if other similar articles/sections of articles about voter registration campaigns/drives can be found. If not, I'm not aware of a need to delete the redirect and so would !vote to keep it. - PaulT+/C 16:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Same rationale even with the two additions, with the (obvious) exception that the other two should point to the third if a disambiguation page can be created. - PaulT+/C 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added two synonyms to the nomination. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Voter registration, where the concept is explained briefly. We have other nation-specific articles such as Voter registration in the Philippines, Electoral registration in the United Kingdom, etc., so we should use the non-US-centric target for this. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We live in a societyEdit

Yes I know the meme, but the target doesn't actually say anything about it and would likely only leave people confused. signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as not mentioned in the film article or Joker (The Dark Knight) as a major catchphrase. Also a commonly used phrase by many notable people so it would not be primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Haddonfield High School (Halloween)Edit

While some of the events of the Halloween series take place in the high school of the fictional town of Haddonfield, virtually no content in the article actually discusses the high school. signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unless there was a particular movie or two that took place mainly at the high school, this isn't really helpful. Otherwise you could create Haddonfield Police Department and other fictional town landmarks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Harrison Park High SchoolEdit

Not mentioned in the target, I don't see a reason for this redirect to exist. signed, Rosguill talk 00:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

May 25Edit

The effect of terror on the mindEdit

I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect from this phrase to a single theory on the psychology of terror (really just fear in this context), especially considering that this theory is given only one sentence in the article Fear. Concerns that come to mind to me are whether this is giving too much prominence to a single theory, and whether there is a possibility for confusion due to the use of the word terror, as readers could potentially be looking for an article on the effects of terrorism or Terror (politics). signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Fear or Terror I agree the psychology of terror or fear is best explained by the Fear article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as well as the ambiguous options for retargeting above. Best just let the search function figure this one out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This redirect title is 1) ambiguous, 2) not mentioned anywhere in the target article, and 3) a very unlikely search term. Google search [1] produces only six hits for this phrase, none of which relate to the target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Arc EntertainmentEdit

As far as I can tell, this is an independent company and may even meet notability guidelines. I would recommend deletion, or the creation of a stub for the company if enough sources can be found to meet WP:NORG. signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep for now I think the best chouce of action would be to create a drft for the company and if approved we can delete the redirect to facilitate the move.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sending it through AfC would be an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy, just create a stub. signed, Rosguill talk 05:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Special HazardEdit

Created alongside several other redirects from similar terms to this target, this one is a bridge too far IMO, as the redirect title doesn't mention floods, and an internet search suggests that this term is more commonly used to refer to fire hazards (even dictionary [2]). I would suggest either deletion, or conversion to a DAB. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague and not discussed in definition at any of the targets. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Uttitha bandhasanaEdit

These terms do not appear to refer to the same type of yoga position––"Uttitha bandhasana" is not mentioned in the target, and searching online returned results suggesting that Uttitha bandhasana is a different position. I would suggest deleting unless someone is aware of a more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as it isn't even spelled correctly and doesn't have a corresponding article or not even mentioned at the current target. If it were just for the term Utthita, then it could at least redirect to List of asanas which has a glossary of those terms. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete, and I beg to differ on various fronts. Utthita bandhasana (spelt correctly) is indeed a variant of Setu Bandha, but the name is rarely used. Please let's NEVER redirect anything to List of asanas, I spent ages removing absurd redirects from there. If anyone can find a single reasonable source for Utthita bandhasana, then I'll create that as a redirect and add a one-line description at Setu Bandha Sarvangasana#Variations. As it is, I think delete (spelling mistake or no: popular spelling mistakes are well worth redirecting) is the only option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

OspreysEdit

This title has redirected to Osprey for about seven years, but it was recently retargeted without discussion to the disambiguation page Osprey (disambiguation). I have reverted this undiscussed change, and bring the topic here to determine whether there is, in fact, a consensus to change the target. I note that many of the topics on the disambiguation page can not be pluralized (e.g. Osprey, Florida, Osprey Media, Osprey Publishing, Operation Osprey). bd2412 T 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per views [[3]] for titles of "Osprey" and per the long-term significance criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing a reason why this redirect should not target the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per WP:PLURALPT. To compare, there are sports teams called the "Ospreys", but there also sports teams called the "Hawks", and that redirect targets Hawk, the article about the bird. Steel1943 (talk)|
    • Whether "Hawk" is the primary topic for "Hawks" is not relevant to whether "Osprey" (the bird) is the primary topic for "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep to Osprey as an {{R from plural}} and primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to disambiguation. In common usage, the term "Ospreys" in the plural primarily refers to Ospreys (rugby union), one of the major rugby union teams in Wales and also one of the top-tier teams in Europe. I can see that there is a case for the osprey bird as well, though, so having a disambiguation page caters for both possibilities. I find this recent trend towards redirecting plurals to a common DICDEF where there is also a prominent entity known by the plural (e.g. Ravens) to be quite a worrying development. Redirects are meant to help readers get to the page they're looking for, not just satisfy WP:Wikilawyering. Having Ospreys redirect to Osprey condemns to the rugby fans to having to make two clicks to get to their team.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The first page of Google Books results has eight books on the bird, one on the military aircraft, and one work of fiction. None on the rugby team. In terms of historical significance, the earliest reference I can find to ospreys (in the plural) dates back to 1658. The rugby team apparently came into existence in 2003. According to this NGram, that did not seem to have had much impact on the use of the word. bd2412 T 15:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of the plural titles (like Ravens) started out as redirects to the singular and are then later edited to create a DAB page or are pointed elsewhere so its not a recent trend. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambig the results for this seem to be highly variable by geographic location and (likely) previous searches. My first 40 results from a plain google search are: Welsh rugby team 32 hits (first result #1), bird 13 hits (first result #17), Cambridge University organisation 2 hits (first hit #34), Scottish rugby ream 1 hit (#37), note all of the first page is for the ruby team. For books of the first 30 26 were about the bird, but #4 was about the family of a Lord Osprey, #5 was about an aircraft type, #10 was about a (possibly fictional) place and #30 was about a (probably fictional) gang. 30 of 30 news hits are about the Welsh rugby team, 12 of 20 images are about the bird (but the first two are related to the rugby team). All in all this points to there being no universal primary topic for the plural. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Any word on historical significance? bd2412 T 16:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes: it's irrelevant. What matters is what people are most likely to be looking for now, and from the evidence available to us that is about equally likely to be the bird and the Welsh rugby team, so the disambiguation page is the best place to target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is irrelevant to your opinion, but it is very relevant to policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), which states: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". If you disagree with the policy, make a proposal to change the policy. bd2412 T 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I do disagree that that is relevant to the redirect we are discussing here. We are concerned solely what most people are currently looking for when they search using the term "Ospreys" and/or create of follow links to Ospreys. The evidence clearly shows that there is currently no universal primary topic for this term. I do not see how it is possible to determine whether a top-flight sports team or a bird have greater notability or educational value within the confines of NPOV, given they are completely distinct topics and of comparable prominence in globally averaged search results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          • I also note that you are selectively quoting from the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy, mentioning only the second bullet point of the two methods described as commonly used, the first being: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.. The page also states In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. (emphasis mine). This clearly shows that the policy does not regard long-term significance as of greater importance than current usage, and that where the two conflict there is not always a single primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well what is this, then? The Ospreys rugby team logo isn't a picture of a person playing rugby. Rather, it looks like a bird, as if the name of the team is intended to invoke the bird known by that name. This isn't a case like Philadelphia Phillies or the Houston Texans, where the team name is merely intended to evoke the location. The logo practically says, "we're the Ospreys - you know, like the bird". bd2412 T 18:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)The stats that I provided show that the bird gets over 10x the views as the rugby union team however we don't know how many people would use the singular v plural. I'd note that I'd never heard of the team even though I'm in Great Britain. Indeed the bird is clearly primary by PT#2 but a DAB page might work better since readers could easily find what they want but that wasn't done with Cairns which remains an article about the Australian city despite the plural of Cairn. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Indeed, I'm arguing the dab page is better because the evidence shows that the rugby team and bird are equally likely to be searched. Why is the logo of the rugby team at all relevant here? What the primary topic for anything other than "Ospreys" is is definitely not relevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if you want a counterexample Seahawk (dab) vs Seahawks (NFL team), even though their logo depicts the bird). Page views will obviously show the bird's article as getting more views as that's (a) the clear primary topic for "Osprey" (singular) and also the current target of the plural redirect, so everyone who wants any other meaning goes via that page first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Seahawk is a dab because there is no specific kind of bird known as a seahawk. It would be a dab if no sports teams existed with the name. By contrast, Hawks, Eagles, Crows, Penguins, Owls, Falcons, and Bluejays are specific kinds of birds (species or family), and all are plural primary topic redirects despite the existence of notable sports teams bearing those names. The same with Lions, Tigers, Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Sharks, even Cavaliers. With respect to other Welsh rugby union teams, by the way Dragons redirects to Dragon (the fictional creature can't be more notable than a real kind of bird), and Warriors redirects to Warrior, despite there being teams by these names. bd2412 T 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Whether other singular things are or are not the primary topic for their plural is still irrelevant, regardless of whether you give 1 or 100 examples of them. Literally the only thing that is relevant is what people are looking for when they use the term "Ospreys". Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Of course you have to hold titles that conform to historical significance irrelevant if you want to avoid that rule. I'll make you a deal. If you can gain consensus that Dragons should be retargeted to Dragon (disambiguation) due to the existence of Dragons (rugby union), then I will reverse my position on the redirect at issue here. bd2412 T 21:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
                      • "Dragons", being an example of something that is not "Ospreys", is still irrelevant to what the primary topic for "Ospreys" is. Please re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I recently disambiguated the incoming links to Ospreys. 70% were about the rugby club; 30% about the bird. I've also just fixed the articles which claimed that the game is played by actual dragons. Certes (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Orthodoxy in North KoreaEdit

I propose to retarget this to the overview article Orthodoxy in Korea to match the retargetting to that title of Orthodoxy in South Korea proposed at #Orthodoxy in South Korea below. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Orthodoxy in Korea as proposed. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget as proposed. PC78 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget as proposed. Its target was a dab and I retargeted it to the only relevant entry, but the topic seems broader than the one church. Certes (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

All Apologies/Rape MeEdit

WP:XY. The two songs were released as a double a-side, so this is a plausible search term, but neither target is preferable to the other. In Utero (album) is a possibility as this is quite an old redirect (perhaps specifically In Utero (album)#Singles), but I don't really see any harm in deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom by-electionsEdit

This is a misleading redirect, as it leads to only those by-elections from 2010 onwards. I have been unable to identify a proper target for it, so it should be deleted and incoming links removed. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Rather than deleting, it could be changed to a list of lists, to include List of United Kingdom by-elections (1801–1806) to List of United Kingdom by-elections (2010–present) along with articles like United Kingdom by-election records, but this would largely duplicate what Template:United Kingdom by-elections does already. Opera hat (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If it were so changed I would happily withdraw my nomination, or !vote against it, or whatever the correct procedure would be. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Orthodoxy in South KoreaEdit

There is an Russian Orthodox Church in South Korea. See Orthodoxy in Korea. 223.62.169.15 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Popty pingEdit

slang, WP:NEO . Wiktionary also deleted. Widefox; talk 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete It isn't even real slang (if it actually was we could consider keeping it; we have no rule against using slang as a redirect). This is an invented neologism. According to sources [4] [5] it's more of a joke than an actual, used word for microwave oven. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Revisit if it's given long-lasting notability, but an appearance on BBC is just a fad for now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hipster ArtEdit

This started out as a shortm unsourced article, which was turned into a redirect shortly after creation. The target, however, makes no mention of "hipster art" (and neither did the version at the time of the redirecting). No likely target in sight, and the term is too vague and also possibly ambiguous (which meaning of Hipster is involved?). – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not defined or even mentioned at the target article, so this is a completely unhelpful and uninformative redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hipster disambiguation as any of those topics there could be a starting point for hipster art. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

SnarXivEdit

AfD consensus to merge, but no longer mentioned at target. See this diff, where the merged content was removed almost immediately per WP:UNDUE. Note that no one at the AfD actually supported a merge, but not everyone agreed to the subject's worthiness of inclusion. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 08:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Neild's DiseaseEdit

I don't see any evidence that this is a term used for or associated with the target, whether in the article or on internet and Google Scholar searches. I would recommend deletion unless someone can provide a reasonable alternative. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a real term. Although the disease was defined by a Dr. Neild, I can find no evidence that the term "Neild's disease" exists outside of Wikipedia. [6] -- MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a researcher called Neild who coined Neild GH that would go to IgG4, but other news searches point to some girl named Emily Neild, who had Mitochondrial disease [7] . But not mentioned in any detail at the target.AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Weird about the girl, but I think what she had - mitochondrial disease - is something else. Guy H. Neild (cited in journals as Neild GH) was the lead author on the article that first defined the disease; they called it Hyper-IgG4 disease.[8] Sometimes people tend to name a disease after the person who first reported it (Hodgkin's disease, Kaposi's sarcoma), but I can't find anybody but us calling it Neild's disease. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dr. SalvadorEdit

A minor character that isn't mentioned at the target nor at Resident Evil 4. The only mention is at Salvador (name) which should be removed. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Not mentioned at the target or other articles, so this is a worthless redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 United States Border closureEdit

Not a valid search term, because this “2019 border closure” doesn’t exist. Never happened. This was originally a short article which was AfD’ed as “delete”. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 United States Border closure After it was deleted, the original author recreated it as a redirect to National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. (He had suggested that redirect at the AfD, but nobody seconded it). The reason the article was deleted is that there was no such thing. A border closure was something Trump mentioned as a possibility, but he quickly dropped the idea and never took any steps to implement it. This is not even fake news; it’s no news at all. A search for the term finds no sources, only Wikipedia and mirrors. It isn’t even mentioned at our target article. It is a completely invalid redirect. MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also, an unlikely and in fact unused search term. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirects with ()Edit

Leftovers from a bizarre method of renaming articles (e.g. if the intent was the move A -> B, but B was not overwriteable, then the editor would move instead to B () and leave it for somebody with the tools to spot and correct to B). The articles have been at these titles for the duration of minutes to days (the largest time spent was two weeks by the last redirect in the list). There are no incoming links from articles and the redirects have no conceivable use. I haven't tagged any of them with {{rfd1}}. – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all. bd2412 T 02:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all as housekeeping. There is no value in keeping any of these. PC78 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tagged all of these redirects with {{Rfd}} in the off-chance these are used as actual search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious errors IMO. -sche (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them. Uanfala explains the reason for them correctly. It's a method I've seen used by another user and imitated once or so, since we don't have admin rights and asking for a histmerge or overwrite every time can be tedious. I've abandoned this method now, though. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only use would be to give the bots time to fix dbl rd's, and there's been time for that. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search terms. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

May 24Edit

SupercoinEdit

Possible conflict with SuperCoin, a cryptocurrency, and Le Supercoin, a pub in Paris, both of which appear likely to be notable based on a superficial internet search. The best long term solution in my opinion would be to create stubs for any notable alternative targets and turn the current redirect into a dab page. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The nom is absolutely right in everything they say, but in the meantime there is no policy reason to change a redirect that correctly targets the only current notable mention in the encyclopedia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. This can be revisited when the other articles have actually been written. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above until there's other content to retarget to or disambiguate with. PC78 (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Luke (Danish band)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn by nominator.

Memory traceEdit

This phrase isn't mentioned in the target. It's mentioned in several other articles, but I'm not sure that any would be a more suitable target. There is also a Freudian sense of the phrase (more commonly translated as "mnemic trace") that isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia as far as I can see. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak disambiguate or broad concept article. My first thought is to wonder about a dab as several of those articles use the term in ways that are possibly what the searcher is looking for but none define it - Decay theory and Multiple trace theory possibly come the closest, but as they are (by by superficial reading of the articles) competing theories neither would make a better target than the other. However as none of the articles on page could reasonably be called "Memory trace" it may not survive to call it a disambiguation page. There is no entry wikt:memory trace, so a soft redirect (another thought I had) isn't possible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete but certainly not opposed to a disambiguation page or article if someone wants to try it. I don't see this happening like it sometimes does at RfD where we can just put something together right now, and in the meantime, the redirect won't be helpful to readers. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find enough to go on here to draft a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

BodyblockEdit

The current redirect is inherently useless as the target page merely contains a list of other lists. This appears to be a fairly minor Transformers character whose sole mention on Wikipedia is at Transformers: Generations#Scout Class, but the name could reasonably refer to Body Block or various uses of "body block" (at Blocking (American football) or Professional wrestling attacks, for example). PC78 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate this title. bd2412 T 02:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. A draft is provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Earls of GreedEdit

Part of a mass creation of plurals to various peerages. Except that these two aren't peerages but fictional characters, and there aren't more than one of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Marooning (disambiguation)Edit

Delete: Maroon (disambiguation) does not describe other uses of "marooning". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Dr. RivonEdit

A minor character that had a small entry in the target article a couple of years ago but as of today has no mention in any article. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article, so the redirect is of no utility to readers. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Die Abenteuer von Rocky & BullwinkleEdit

Not a German-language film, therefore fails WP:FORRED. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - it was a German-American co-production, so the German-language redirect is somewhat useful. It could be ambiguous with the original television series, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete given the potential ambiguity mentioned by Ivanvector, though it's hard to say as the German Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article for the show. Do we know for sure that it was a German co-production? This isn't stated in the article, but it's an English language film in any case. PC78 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahmad ibn Fadlan (The 13th Warrior)Edit

Ahmad ibn Fadlan was a real person, so this redirect is pointless. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - I'm not sure how useful it is or if anyone's likely to search for this instead of just searching for either the person or the film depending on what they're looking for, but the film is a partial retelling of Ahmad ibn Fadlan's account of the Varangians, and a fictionalized version of the real person is the central character of the film. Not sure, I guess, but probably harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Homosexual lifestyleEdit

Please see the new version of this RfD below. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retarget. Current target of LGBT culture is incorrect, and would be seen as offensive by some. If the culture wars article were much expanded, it might make sense for it to go there, but given the current state of affairs, it seems best to redirect it to Homosexual agenda

Assuming good faith, this may have been added by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term in the culture wars as an expression indicating a belief that homosexuality is chosen, and may be abandoned at will, or through therapy, as proposed by NARTH. It is used primarily by groups on the religious right to attack gay people, as pushing a "homosexual agenda". The current target, LGBT culture, has nothing to do with religious right activism against gay people and homosexuality, and would be considered an offensive connection by some. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Same thing for this redirect, not sure how to merge this in at the top, maybe someone can help?
Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added that at the top for you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies alerting participants to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the best approach (but much more laborious) would be to create an article on the term "Gay lifestyle" that talks about the framing of homosexuality as a lifestyle by LGBT rights opponents. Something that I want to do eventually is make a similar page for gender ideology, which is a snarl word used in Catholic countries to refer not only to gender studies (where it currently redirects) but also to gay people in general. Bẽeiçon (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bẽeiçon:, Could you please elaborate on how you see the proposed Gay lifestyle topic (as you define it) as being different than the existing article Homosexual agenda? Is there anything you envision in the former, that is not already included in the latter (or should be)? I'm worried about a content fork; absent some clear disjunction between the two topics, I think they should be one article. Imho, "Homosexual agenda" is the better title, because it is unambiguously used as a POV or attack expression by anti-gay activists, whereas "Gay lifestyle" has both an attack meaning (probably the primary sense), but also has a benign meaning with no pejorative connotation (there might even be some reappropriation going on there). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"Gay lifestyle" as a compound word has a different meaning than simply the adjective "gay" plus the noun "lifestyle". If English were spaced like German, perhaps this would be the difference between "Gaylifestyle" and "Gay lifestyle". The compound word is definitely pejorative and notable (there are many sources, and you can start with media monitoring organizations like GLAAD, which discuss the problems associated with the "lifestyle" framing), where the latter sense isn't.
While I've definitely seen "gay agenda" be used ironically by gay people themselves, I don't think "gay lifestyle" has any potential for reappropriation. The reason is obvious within the term itself: gay people don't have any one lifestyle, and the lifestyles of gay people only seem monolithic and deterministic to people who see LGBT folk as an outgroup, and only in stereotyped media. Bẽeiçon (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bẽeiçon:, Sorry, I couldn't understand your last comment in the context of this Rfd. It sounds like you are agreeing with me that "Gay lifestyle" means essentially the same as "Homosexual agenda", is that right? I wasn't asking about what "gay lifestyle" means; I have a pretty good handle on that I think (and on the formation of German compound nouns). I was asking, basically, if you see any difference between the meanings of "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual agenda"; i.e., do you think they are synonyms? If so, one should redirect to the other. If not, what difference do you see between them? The reason I ask, is because you said, "the best approach... would be to create an article on the term 'Gay lifestyle'", and I don't understand why you would want to do that, if they mean essentially the same thing. If you believe they are not the same, then how is "Gay lifestyle" so different from "Homosexual agenda" that it deserves its own article? Hope that's clearer. Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bẽeiçon:, actually, hold off a bit; this may be a completely moot point, now, as I screwed up the original statement of this Rfd. Thanks for your comments. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments above this post were based on a misstated version of the Rfd which indicated the wrong redirect target, now fixed (by eπi, as of 00:22, May 12). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
A previous section titled "Fix, or close & relist." RfD introduction fixed by me. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what the problem is, here; and it's my fault. I'm not used to Rfd, and I treated it analogously to Requested move, where you give the source article in the first argument, and the proposed merger target in the second argument. But I realize now that Rfd's arg2 isn't what you're proposing, it's the way it is now that you're complaining about. If that's the case, the two bullets at the top completely misstate the case.

Thryduulf, may I call on your assistance once again, please? What's the best way forward here: close this Rfd as too screwed up to continue and open another one, or just fix the listings at the top and carry on? If we go for "fix it", then the bullet items at the top should say the equivalent of:

With either solution, the notice at WT:LGBT would need adjustment. I apologize for the bother. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WanderingWanda, could you please move the {{Archive top}} to right after the two bullet items at the top, which state the definition of this Rfd? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This Rfd is open; please add your comments below. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
SurveyEdit

Retarget. Current target of LGBT culture is incorrect, and would be seen as offensive by some. If the culture wars article were much expanded, it might make sense for it to go there, but given the current state of affairs, it seems best to redirect it to Homosexual agenda

Assuming good faith, this may have been added by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term in the culture wars as an expression indicating a belief that homosexuality is chosen, and may be abandoned at will, or through therapy, as proposed by NARTH. It is used primarily by groups on the religious right to attack gay people, as pushing a "homosexual agenda". The current target, LGBT culture, has nothing to do with religious right activism against gay people and homosexuality, and would be considered an offensive connection by some. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Homosexual agenda as an interim solution. I agree with Bẽeiçon that an article should be created for this topic. Simply put, the Homosexual agenda article states that it's a term (about the advocacy of LGBT acceptance), and Homosexual lifestyle is a different term (about ways of life supposedly common among LGBT people). Conflating the two terms is inaccurate and confusing. feminist (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Change to keep as Headbomb and BDD make good points. Anyone may still convert this into an article about the term "gay lifestyle" in particular. WanderingWanda mentioned some sources that specifically discuss the term, thus allowing this topic (the term itself) to meet WP:N requirements. feminist (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Culture makes a ton more sense than agenda/advocacy. Plenty of gay people are happy to live without advocating for anything in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Headbomb:, I don't undertand your comment, can you elaborate? Are you familiar with the use of "Homosexual lifestyle" as a homophobic slur by the Christian right? There is no other recent use of the term, other than as parody by gay people satirically alluding to homophobic attacks. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget.
    • GLAAD says that "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual lifestyle" are "Offensive" and "used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals suggesting that their orientation is a choice and therefore can and should be 'cured'". GLAAD also notes that the NYTimes and AP style guides say to avoid the term "gay lifestyle".
    • Doing some searches on Google Books seems to confirm that referring to homosexuality in terms of "lifestyle" is largely the domain of the anti-gay Christian right. I'm getting books with titles like Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, and Called Out: A Former Lesbian's Discovery of Freedom. Although searching for "gay lifestyle" does return a few results that use the term in a positive way: How to Be Happy, Healthy... and Hot: The Ultimate Gay Lifestyle Guide. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, saw that one, too, but you'll have to page a long way through the results before you find others. It seems to be a rare usage, and WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Yep, no argument from me, just trying to be as even-handed as I can be. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
          Yes, absolutely. But since we're on it: you will find usage of the term by the gay community through roughly the 1980s, but not after. This book, written in 2014, is an exception. Delving further, the book was written by a German (Sven Rebel) and translated by one Nicola Heine. Normally, one would expect a book translated from a foreign language into English to be translated by a native speaker; but a simple search shows that she is German as well. Normally, that's a big no-no for translation, precisely for the kind of thing that happened here. Unless you're a native speaker, or at least steeped in the culture and up on the latest trends, you have no business translating into English. And there's no indication that's the case here; so I chalk this book item up to a well-meaning mistranslation. As someone interested in translation and who hangs out on WP:PNT, this sort of thing happens all the time. So, this book is not really an exception, after all; just a mistake, really.
          I can see from the various arguments here, that some aspects of the history of this term are unfamiliar or confusing to some. That deserves clarification. Watch for a forthcoming section about that, hopefully today. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
          @WanderingWanda: See #History of the term. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ”Gay lifestyle” is a non-neutral term for homosexuality, which would be the appropriate redirect target. While it shares certain aspects of its origin in common with “gay agenda”, I don’t think they refer to the same topic.--Trystan (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Another option might be to redirect to Homophobia, perhaps adding a new section there about the terms. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Treating the query literally appeals to me, and probably blunts some of the pejorative usage. "Oh, you want to know about gay people's style of life? Sure, here's the culture..." I've tagged both with {{R from non-neutral name}}. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think you can base a "keep" on a reworded version, as it's not the redirect under discussion here. The term "gay people's style of life" sounds very different to me, than "gay lifestyle". If you wanted to create gay people's style of life and redirect it to LGBT culture I wouldn't oppose it (it wouldn't be that useful, but redirects are cheap) and it wouldn't need to be listed at this discussion, but Gay lifestyle is something completely different, and votes should be based on what is at issue here. Good Rcat, by the way; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have no objection to its being expanded it into an article, but I'm not sure whether that would appear to be a content fork of "Homosexual agenda". One alternative would be to explain the evolution of the term "Homosexual lifestyle", and add that as a new section to the article "Homosexual agenda". The only solution that makes no sense to me, would be to leave it as it is, pointing to LGBT culture. "Homosexual lifestyle" is a pejorative term used by those opposed to LGBT rights; it should not redirect to LGBT culture. For how the term got that way from its humble beginnings as a neutral term used in academia and elsewhere, see #History of the term, below. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Create article "homosexual lifestyle" Mathglot below seems to have done enough research, source identification, and content drafting to establish "homosexual lifestyle" as a Wikipedia article tracing the history of a technical term being used in a particular way. Mathglot - what is your opinion of this? I am not sure the research you have below would merge well into any other article, because it seems so specific to particular terms matched to particular concepts. This information would be WP:UNDUE weight in other Wikipedia articles like LGBT culture and homosexual agenda, which probably should have so much weight tracing the history of political and academic choice of term. Perhaps this content could go to Media portrayal of LGBT people, or maybe some new split from that article. Perhaps if we create no new article the redirect should go to Media portrayal of LGBT people because sources around this term seem to analyze the people using the term rather than the target of the term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Interesting comment, Bluerasberry, with some new approaches. Mulling it over; wonder what others thing about it, as well. I've long thought the entire topic of Evolution of LGBT terminology deserved its own article; maybe this could be part of that. For an analogous treatment in this space, see for example, Transgender terminology (much of which goes back to this edit by User:Anameofmyveryown, who may have some ideas here as well). Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – note to closer: some !votes (one, so far) is in the #Discussion section, below. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I totally disagree with redirecting this to "homosexual agenda". "Agenda" means political activism. The term "lifestyle" is neutral - even if it has been used by some opponents to suggest activism by gays. If I clicked on the link "homosexual lifestyle", looking for information, and found myself at looking at this - "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian religious right (primarily in the United States) as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues." - I would be WP:ASTONISHED. That would not be at all what I was looking for. I agree with the suggestion above that the term "Homosexual lifestyle" deserves its own article - a neutral one - but in the meantime a redirect to "LGBT culture", as it currently is, meets the principle of Least Astonishment. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
DiscussionEdit
History of the termEdit

In reading the survey arguments, I wondered if people are aware of the history of the term homosexual lifestyle, so I thought I'd offer some background about the evolution in meaning over several decades from neutral to pejorative.

The term homosexual lifestyle started out as a neutral term used in dozens or hundreds of books, magazines, and academic publications, and remained that way for two decades after Stonewall. In response to activism in support of gay rights, the Christian right launched counter-campaigns starting in 1992, the first of which was called The Gay Agenda. The latter term soon shifted to become "Homosexual agenda". By 2003, the Supreme Court had used homosexual agenda in a decision, and by 2004, a U.S. Senator rated the "homosexual agenda" as more dangerous to Americans than terrorist activity. Meanwhile, the meaning of the term Homosexual lifestyle was undergoing a semantic shift to a pejorative sense.[n 1] Usage of the term Homosexual lifestyle began to change until it became used mostly as as a derogatory term, or as a dog-whistle term for LGBT anti-discrimination activism, or for the homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory.

Evolution over time
The rough time periods corresponding to usage of Homosexual lifestyle are (dates are approximate):
  • 1960–1980: a neutral term; very little academic usage
  • 1980–1990s: discovery of AIDS; still neutral; lots of academic usage especially in biology, virology, etc.
  • 1992–2000s: transitional period – mixed use
    • academics continue to use Homosexual lifestyle neutrally, but less and less frequently, due to increasing recognition of:
    • the Christian right starts using the terms Gay agenda and Homosexual agenda in a derogatory fashion
    • the term Homosexual lifestyle, previously used only neutrally, undergoes pejoration as Homosexual agenda gains in frequency
  • mid-2000s–present: the meaning of Homosexual lifestyle is mostly pejorative
    • Christian right and allies uses the terms Homosexual agenda and Homosexual lifestyle pejoratively
    • term Homosexual lifestyle no longer used by LGBT individuals; among the public, it takes on aspects of the culture wars and is used by those opposed to LGBT rights; among academics, neutral usage has dwindled but still exists, largely by those whose native language is not English.
Supporting data
The term homosexual lifestyle first appeared in print right around the time of Stonewall and increased in frequency thereafter (see ngrams chart).[n 2] Early usage, from Stonewall (1969), to roughly the appearance of the AIDS crisis (early 1980s) was entirely neutral and non-pejorative.[n 3]
In scientific journals, papers using the term appeared suddenly in the wake of the AIDS crisis, starting around 1981.[n 4] but on rare occasions articles using the term appeared on non HIV-related topics before that.[n 5]
In the last ten years, scholarly articles still use the term homosexual lifestyle. But it's not clear how often. Google Scholar won't show more than 1000 results, but if you pick the last five years, it gives 947 results; however, because of how PageRank works, not all of those actually contain the term in question. (For example, page 94 of results shows no results that contain the term; page 84 has one; page 49 none; page 37 has seven, which all appear to be non-native speakers. Results 1-10 on the first page contain six uses of the term, one is in scare quotes, one is a church organization, and two others appear to be non-native speakers. For the last five years in books, all of the top five are religious sources with negative views, none are academic.
In books, checking 2000-2019, there are 21 book results, all of which contain the term. Of the top ten results most are polemics related to the culture wars. Looking at those top ten, we have:
excerpts from top ten books for "homosexual lifestyle"
  1. 2005 What is involved in the homosexual lifestyle that we are increasingly being asked to accept and see as normal? Here the gay propagandists are walking a very fine line.
  2. 2011: Is the Christian church increasingly accepting the homosexual lifestyle?
  3. 2007: Question of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Would you please do me a favor and "Google" the phrase "homosexual lifestyle". [context:] For those engaged in political debate, my experience is that that particular phrase—it's not exactly at the level of fighting words, but it's a defining term in the political combat of the debate over the rights of gay people in America .
  4. 2007 Increasing the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle would also likely be bad for society.
  5. 2004 Prager considers the stereotypical phenomenon of a 'homosexual lifestyle'. He writes: While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case.
  6. 2003 This major premise may be reconstructed to state: All adults may legally engage in private consensual sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Reference is made to all adults in the above proposition; children are excluded from the...
  7. 2010 Although the underpinnings of conservative fears are founded on bad history, the prediction that more people will adopt a homosexual lifestyle when society accepts this lifestyle, at first glance, appear to be true. Indeed more men and women ..
  8. 2006 When the homosexual lifestyle is examined, that downward movement becomes apparent in several ways. First, the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous to children. It's a fact that homosexuals put our children at greater risk of being sexually ...
  9. 2005 Harmful aspects of the homosexual lifestyle The evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are ...
  10. 2005 She said in the article that I changed, that I left my homosexual lifestyle and went from gay to straight, and I'm married with children now. She didn't question my sincerity or put it into a negative light.
Pages 2 and 3 of results are similar to the above. In this Rfd discussion, we are not looking at notability, rather, we are trying to determine if the existing redirect to LGBT culture is correct. Since the term homosexual lifestyle is now largely pejorative and LGBT culture is neutral, it should not redirect to it. Rather, if kept as a redirect, the term should redirect to an article with a title that also has a pejorative meaning, like Homosexual agenda. If expanded into an article, the term should contain a section which explains how the meaning changed over time from a neutral to a pejorative sense.

References

  1. ^ A semantic shift likely to due to its similarity to Homosexual agenda; but the actual reason for the shift doesn't matter. What matters is that it happened, for whatever reason.
  2. ^ The ngrams chart shows total usage of the term over time, and does not identify whether it is neutral or pejorative use.
  3. ^ Early usage was neutral: Creative Marriage (1976, p. 334): "If a person is committed to an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, then s/he will probably not even consider heterosexual living together or marriage.", or Jet magazine (1979): "James Baldwin, award-winning author, who recently released his 19th published work, Just Above My Head, discussing his homosexual lifestyle." See also All books 1960–1983.
  4. ^ The term appeared suddenly: MMWR (1981): "The occurrence of pneumocystosis in these 5 previously healthy men without a clinically apparent underlying immunodeficiency is unusual, but seems to reflect some association with a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact." , or: Ann Intern Med (1983) "Discussion In this exploratory case-control study, the element of homosexual lifestylemost strongly associated with the occurrence of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia was a history of sexual contact with large numbers of male partners."
  5. ^ Rarely appeared before that E.g.: Qualitative Sociology (1980): "Although the bar's patrons may perceive all homosexuals as equally deserving of violent treatment, victims of such abuse are more apt to be people with a particular kind of homosexual lifestyle."

Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

...if kept as a redirect, the term should redirect to an article with a title that also has a pejorative meaning... WP:RNEUTRAL is clear that we can and often should redirect from non-neutral titles to neutral ones. The goal is to help readers get where they want to go, not to punish them for using the wrong language. The meaning of homosexual lifestyle in the above excerpts is much closer to "what gay people do in their personal lives" than to "the political agendas of gay people". If someone reading one of the above books wanted to learn more about the "homosexual lifestyle" (possibly deliberately seeking out a more neutral source), I don't see how the homosexual agenda article in any way meets that information need.--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Trystan, thanks; yes, that's a good point. But one has to consider what has happened with the title of Homosexual agenda as well: either it's inappropriate under its current name (for the same reason you cited) and should rather be a redirect to, perhaps, Homophobic conspiracy theories#Homosexual agenda (which isn't a bad idea at first blush, but a separate issue for a RM perhaps), or else it's at the proper title even though pejorative per WP:POVNAME. If the latter is the case, then there seems to be an inconsistency, or lack of balance, in keeping a pejorative article name supporting a POV view, while redirecting a POV title to a neutral article title. I'm not sure I can cite what policy would refute this, but there's a kind of POVvy unfairness there that bothers me. Put another way, if I were a homophobic activist editor, this is exactly the state of affairs I would want to see with these two article titles. Perhaps the solution is to move Homosexual agenda, I'm not sure. Do you see my point? I think you're probably more familiar with redirect and POV titles than I am; maybe you can suggest something? Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The general rule is that non-neutral titles should redirect to neutral ones, to get users where they want to go regardless of the language they used. It is quite rare for a non-neutral term to get an article about the term itself. But since there is an article about the term Homosexual agenda, I don't see how it could be moved. Similarly, if someone does go ahead and write an article on homosexual lifestyle as a term, that is where it would have to go. In general, I'm not in favour of such articles, given their risk for becoming POV forks and the barrier they create from connecting users with the substantive, neutral article that best matches their query. (For example, I would support merging Homosexual agenda into LGBT rights in the United States or a similar article.)--Trystan (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is still ongoing and it hasn't been a week since the RfD was "restarted".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per BDD (and, after reading through the dense history of the term helpfully provided by Mathglot, per Trystan). If there are other pages with potential issues, please nominate them for discussion in the appropriate place(s), but based on the discussion here I agree that both terms currently point to the correct target - LGBT culture. Would it make sense and/or be at all helpful to include a {{redirect}} hatnote there with these terms as well? Another potential option would be to create a disambiguation page pointing to both places, but that could get slippery very quickly. - PaulT+/C 16:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Having said that, an article at homosexual lifestyle (with a redirect there from gay lifestyle) based on the above history would be preferable to a disambiguation page. This has the added benefit of removing any (potential) need for a {{redirect}} hatnote at LGBT culture to a non-neutral term and the necessary hatnote could point to the newly created article instead. - PaulT+/C 14:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between the "keep/weak keep" and the "create an article" comments, I was half-tempted to close this to "no consensus", but relisting this hopefully could clarify that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad He's GoneEdit

No clear connection between redirect title and target article. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Best source I can find is this forum chat from a few hours ago. New song maybe? PC78 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - As pointed out above, it is a song. The lead single from Tove Lo's upcoming album Sunshine Kitty, to be released in less than 15 days.—NØ 13:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • For something that's apparently due to be released soon, there seems to be surprisingly little information online for both the album and single. Am I missing something? PC78 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, MaranoFan, but per WP:V, redirects require reliable sourcing at the target and there is nothing currently to substantiate this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: A very reliable insider who has revealed the name of several songs before release (examples include If I Can't Have You (Shawn Mendes song) and Me!) has reaffirmed the song name and release date. [9]NØ 10:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Sunshine Kitty. I still don't see anything besides forum chatter, so while this may turn out to be legit I don't see any basis for having these redirects until there is at least some published and reliable information. PC78 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Gull Island (Niagara River)Edit

This redirect should be deleted, so a redlink is rendered, where it is used. As with Gull Island (Lake Kagawong) the topic could potentially be a standalone article, so policy says it should remain a redlink. Plus the redirect target has nothing meaningful to say about the island, other than it exists. Once deleted its entry in the Gull Island disambiguation page should updated. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 
Smell it.
  • Just to add to the confusion, there's yet another "gull island" where I live. I'm not sure it's super notable unto itself, although in summer lots of tourist boats go by it (you can't land ithout permission) and there is a live webcam of the various seabirds there in season [10]. I suppose it would be Gull Island (Kachemak Bay) if there was an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an island back home where all the seagulls would congregate in the spring to nest, but we called it Shitface Island. I don't know what its actual name was or even if it had one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, without prejudice against conversion into an article in the future. Redirects are not difficult or impossible to edit, so we do not actually have a rule that a redlink is preferred over a redirect to a related topic in the interim. Unlike the Lake Kagawong namesake below, however, it's a lot less difficult for me to believe (given its location literally just above the lip of the Horseshoe Falls) that a genuinely substantive and reliably sourceable article about this island might be possible. So, if you can find the necessary sources to make an article about it sustainable and keepable, then go to town and make it happen — but deleting the existing redirect first is not a prerequisite that has to be met, when you can easily just convert the redirect into a real article at any time. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Gull Island (Lake Kagawong)Edit

Gull Island (Lake Kagawong) is a topic that could, potentially, be a stand alone article . (2) Lake Kagawong currently says nothing meaningful about the island. So the redirect should be deleted, leaving a redlink. Once deleted its entry in the Gull Island disambiguation page should updated. Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects are not impossible to edit, so leaving a redlink is not preferred over redirecting the title to a relevant related topic. Gull Island is also a very small islet, so small that it still isn't really visible at even the highest level of zoom that Google Maps offers over Lake Kagawong, so the likelihood of there actually being any substantive sources about it to support a standalone article is pretty close to nonexistent. We do not need, or want, an article about every small lake island on earth just to state that it exists, the end — we only need a standalone article about an island if we can actually write and support some genuine substance about it, and I find it highly doubtful that this island would have either the sourceability or the depth of meaningful stuff to say about it. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Artemis LeeEdit

There are apparently characters called Artemis and Demarquette, and they are briefly mentioned in the target article, but I don't think these names are correct. Are these even real? They get very few google hits for characters on such a long-running and popular show. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This sounds like a great question to ask on the article's talk page. It is not, however, an appropriate use for WP:RFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @WhatamIdoing: "Redirects for discussion" is precisely the appropriate venue to discuss redirects. Talk:Nick Fallon hasn't been used in over a decade (and nothing has ever been answered there), you wouldn't get an answer there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Xezbeth wrote, "they are briefly mentioned in the target article, but I don't think these names are correct. Are these even real?". That sounds like a question of WP:V to me. This isn't just "Should we have these redirects?" The question here sounds to me like "Does the long, unsourced paragraph about these two characters comply with our standards for verifiability?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @WhatamIdoing: The names "Artemis and "Demarquette" are mentioned in the target, but not with the last names of Lee and/or Arvin. It's a matter of whether or not (some of) these redirects are correct, which is definitely a question for RfD to resolve. If you think there is a WP:V issue with the underlying content, you are welcome to work to resolve that, but that is separate from the issue at hand here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per [11], They are twins and the sons of some very wealthy people. They were placed into the care of Cassandra Arvin, but when he was arrested, they were sent to live with Nick Fallon until a man that worked for their parents brought them home. From that bit of information, they don't sound like they are legally Cassandra's sons, so they wouldn't have her last name. Either way, Xezbeth's point that they get very few google hits for characters on such a long-running and popular show is a good argument for deletion for being too minor of characters, especially to be searched in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Per [12] these two characters don't have last names. However, it is reasonable to assume that the woman who was pretending that they were her children would have presented them as having her own last name.
      Redirects don't exist to make sure that things are "correct". They exist to get people to the page that explains whether it's correct. We use "wrong" names as redirects for all sorts of people (including BLPs), places, and things. Doing that is actually in WP:R#KEEP #2 as a reason to keep a redirect: "redirecting a misnomer to a correct term". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

MGTOW (disambiguation)Edit

Redirects to "MGTOW", which is not a disambiguation page anymore. No pages link to this redirect. MrClog (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hanging treeEdit

Retarget to List of hanging trees. Please see Talk:List of hanging trees#Requested move 16 May 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and the linked RM discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Warp drive (disambiguation)Edit

The page "Warp drive" does not have a disambiguation, therefore this redirect is entirely unnecessary and should be deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Warp Drive Inc is required to be notable in order to have an article: if you don't think it is then you should take Warp Drive Inc to AfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

SpacewarpEdit

Unclear if this refers to the fictional warp drive, the real theory of space warping drives or the video game. Should be deleted for being overly vague and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Things That MatterEdit

Talk:Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics#Requested move 13 May 2019 yielded consensus not to move but no consensus on the target of the redirect, this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral on the issue. SITH (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as is - as I said in the RM, I think "Things That Matter" refers primarily to the book, for which that is the actual title, if you disregard the subtitle. The album is always titled The Things That Matter, which means per WP:SMALLDETAILS it is right to have it at a different location. A hatnote between the two concepts can take readers between them easily.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Amakuru. The present target is the clear primary topic for "Things That Matter". There is both a book and an album called "The Things That Matter", but we only have an article about the latter. Even if the book gets an article hatnotes will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Top kekEdit

Top kek is an obscure cake brand sometimes credited as being the etymology for kek as a meme word. The target has kek as an entry, but it doesn't mention top kek, so that's confusing. -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task forceEdit

Deletion house keeping The redirect from "Wikipedia" name space to "Wikipedia talk" name space has been in place since November 2014‎. This project never went live (never advertised) as there was not consensus in favour of creating. If the link is deleted then the target talk page should also be deleted PBS (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep without prejudice. You're doing things the wrong way around - if you think the target page should be deleted you should nominate it at MfD. If consensus there is to delete it the redirect can be speedily deleted under criterion G8, but while it exists then the current redirect is appropriate unless and until a task force begins work at which point it can simply be overwritten. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    I am not doing it "the wrong way around". This is a redirect across name spaces WP:CSD#R2, once it has been deleted then the WP:CSD#C8 applies (talk pages with no corresponding subject page). -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    BTW what does "Keep without prejudice" mean? Does "Keep" mean keep with prejudice? -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    As Sideways713 notes, R2 only applies to redirects in the main namespace which this isn't. G8 explicitly excludes pages useful to Wikipedia, which a proposed task force might be and so its deletion would need to be discussed at MfD anyway. "Keep" on its own might imply that we have found value in keeping this redirect around, which might be taken into account in the MfD discussion, "without prejudice" basically means we're just deferring to the MfD and this discussion is not a reason that should be used to determine the value of the target page. If you think a redirect and its target should both be deleted you should always nominate the target page first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per Thryduulf. Like Thryduulf said, if you want this and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force deleted, you should go about it the other way and nominate the target at MfD; if that discussion closes as "delete", the redirect will also go as a G8. R2 doesn't apply here since this is not a mainspace redirect. Sideways713 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Close and relist these pages at WP:MfD per others. I see where you're coming from but this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum. PC78 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Dolores ShairpEdit

No mention of this character on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article, so worthless as a redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Byakuya MatōEdit

Minor character that isn't mentioned in any article including the target, except for being listed at Byakuya which I've already removed. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article, so worthless as a redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Bulma’s MotherEdit

No coverage of this character, outside of a couple of brief mentions in other articles that don't justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep the second and third ones listed, but retarget to Bulma, since this character is not mentioned at the current target article. Delete Bulma’s Mother; surely we don't need two separate redirects, one for the name with a regular apostrophe, one for the name with a curly apostrophe! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album)Edit

Insufficient content within target article to warrant a redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep typically information about albums was removed from artist's pages because it cluttered up the page. In this case the album article was deleted. The album charted. It is a very plausible search term. As the track listing is verifiable and is relevant to the main topic, frankly the track info should be added to the Take 6 article, or the article should be recreated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)Edit

This person does not appear in the target list because he "only" lived to 112. He had a mini-bio there, which I deleted, because Francis had no particular notability besides his being briefly recognized as the world's second oldest man alive in 2008. — JFG talk 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Quite often these very old people are also mentioned in other articles that the redirects can be retargetted to, but I can't find that this George Francis is (although being quite a common name means there may be something I've missed somewhere). Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC) updated Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a redirect to no where as he is too young to be on the articles list and he was unnotable to begin with, so it is not needed any longer. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep and Restore Minibio There was an AfD back in 2007 (seen here) that was closed as merge and redirect. As such, I think discussion on whether the minibio is retained or deleted is needed before we proceed with deleting the redirect. schetm (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. If this guy wasn't notable in 2007, at the height of GRG mania, there's no way he will be now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per schetm. The removed bio was properly sourced and goes against existing consensus as noted in the AfD from 2007. This is not the proper venue for that discussion. - PaulT+/C 05:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - I've restored the deleted minibio per community derived consensus from the AfD. As such, as of this writing, the nom's rationale is no longer valid. schetm (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is... literally true, yes. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The consensus from 12 years ago no longer applies, the wider Wiki community has moved on from the days of endless longevity fanfluff. A considerable number of individual's articles have been deleted and not all have been redirected/merged. Many minibios have also been removed as no longer being justified. This is one of the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and keep restored minibio - the guy fairly clearly meets WP:GNG, as he is the subject of multiple independent in-depth articles in reliable sources. I don't think he should have a full article, that's overkill, but he definitely has a place as a mention in the other article, and this redirect provides the link thereto. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the information at the target has been restored. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical AreaEdit

Incorrect and not discussed at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. - PaulT+/C 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23Edit

Bumper (Transformers)Edit

The various Transformers articles are an impenetrable maze of nonsense, so I could be mistaken, but I think there's no coverage of this character. It gets a few brief mentions but there's nothing to point this redirect to. Xezbeth (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Urdu languagesEdit

No such thing as "Urdu languages". The redirect was created by a user as part of a series of edits (of a CIR type) to the category structure, where it was clear they took that to be a synonym for Hindi languages (the reasoning probably coming from the fact that Hindi and Urdu are in a way the same language). A bit more plausibly, the phrase can be took to refer to the varieties described at Urdu#Dialects, but these aren't languages and I don't think anyone would dream of calling them such. Overall, this is a redirect from a non-existent term that could be mistaken, with equal implausibility, for either of two things. WP:XY. – Uanfala (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Quite aside from any technicalities about the nature of Urdu, the redirect is worthless, because there is already a redirect from Urdu language to Urdu. Having typed in "Urdu language" and gotten a live link, why would anyone go on to add an "s"? Particularly since both redirects go to the same place? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

CLOSE TO THE SUNEdit

Delete per WP:RCAPS; renominating after this page was retargeted as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Close to the Sun. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment It looks like Close to the Sun (video game) is often shown in marketing materials with the all caps name. In fact, that article originally started at the caps title and is why the page with caps exists. I don't know if this is enough to keep the redirect or not (and why this is not a !vote), but it is important context. - PaulT+/C 20:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Miss UniversoEdit

Unnecessary per WP:RFOREIGN, suggesting deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Targeting the Main PageEdit

Delete: These are completely unnecessary unlikely typos/punctuations, plus a cross-namespace redirect, and are particulary undesireable because they generate WP:SURPRISE when the Main Page is reached and the "Redirected from" that normally appears at the top is surpressed (which also makes it impossible to reach these pages via normal navigation, as is needed for maintenance/etc.). Note: two of the pages were protected, so I have requested an admin add the RfD notice to them.UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment whether they are useful typos or not, nobody is going to be surprised to end up at the main page (or in many, possibly most, cases even be aware they made a typo). WP:SURPRISE applies only when someone ends up at a target different to the page they were looking for, but in this case it's very clear that the main page is what they are looking for and that is where they arrive. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep MAIN PAGE! per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#MAIN PAGE! - this is harmless and unambiguous. No opinion on the rest yet. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Keep all the other mainspace pages per Iridescent below. Still thinking about the Portal one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Weak delete Portal:Mainspace. I'm not concerned about the cross-namespace nature of this as Portal → Main redirects are not inherently problematic and the Main Page is a portal. It's a recent creation which means we have almost no typical page view data to guide us: almost every redirect gets a buzz of hits in the first few days (I've always assumed that's from new page patrollers) and every redirect gets lots of hits while listed at RfD, on this case that amounts to only about 2 weeks of useable data which isn't really meaningful in almost all cases (2-3 months is the ideal minimum). With all those caveats though this hasn't gained immediate use - it would be a clear keep (at least in the short term) but even with the current scrutiny of the portal namespace it hasn't shone. While the Main Page is a portal of content from the main namespace (not exclusively, eg. featured pictures), the "mainspace" name is jargon making it only useful for those with at least some experience of behind the scenes editing, and it's not clear to me that everyone of them would expect to be taken to the main page when searching on this title (if they thought to do so) or following a link to it - Portal:Main page (which redirects to the Main Page) is much more intuitive. All this leaves me at "it's nearly but not completely harmless, and while it's not useless it's not very useful either" so on balance it's a very weak negative. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all. MAIN PAGE! has already been discussed; the others are all eminently plausible candidates for accidental linking, and none of them have any potential to cause confusion or disrupt search results. If you genuinely feel surprised that Main Page. takes you to Main Page, the problem is with you not with us. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The surprise it not that you got there, it is how you got there, since the explanation is missing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • With the exception of the Portal: redirect (which would probably benefit from being discussed separately) very nearly everybody using these is going to doing so after having made typo. They wont care how or why they got from MAin page to Main Page - many of them wont even realise they typoed so wont be surprised at anything. The only people who care about how they got to a particular page are either (a) also surprised at the target, or (b) experienced users who are familiar with redirects and will be curious but not surprised. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep "MAin Page" and "Main PAge" as reasonably-likely typos. Weak keep on "Main Pag". Delete the rest as implausible. We shouldn't be trying to build a directory of redirects from every conceivable typo. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep All except for Delete Portal:Mainspace as Portal:Mainspace is a cross namespace redirect Abote2 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep MAin Page and Main PAge as reasonable typos. Delete all others. Now that this is mentioned, I'm also going to say delete to the other Main Page redirects I've made, being Portal:Article Space and Portal:Articles. Especially Portal:Articles, which could also redirect to numerous other things, such as Portal:Journalism. Also, as a note, I was invited here by Thryduulf. I'm unsure if this could be considered canvassing or not, but I doubt it. InvalidOS (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @InvalidOS: will you please CSD G7 the cross-namespace redirects you created and that you now feel should be deleted, to save us having to discuss them? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) To clarify, I invited you as the creator of one of the redirects - all the other creators and significant contributors have not edited in years (in one case since 2004). Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RoumanieEdit

Delete per WP:FORRED: no particular connection between French (and the other languages that use this) and Romania. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Romania is a member of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I started this redirect because French had been a major foreign language in Romania... https://mpnewyork.mae.ro/en/node/1180 WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Although we wouldn't generally keep redirects from foreign languages, I think this redirect has value because of the country's identification as Francophone. Particularly since we have so many other links to slightly similar names such as Ruman, Romany, Roman, etc., which could be confusing to someone who is trying to find the country Rumania. BTW we have a redirect from Roumania already; no reason not to keep Roumanie. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Princess SilverEdit

While "Silver princess" appears to be the common name of this plant, "Princess silver" is not, and further appears to be the name of a Chinese TV show. I would recommend deletion, unless a stub can be created for the TV show or another subject of the same name. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretender JrEdit

I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to, but it's not mentioned in any Wikipedia article. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Badnam SongEdit

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 16#Badnam Song came to a conclusion "List at RFD", albeit with IMO a close margin. I have no opinion myself on whether this redirect should stay or go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, at first glance it looks like somebody's name. It is not remotely useful as a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a perfectly plausible search term that is not ambiguous with anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Badnam (song) was created by accident at this title, and moved to the correct title 17 minutes later, leaving behind this worthless redirect. It's worthless because all the search engines (including our own), already handle this correctly and automatically. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the one who moved the page from Badnam Song to Badnam (song). Meatsgains(talk) 01:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Radio ShanghaiEdit

Not mentioned in target, an internet search would suggest that other stations use this name too signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at that website makes me think that a redirect to Shanghai Media Group would be more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Rosguill, what are you asking for? "Please delete this"? "Please let me turn this into a WP:DAB page"? "Please edit the target article"? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
As of when I wrote that, I was open to either deletion or disambiguation, and ultimately felt like I lack the domain knowledge to know which is appropriate without a discussion. Based on the prompt from WQL above, I'm now thinking redirect may be more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Giant chickenEdit

Too vague. There are other giant chickens in fiction and I would have expected a redirect to Jersey Giant instead. I don't think a dab page is justified however. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Family Guy character redirectsEdit

Minor characters that are not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. Rufus Griffin is mentioned at Family Guy Video Game! and Jabba the Griffin is mentioned at Princess Leia's bikini but neither justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Coco the dogEdit

It has a single mention at the target article, but there is at least one other fictional dog mentioned in Wikipedia with this name (Bad Education (TV series)) and at least one real dog with this name (Willem van Genk). None of them are notable enough to be listed on Coco, so this redirect should be deleted. Xezbeth (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Note There is also a dog that is featured prominently in the film Coco (2017 film) (i.e. "the dog from Coco"). Coco is the name of the main character in the film. His dog's name is Dante and presumably could be referred to as "Coco's dog". - PaulT+/C 21:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:EngrishEdit

Delete. Offensive, non-intuitive, and unused. I'd argue that WP:RNEUTRAL doesn't apply because it's a template; we made up the name. Julia 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This redirect was created as a result of this discussion in 2012. Perhaps it makes sense to invite those editors to participate here? - PaulT+/C 20:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Palestinian terrrorismEdit

Delete. Implausible typo and unused, but created in 2005. Also Palestinian terrorism already exists. Julia 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22Edit

Rita EllisEdit

Deletion as I created an article for Rita Ellis the politican. I will set up a disambiguation page if requested. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Depending of course on how notable her murder is considered these days, I think it's better to move this redirect to Rita Ellis (murder victim). The politician article could then be moved into its place, and a disambiguation page created pointing to both the politician and the article on the murder. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but add a hatnote to the politician at the target. The murder victim is the clear primary topic, filling 14 of the first 20 results in my search for "Rita Ellis" -wikipedia, the politician does not appear in the first 30 results (the other results principally being obituaries for non-notable people). Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, with hatnote at target per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I added a hatnote to Rita Ellis murder and will add hatnote to Rita Ellis (politician). Thank you for guidance. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 12:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASNEdit

Unlikely search term, anyone using this search term by definition knows the actual name of the subject. The redirect has no usage since its creation, I would recommend deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As creator, no objection. Don't exactly remember why I created it. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Recently-created and not useful. There was one page that was using the term in a reference that has since been updated to remove the initials and now has no inbound links. - PaulT+/C 15:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico HighwaysEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural close, no longer redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Paleyagar of Gummanayakana PalyaEdit

Target is a disambiguation page, and "Paleyagar of Gummanayakana Palya" is not mentioned there (nor is any substring thereof). It's possible there's a valid redirect target, but being unfamiliar with the subject I don't know what it would be, so I would recommend deletion unless someone can find a compelling target. signed, Rosguill talk 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DABABBREVIATIONSEdit

Never been used and an unhelpful shortcut. Both are not even mentioned at the current target. At the very least the plural form is not needed. –MJLTalk 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Funk Da WorldEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Star dodecagonEdit

Not mentioned in target, and an internet search would suggest that these are not quite the same thing. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep They're the same thing. See Regular_polygon#Regular_star_polygons--they're both names for shapes with Shlaefli symbol {12/5}. Oeoi (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I admit I don't know what "degenerate" means in this context, but that section suggests a difference between a degenerate star dodecagon and a non-degenerate dodecagram (also a star). I assume I'm missing something... --BDD (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Eonsan-dong serial killerEdit

No mention of this at the target; a quick google search returns nothing; suggest deleting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of combining these two as I don't think there's any point in discussing them separately. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, I thought about trying to do that, but I didn't want to break something. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I believe these are a reference to a named character, the show's antagonist Oh Yeong-cheol, but they don't look remotely useful to me. I'm guessing Eomsan-dong is a fictional location (at least, it's not listed at List of districts of Seoul and I can't find anything online) so you would have to be extremely familiar with the show already just to understand the reference. Even then, I don't think that the show's characters are of any particular significance. PC78 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Intergenerational transmissionEdit

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. It's also not mentioned at First language, where this page previously redirected. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I created the redirect to First language because I noticed the term was used (and red-linked) in articles about language acquisition. For example, in the article Canadian Gaelic: "The sudden stop of Gaelic intergenerational transmission, caused by shame and prejudice, was the immediate cause of the drastic decline in Gaelic fluency in the 20th century." See the article's "What links here", where four of the articles refer to first language transmission. Perhaps a better redirect would be Language acquisition. Goustien (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the term is broader than just language or violence/child abuse - it is about learned behavior in general. Neither target is really a good one for this term though. It needs its own article (unless there is a similar one out there that I'm not aware of). See this entry at encyclopedia.com or this search. - PaulT+/C 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to retarget it to Socialization, the article covering the broadest common denominator. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Glock 7Edit

Not explained or mentioned at the target article. The "Glock 7" is also not discussed in the Die Hard 2 article, which covers the only work this fictional firearm appears in. Without a good target, this should just be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Note I've added GLOCK 7 to this discussion as whatever happens they should not point to different targets. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment These redirects have had many different targets over the time they've been around, as discussion about the fictional weapon has come and gone from various places, there has also been an article on at least two occasions [14][15] (most comprehensive deleted revision). I've not been able to find anywhere that currently mentions the weapon, but search engine results are not very helpful here as most are instances of Timo Glock finishing in 7th place. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

May 21Edit

List of Oldest Breweries of CanadaEdit

Some of the provinces have dates for some of the breweries, but it's not chiefly organized by date. A reader may get a general sense of some breweries that are older than most, but overall, this is misleading. BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - if a reader is looking for the oldest breweries in Canada, this is where they will find that information. The current list setup is not ideal for this, but it gets the job done. Stats suggest 121 readers have looked for that information this month alone, so it's clearly useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list is not sorted or has an option to be sorted by oldest breweries. In addition, there is also the issue/possibility that the "oldest breweries" that a reader is attempting to find is not at the target article. Best to just have the reader search the article title (rather than this redirect) so they have the expectation that they will find a list of breweries, but not necessarily the "oldest" ones. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The original subject of the article was the "oldest breweries". It was subsequently moved ({{r from page move}} needs to be added) to the more general page name and then the scope expanded. The list should be turned into a sortable table (something simple like Name/Location/Date<if present>/Reference or other) so it would be easier to find the oldest ones (and to encourage editors to add the missing information), but the information is still present in the article and therefore the redirect should be kept. - PaulT+/C 21:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • ...The target article currently does not contain a sortable table, and yes, this resurrect is an {{R from move}}, but that doesn't by default make the redirect helpful. In the target article's current state, readers searching for some concept of "oldest" that the current target just does not have at the present time. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      Well, now it does. I significantly trimmed the article so that it only has breweries older than 1950 and/or any brewery that has its own article. The entries are currently in two separate tables, but can easily be combined once additional dates and references are added. - PaulT+/C 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Liu Li Mei Ren ShaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedural closure. Its now been restored as an article. (non-admin closure).

Variable-buoyancy propulsionEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Ridley scottEdit

Unnecessary redirect - there could be one like this for every article with a "given-name plus surname" title, but we don't. PamD 17:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete recently created (April 2019) lower-case / sentence case. Not necessary. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, a harmless capitalization error. Category:Redirects from other capitalisations has over 405,000 redirects so they are clearly commonplace. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix and WP:CHEAP, there are countless similar examples that would fall under exactly the same merits anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix and WP:CHEAP. Someone found this one worth creating, so WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 applies too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf and the 570 users in the past 30 days who have found this useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Bekasi (city)Edit

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

Sleeping Buffalo Hot SpringsEdit

Not mentioned in target article, not a useful redirect. PamD 17:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

FreaksEdit

The discussion at Talk:Freaks (1932 film)#Requested move 12 May 2019 was closed with clear consensus that the 1932 film isn't the primary topic but no clear consensus if Freak is. Possible options are:

Please indicate you're options by putting A, B, C or D per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#The utility and accuracy of ranked surveys or even list you're preferred outcomes in order such as "B, A, D, C". @Randy Kryn, Netoholic, In ictu oculi, Paintspot, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and BD2412: who participated in the RM. Note that I changed the redirect to Freak (disambiguation) pending the outcome of the discussion since its clear at least that the 1932 film isn't primary but there are still 21 mainspace links that need fixing (I fixed the others) if anyone knows what the target is for them that would be appreciated.

  • A, B, C, D per my points made in the options and at the RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • D. "Freaks" is primarily the plural of "Freak", with things called "Freaks" generally intending to invoke "Freak". I don't see the need for a separate disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • B, A, ... ... ... .... D, C." I agree, I don't think it's the best idea to redirect the plural to Freak. Incoming links show that "Freak" isn't what most people look for when they type or link "Freaks". They typically refer to one of the things on the dab page. When in doubt of primary topic, it's best to disambiguate. Also, the dab pages probably shouldn't be separated, but that's less of an issue - I really don't think "Freaks" should redirect to the person. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • B or D (not A or C). Whatever the ultimate target for Freaks (Freak or Freak (disambiguation); I don't see a huge difference either way, but with a slight preference for disambiguation per Paintspot), there should not be a separate DAB page for "Freaks" and Freaks (disambiguation) should redirect to the combined DAB page at Freak (disambiguation). - PaulT+/C 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Gullwing Truck CompanyEdit

Not mentioned at the target, which is a disambiguation page. Possibly a case of WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Cases like this should be grounds for speedy deletion. bd2412 T 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The dab briefly listed the company but I removed it because the company is not mentioned in skateboard truck. Thre are mentions in Geoff Rowley but I don't think they justify a redirect to there. Certes (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not mentioned in skateboard trucks, none of the founders have their own pages. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Pi-shuangEdit

The template on the redirect claims that this is a redirect from the Chinese language word for the target; it's not clear to me that this is accurate, as the Chinese Wikipedia article does not appear to use this phrase (in pinyin or otherwise). Even if it is an accurate translation, I'm not sure why we would redirect from a Chinese title for this per WP:RFOREIGN signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tangenziale KennedyEdit

Not mentioned in the article, I couldn't find any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target online. Delete, unless someone can find evidence that this is a name that is used. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not home and I can't find proper proof. The name is locally used (I'm from Bologna) and a simple Google search returns some examples of informal usage, for instance [16]. --Fabio Bettani (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Go on home British soldiersEdit

Not mentioned in target article. Song gets a mention in List of Irish ballads, The Troubles in popular culture and Irish rebel song (first 2 being red links with different punct/caps). Best left as red links till someone writes the article or a section on it. PamD 17:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The real reason it should be returned to a red link is that it's a song written by Tommy Skelly, whoever that is, and Wolfe Tones' recording is only the most popular. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect both to Irish rebel song Also okay with deletion in case someone wants to create it. But it is not mentioned at Wolfe Tones at all. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Udit RajEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:XCEdit

WP:XC redirecting to Christianity Coordinators is not the obvious destination as indicated by the hat note concerning extended confirmed users. I suggest either retargeting it to the more important destination or deleting it. Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep this redirect has existed as a shortcut to the current target for 11 years, and we should always be very cautious about retargetting long-standing shortcuts because doing so runs the risk of breaking the context of discussions past, present and future (as people familiar with where a shortcut goes will rarely check each time they use it). That said this does not seem to be used outside of lists of shortcuts, but it does get a consistent level of use. The hatnote does not imply that the current target is not the obvious destination, simply that it is not the only plausible destination (compare WP:V) and ambiguity of shortcut redirects is very common and not at all problematic. We cannot know how many people are using this to reach the current target and how many are looking for the access level, but page view statistics for the period from 1 July 2015 (the earliest available) to January 2019 do not show any significant change in frequency of use (other than a single exceptional day in January 2016) at any point. I haven't found exactly when the extended confirmed access level first became available, but the RFC about the protection level initiated in July 2016 described it as "new", so July 2015 is likely to be significantly before it. The consistent level of use and the lack of any obvious peaks corresponding to significant community interest in the protection level (e.g. the July-August 2016 RfC) suggest that the current target remains the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Technical Guruji (YouTube channel)Edit

  • Delete: Unnecessary and Useless redirect. Gaurav Chaudhary is real name of Technical Guruji, Technical Guruji article is creation protected. "Technical Guruji" will be very useful instead of "Technical Guruji (YouTube channel)". CptViraj (Talk) 09:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect leads to information about the Technical Guruji YouTube channel. I would support the creation of a redirect from Technical Guruji to the same target for the same reasons (such a redirect can be protected if needed). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a standard {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Technical Guruji should be created as redirect and its protection lifted (it appears to be a remnant of an earlier time when it was a repeatedly recreated article). As long as the target article continues to exist: its last AfD resulted in "no consensus", so it's conceivable this could change. – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've asked Anachronist if protection can be lifted from Technical Guruji to allow for the creation of a redirect. Neutral on this nomination, the parenthetical qualifier seems a bit redundant but there's nothing wrong with it per se. PC78 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • "Technical Guruji" seems to be both the name/pseudonym of a person and the name of the YouTube channel they run. If someone is looking for information specifically about the channel rather than the person then this is a logical search term. We don't currently have separate articles, but that may change in future so retaining the presently unnecessary disambiguation allows for links/bookmarks etc to continue working after a split. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon 0209Edit

Unlikely to be searched and used B dash (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is ambiguous between the 9th typhoon of 2002, the 2nd typhoon of 2009, and any typhoons that did something notable on 2 September or 9 February. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete per above. Not mentioned at the target or at Typhoon Fengshen (2002) (as such), though it's listed as "Typhoon 200209" at this website, so perhaps Typhoon 200209 would be valid? PC78 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20Edit

Super Mario Bros. 5Edit

This doesn't appear to actually be an alternative name for the target, and from looking at Super Mario there doesn't appear to be an obvious way to count series entries that would make Yoshi's Island the 5th one. I would recommend deletion, or possibly redirecting to either Super Mario, Super Mario Bros. or the 5th entry in the series (which would appear to be either Super Mario Land or Super Mario World). signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, well said, this is a more detailed version of what I was trying to get at - not only is there no Super Mario 5, but no game was ever even unofficially called this because there have always been disputes in the video game world as to whether or not Yoshi's Island constituted an entry in the Super Mario series. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shiho FujiiEdit

WP:BLP redirects to company's article Brayan Jaimes (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. She may or may not be notable, but there is enough in the last version before the redirect for a discussion to be worthwhile. RfD should not be an AfD by the back door (not that this was being attempted intentionally in this case, the RfD nomination was in good faith). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Not an independent notable composer, fails WP:GNG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's an argument for deleting/not having an article about her, it is irrelevant to the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nepalese EducationEdit

Delete Cross-namespace redirect that generates WP:SURPRISE when the reader wind up in the categoryspace rather than the portalspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Little used and serves no obvious purpose. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

John BluEdit

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

CepalEdit

No mention in article Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Brexit car crashEdit

Not mentioned in the target, unlikely to be used B dash (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. A car crash is an analogy for Brexit and a frequently used description of the government's handling of the negotiations (at least among those who favour remaining in the EU). I don't know that makes it a good redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete If it is not mentioned in the target, the redirect's existence is original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think "original research" is an accurate description of this redirect at all. As I noted above the analogy between car crashes and Brexit is commonly made [17][18][19][20][21] and plenty more. It isn't currently mentioned at the target, or anywhere else I can find, but that doesn't make it original research. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman (version 2)Edit

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

Sonic ShitEdit

No reference to the song at all in the article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose as creator. The song is from his EP Nasarati, which is referenced in the article. There. You just proved yourself wrong.ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 23:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The term "Sonic" is not currently in the article. If it is a song from an album listed there, but the track listing is not in the article, then the redirect still makes no sense because there is nothing to give context for it in the article. Either the term is mentioned or it is not. If it is not, then the redirect is confusing. - PaulT+/C 02:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or add to the article. The infobox at Old Town Road indicates that Sonic Shit is/was released as a single, if that is correct then it should definitely be mentioned at Lil Nas X#Singles, but unless and until there is a mention the redirect is confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Until it is added to the article with proper reference. The user above is edit warring it into the article without proving it was even released as a single. StaticVapor message me! 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Calvin Harris' Third Studio AlbumEdit

Calvin Harris' third studio album is 18 Months, there is no need to place this article as an redirect page. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak delete since it seems a bit unnecessary now and doesn't get much use, though it's neither confusing nor ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Eh, neutral for the same reason. It unequivocally refers to just one thing and there are plenty of others like it that exist for the same reason. I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to delete it. PC78 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is both harmless and an {{R from move}} so per WP:CHEAP there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Close to the SunEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate
  • Hmm. I must have followed the relisting link without realizing it; this is a valid close because the discussion ran for over a week and consensus is clear, though I would not have normally closed it the same day as a relist. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

BosnicismEdit

Deletion. There is no such word as "Bosnicism", only one hit on the Google Search; I moved it to Bosniacism. Sorabino (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as entirely plausible, if you know anything about how Franco-Latinate suffixes work.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible typo for Bosniacism, but also what SMcC said above. I don't understand why a move was necessary here if they were both pointing to the same location. - PaulT+/C 20:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. If "Bosniacism" is a good title, "Bosnicism" is a good R-from-typo redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Remote locationEdit

Not mentioned in target, I don't really see the connection, and an internet search of the term mostly returns results about locations that are remote. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:IPLEdit

IPL is widely used to refer to Indian Premier League. As stated even in the article page of Persian Gulf Pro League, it was formerly known as IPL but currently I think it needs to point to IPL. Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as 'IPL' is too broad (see IPL disambiguation page) so retargeting is not appropriate. GiantSnowman 09:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Indian Premier League. The cricket league is absolutely the highest profile organisation that uses this abbreviation, so it makes sense for this redirect to follow suit. – PeeJay 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The target for this page is only relevant for editors. It makes more sense to keep the existing target, which predates the Indian Premier League navigation template by two years, barring a compelling reason to change it. - PaulT+/C 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Considering the current target no longer uses the IPL abbreviation, it would make more sense for this redirect to be used as shorthand for something that actually does use that abbreviation. If an editor types in {{IPL}} these days, chances are they're going to expect an Indian Premier League template to be transcluded. – PeeJay 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        There is no primary topic for the term. See IPL. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Simpsons/Todd FlandersEdit

Ancient redirects using an ancient disambiguation method. Most of these get zero page views so they aren't even being useful by accident. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • keep all {{R from subpage}} (which in mainspace populates Category:Redirects with old history. There is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, these redirects are not plausible search terms nor are they useful per nom. Simply being old doesn't bypass normal reasons for deletion and there is no history that is required to be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix, not plausible search terms and no significant history, being old is not a reason to keep. PC78 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Tavix. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Thryduulf, WP:R#KEEP#4 and WP:CHEAP. There is no reason to delete these circa 2002 (some 2001 and possibly earlier, literally the same year Wikipedia was founded) links. That is a long time in internet history. Link rot is a thing and having these pages does no harm. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I continue to not understand this argument. Let's pretend that someone is looking at an archive of a long-dead forum that for some inexplicable reason has a hyperlink to The Simpsons/Todd Flanders. Do you really think that person is going to struggle to find what they were looking for if the redirect is deleted? —Xezbeth (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    From the cited guideline: However, avoid deleting such redirects if: ... 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. It is crystal clear on this point and I don't understand why it is controversial. - PaulT+/C 23:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Paul: I'm a little confused. The 2001 link you provided is to Sideshow Mel. Isn't this a different page than the one included in the nomination, The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel (though they both redirect to the same page)? Levivich 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    Fair question. See this diff, where The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel was moved to Sideshow Mel. The current history for The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel starts at that point in 2002, but the page existed at the The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel url since 2001. Page moves make it a little tricky to easily see how long a page has been at a specific url. - PaulT+/C 02:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all. These redirects are harmless pieces of history apparently going back as far as 2002; deleting them ultimately serves little purpose other than wasting time and erasing that history. Arguments such as a lack of page views are hardly valid either; most found in Category:Redirects with old history are also rarely viewed, yet I don't see anyone actively deleting those. (See also others' arguments for keeping.) Geolodus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Not useful in any way; pollutes the searchbox at the detriment of redirects that legitimately have the slash, such as The Simpsons/Futurama Crossover Crisis. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, can you explain how that redirect is any more legitimate than the above articles (other than being newer)? The prose in the section it points to doesn't mention anything about the slash. Is it part of the official name for the comic? Wouldn't The Simpsons Futurama Crossover Crisis work just as well? Am I missing something? - PaulT+/C 12:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per US. With respect to the linkrot concern, the lack of page views suggests there are no inbound links being used anymore (which is not surprising, given how old they are). With respect to the historical aspect, it seems each of these pages is not the original page, but a redirect left behind after a page move in July 2002. The original pages still exist, and will continue to exist, even if these 2002 redirects are deleted. Since the originals exist, I don't see the historical value in keeping some redirects created after those pages were moved (especially given that they've all been moved several times). For example, see Rod Flanders (created 2001), Otto Mann (2001), Sanjay Nahasapeemapetilon, Todd Flanders, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character), Gil Gunderson, Disco Stu (all Jan-Jun 2002). Keeping the 2002 redirects serves no purpose other than to fill up the search box with needless entries, which will get in the reader's way of finding the content they're looking for. Levivich 03:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all - per Tavix. Not plausible search terms. Sergecross73 msg me 11:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There are many titles from as far back as 2002 that are worth keeping for historical reasons, but these are not any of them. As noted above, these only serve to pollute search results. Levivich has explained well why linkrot is not an issue here.  — Scott talk 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    To your first point, see User:Emijrp/FirstPages for some interesting examples of old links (just FYI). - PaulT+/C 11:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per GelodusGeolodus, and fix the search box so they don't get in the way. (Add them to a new Category:Unsearchworthy redirects?) Deleting to hide them from the search box is a kludge, not a solution... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is an interesting point. I'm sure there are potential edge cases where a feature like that could be harmful, but it is worth a discussion at WP:VPT or WT:SEARCH (and then possibly WP:PHAB?). - PaulT+/C 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    Paul: I've opened a discussion on this at VP/T. Thanks for the suggestion! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks! If it turns out this feature already exists in {{r unprintworthy}} (or some other similar r-template) I think the search arguments would be rendered moot (American law meaning). - PaulT+/C 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    You misspelled my name. Geolodus (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ack, sorry Geolodus. Struck and fixed. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 17:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, unlikely search terms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Implausible redirects. The near-complete lack of pageviews indicated that they are not actually being used, making 'this is old' arguments hold little weight. * Pppery * survives 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh (page intentionally linked) – As the user who's history-merged these redirects so they *don't* have any important 2001/2002 history, I don't care what happens to them, as long as the deletion log entry clearly points to this RFD (which it naturally will). Graham87 09:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • However, @Xezbeth:, I'm not meh about gaps in HTML lists, especially lists with bullets, and I've fixed yours in the nom. Graham87 09:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That happens by default when nominating multiple redirects. I'm not going to make a separate edit just to remove spaces. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Wait never mind, I can remove them in the same edit. I'll remember to do that in future. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    Graham87, in your opinion does WP:R#KEEP#4 not apply here? It seems like these kinds of old redirects are explicitly mentioned as a rationale for keeping (especially if there is a way to suppress the terms from appearing in search results). - PaulT+/C 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Psantora: I guess it would, but realistically, I imagine any links to the subpage names would be from external pages written in 2001 and 2002, and not too many un-updated pages from that time exist on the live web these days. If there is/will be a way to suppress redirects from search results, that would be a good thing and mean that these redirects would be harmless, and there'd be no problems with keeping them. Graham87 14:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Don't create linkrot. Period. Plus, at least some of these exist on nost (e.g. nost:The Simpsons/Bleeding Gums Murphy and nost:The Simpsons/Otto Mann); it's absurd to have a page at nost but not en, if we still have an article on the subject. Also consider someone who's researching the earlier history of Wikipedia and seeking earlier titles of pages, or someone who's researching how often old redirects get modified (and yes, such research does happen); deletion would pointlessly make these pages useless for such a person. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. R#KEEP #4 far outweighs R#DELETE #1 in these cases, and "unreasonable" as it applies to search-field-dropdown-menu hogs is very ill-defined. When I type "The Simpsons" in my search field, I get very different results than when I type it in with the slash, as in "The Simpsons/", so I don't see the problem there. We have procedures to prevent link rot for a reason, and it makes no sense at all to break with those procedures. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19Edit

Coral Ridge Mall (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)Edit

I would recommend deletion, as I can't imagine that this redirect would be terribly useful for anyone: the target doesn't mention the Coral Ridge Mall, and anyone searching with this term obviously already knows that the mall is in Ft. Lauderdale so that additional piece of information isn't useful. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

BioxideEdit

Searching online, this would appear to be a brand name of a line of chemical compound products for water sanitation purposes. It also likely meets WP:R#DELETE #10 based on the amount of coverage that popped up. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Control Commission for Germany - British ElementEdit

Too specific / one-sided; term as such apparently not included in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Printer's piEdit

While Lorem ipsum receives almost 2000 pageviews every day, this redirect has received none in at least the past month. The term is also not mentioned in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete A printer's pi is a random mess of type traditionally created by, say, accidentally dropping the type on the floor after setting it. The lorem ipsum is not an accidental jumble of letters resulting from type becoming pied; rather, it is deliberately typeset nonsense.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 03:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

TswiftEdit

* T cruziTrypanosoma cruzi (Withdrawn as per the discussion that ensued below)

While the context of these redirects is clear, they're not likely to be common search terms. None of these are actually used nicknames. I'd also suggest the deletion of S. Gomez but its not a redirect so this isn't the correct venue. NØ 13:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I would have selected those as well had I known they existed. I guess this is a discussion about a very broad topic. But in my personal opinion these initialism redirects are pointless unless it’s an initialism that is commonly used by reliable secondary sources. Some of these could also be applied to multiple people (eg. B Spears could apply to Bryan Spears etc)—NØ 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete those without a space. Tentatively keep T cruzi as T. cruzi is commonly written, although it may be too ambiguous. Delete or convert to disambiguation page those which do not have a primary target. Also Delete those with a primary target for which there are secondary target, unless a {{redirect}} template can be kept in place. Although I would be perfectly happy if they were all deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep/disambiguate as appropriate. S. Gomez is an acceptable example of a disambiguation page and could be used as a model for those redirects that need to be changed. - PaulT+/C 20:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Also note, some of these redirects date from 2008 or earlier (e.g. B. Spears). - PaulT+/C 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Also note again, previous RfD debate on H Clinton from 2016. - PaulT+/C 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unnecessary, and misleading unless cluttery "redirect" hatnotes are added to target pages to allow for people like the various Henry Clintons, Dorothy Trump, etc. If there's some strong objection to deletion, then redirect to surname pages. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Gomez. But keep T cruzi, a different case. PamD 08:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep T cruzi which is not like the others (@MaranoFan: perhaps you might consider withdrawing this from the nom?), but inclined to delete the rest and other similar redirects per Arthur Rubin & PamD. Unless any of these people are commonly known by their first initial + surname, all we're doing is creating ambiguous redirects which then leads to unnecessary and unwanted hatnotes and dab pages, none of which will be of any real benefit to anyone but which will create a lot of unwelcome clutter. Would also support redirecting to surname pages if there's a compelling reason not to delete. PC78 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note, I added links back to this RfD at the malformed nominations above. I did it manually so it may not have been done 100% correctly. I would appreciate it if someone could check if I broke anything. - PaulT+/C 20:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete In general initialisms are not likely to be searched or used in secondary sources. Unless they are, they should not be redirecting.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It was supposed to reference Ted Cruz, and it was probably a typo. HotdogPi 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Kanjanaphisek National MuseumEdit

R from move which resulted from mix-up in the creation of the article (which is now at the target). The Kanchanaphisek National Museum is different, distinct, and unrelated to the Golden Jubilee Museum of Agriculture. Please delete. Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Int mainEdit

Inappropriate redirect created by disruptive editor. I never heard of the term. If it really is used somewhere, this one might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This article is full of examples that have lines starting "int main", but it is not the only article to do so (e.g. C syntax also includes some examples beginning this way), so it seems likely that this is a useful search term. I'll alert the Computer science WikiProject as they'll likely be able to identify the most appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs a stub article, rather than a misleading redirect. C syntax#Global structure might be a good target if it is not used in languages other than C and C++. MOST of the editor's edits are absurd; this one is less so than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The entry point to a C, D or Pike program is defined using code which begins int main, and C# uses similar words. Readers seeing such a snippet may use it as a search term, and the current target describes it well. As C is far more widely used than D or Pike, C syntax#Global structure is also a sensible target. Certes (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

With statementEdit

Inappropriate redirect created by disruptive editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Iterative for loopEdit

Doesn't seem appropriate or helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to For loop which mentions iteration in the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Good point. "Foreach" is a particular type of NON-iterative loop. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the lead of Foreach loop claims that it is sometimes called an iterative for-loop but I've never heard the term and can't find sources for it. A for loop is equally iterative. The term seems tautologous: what would a non-iterative for loop do? Certes (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    A foreach loop could be parallel, rather than iterative. In any case, programmers are not allowed to depend on the order of execution, even if there can't be two executions operating simultaneously in different threads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolute numberEdit

Improbable redirect by disruptive editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. We could probably use a blue link at this title, given that the phrase is widely used to contrast with percentages, proportions, etc. in statistics. However I cannot immediately find a good target for that but then I'm generally poor at finding articles of that sort. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. thefreedictionary.com gives a bizarre definition but then quotes sources where the term generally means "quantity rather than proportion". Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on that distinction. Although I found one unreliable source for absolute number meaning absolute value, the current redirect is misleading and we'd be better leaving the reader to search. If we must keep it, retarget to Quantity. Certes (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I guess, the "bizarre definition" (as "a number represented by numerals rather than by letters") is (wrongly?) inspired by "absolute constant" defined as "a constant (as π) that has the same value wherever it occurs in mathematics". We mathematicians often interpret "absolute constant" (also called "numerical constant") as a constant that may be chosen as not dependent on anything. (For instance, it is true that "a bounded function is bounded by a constant", and "the sine function is bounded by an absolute constant", but it is false that "a bounded function is bounded by an absolute constant" (since the bound must depend on the function). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
...or possibly computing (8 is an absolute number; BITS_PER_BYTE isn't) but I've never seen that term anywhere and I doubt that the concept deserves an article. Certes (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree: neither article nor redirect. But I bother about "widely used ... in statistics" (according to Thryduulf). Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Google search for "absolute number" (quoted!) gives about 3,000,000 results; the first: The Absolute Number of Oligodendrocytes in the Adult Mouse Brain. Notable? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps to a new section in Relative change and difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
A good idea. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

333/106Edit

Not a particularly close approximation; the target seems to mention 355/113. Editor was blocked for disruption; that does not mean individual edits are necessarily disruptive, but, that's usually the way to bet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps redirect to Approximations of π, rather than Milü. The current target article is about two particular approximations of π, 22/7 and 335/113. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment The number is referenced in the animated image present in the article, but that doesn't mean it is a good target. I don't have an opinion on this target, I am only pointing out that it *is* mentioned at the current target, just not in the text directly. - PaulT+/C 20:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC) The term is also mentioned several times at Continued fraction#Continued fraction expansions of π. - PaulT+/C 20:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yunzhong CommanderyEdit

The redirects are all names of subdivisions in the Han dynasty 2000 years ago, while the targets are modern cities/districts randomly chosen by the editor. Most target articles have no connection whatsoever with the Han-era subdivisions, nor do they mention the commanderies. I was already working on this series of articles when the editor rushed in to "claim" all the rest with redirects. It's not possible to expand all of them any time soon, so I suggest these misleading redirects be deleted for now. Esiymbro (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Pentium VEdit

Target does not mention "Pentium V" except in the title of one citation, and searching online seems to suggest that all coverage of Pentium V was speculations about a new generation of Intel processors in 2003. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find a more relevant target. signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I added "Pentium V" to the article based on the content in that reference. If there are other relevant references I'd urge you to add them to the article (or at least note them here so that others can). - PaulT+/C 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wayne DavisonEdit

Redirect target has virtually no information about the subject, I can't imagine this being useful and would recommend deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Wayne Davidson is known for other things, such as the original changes for unified diff (ymmv) TEDickey (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ma (momma)Edit

Unlikely search term, inappropriate use of a disambiguator. Unlike Ma (mama), this redirect has received no use since its creation. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Rosguill's reasoning. Any editor searching is going to come upon the much more likely mama term.Onel5969 TT me 11:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It was created a month ago, and has been used three times. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Looking at page statistics, all uses appear to have been on the day that I opened this discussion or after, so I'm fairly certain that most (or all) of those page hits are from us trying to assess the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any benefit to deletion. Note there are (at least?) two other similar redirects Ma (mom) and Ma (mother), in addition to Ma (mama) and Ma (momma) listed in the nomination. It isn't like this one sticks out significantly more than the others; it is just less common. (One other possibility would be to add both Ma (mom) and Ma (mother) to the nomination for the same reasons.) I should also note that Ma (mommy), Ma (mummy), and Ma (mum) do not exist. - PaulT+/C 19:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Asenso ManileñoEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore and send to AfD

May 18Edit

Mr. Fourth QuarterEdit

No mention of this term in target article, and no evidence this is a common nickname. Pageview stats show essential no hits. —Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. While this is a nickname that gets some use in reliable sources, it is not applied exclusively to any one player - it's used for/in connection with Kevin Durant, Kyle Irving*, Russell Wilson and Ben Gordon all on page 1 of a google search for the exact phrase - I didn't bother looking beyond that. If the term is mentioned in the articles about these players (I haven't looked) then it might make a good disambiguation page, but not in the absence of that. *the deleted article at this title seems to have been about a different person Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per above, but barring that retarget to comeback (sports) where the concept (though not necessarily about a particular player's performance) is discussed in general. - PaulT+/C 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with both disambiguation and retargetting is that this phrase is not mentioned in any player's article, nor in Comeback (sports), nor anywhere else on Wikipedia that I've found. Without a mention someone who doens't know what this means will just be confused. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • MOS comment We shouldn't disambiguate if there is no mention of the term in the dab entries. Per MOS:NICKNAME, they should only be mentioned in articles if the nickname is frequently used: Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject. For example, a sports journalist's one-off reference to a player as "the Atlanta panther" in purple prose does not constitute a nickname, and treating it as one is original research. This is not the case with Mr. Fourth Quarter.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:QueenEdit

A confusing redirect given Portal:Queens regnant, Portal:Monarchy, Portal:Royalty exist as well. Turning to a dab is not helpful as many or all of the targets are under discussion for deletion or will soon be nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambig. A likely search term, and as long as there are currently multiple relevant portals a dab page makes sense. Iff all the target portals are deleted (which seems unlikely) then this can be deleted as G8. If all but one are deleted then it can just be boldly redirected to that portal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) (see below for updated recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC))
It's almost a random word. There are also portals for Portal:Queen Elizabeth II and likely more. Let search do it's job. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also Portal:Queens is a DAB page. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't put it more succinctly than Legacypac - "let search do its job".  — Scott talk 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm not entirely convinced by the usefulness of a portal disambiguation in this case. Deryck C. 19:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Move per suggestions below. Deryck C. 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Portal:Queen (band) to Portal:Queen and hatnote to Portal:Monarchy. Portals on general things are plural, so "Portal:Queen" could only be a proper name. This is probably moot because the band Portal is at MfD, but just in case... -- Tavix (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Move and hatnote per Tavix, that's a better solution than disambiguation. I've taken a quick look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy (where the band's portal is part of a group nomination) and I can see any of keep, delete or no consensus being the outcome so it may or may not be moot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Move and add hatnote per Tavix and Thryduulf. Makes sense to me. - PaulT+/C 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  On hold The MfD is ongoing with conversation at least somewhat active, and while I'm willing to close this discussion, I'd rather not enact the consensus here until that MfD has closed. ~ Amory (utc) 09:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To close this day since this discussion's close seems to rely somewhat on the result of a MfD. Per WP:RELIST, once consensus is clear, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:VteEdit

Retarget to {{v}} This makes more sense since that is what the template ends up looking like. –MJLTalk 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see any reason to change this and I would not be comfortable supporting any change unless there has been discussion somewhere at {{v}} and/or {{navbar}} that explains the need for this change. This is a redirect from 2013 and both potential targets are protected due to their heavy use. Presumably both exist because they have different uses; if the nominator wants to merge {{v}} and {{navbar}} this is not the proper venue for that discussion. - PaulT+/C 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Psantora: Huh? {{v}} is listed as a "Shortcut" template for {{navbar}} in the documentation. It wouldn't be that major of a fix to retarget it. Also, for good reason this redirect was not protected. It's barely been used. –MJLTalk 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm... It seems I may have been a little hyperbolic here. The point I was worried about is that this redirect was made a while ago, it points to a highly-used template, and it is currently in use (though minimally - it looks like only 6 pages/articles use it - Template:Timeline of Holland House, London, Template:Crimean Council changes after 2010 election, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 1, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Character Table 2, Template:NCAA Season 94 seniors basketball playoffs, and Template:NCAA Season 94 juniors basketball playoffs - other uses look to be transclusions from these pages). My concern is, since it has always pointed to {{navbar}}, that some editors might be surprised by the new target. However, given how similar these two targets are, there probably wouldn't be significant confusion between them (especially since it is highly likely editors using this template would be previewing any changes to make sure they render as expected). Regarding my (probably off-topic) point on merging: I see there has been some previous discussion (2014) on merging {{v}}/{{navbar}} (even some suggestions that {{v}} was created to replace {{navbar}}) and there is also a mention of merging with {{view}} (another listed shortcut) at Template talk:navbarsuperceded by 2017 discussion where they were effectively merged. Anyway, after looking through the specific use cases for these templates, I don't have as much of a concern and have withdrawn my "Keep" !vote above. I would still prefer that more involvement from the people more intimately familiar with these family of templates weigh-in before any changes are made, but I now see that there is a much lower risk for making this change than I had originally feared. - PaulT+/C 19:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)To illustrate the difference(s) between the two proposed targets, see below:
    • Current target - {{navbar}}, {{navbar}}, produces:
    • Proposed target - {{v}}, {{v}}, produces:
    • Actual template - {{vte}}, {{vte}}, produces:
     - PaulT+/C 20:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with repointing but would prefer existing uses edited to use navbar directly before doing that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Voter registration campaignEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 26#Voter registration campaign

Dinosaur Army (Kirby)Edit

Not mentioned in any article including the target. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom unless a mention is added somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Mount BombalaiEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Discussion moved to Talk:Bombalai Hill

Dublin Bus (No. 54A)Edit

there is no specific information on bus no. 54A in article Dublin Bus. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

FightfulEdit

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. StaticVapor message me! 18:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fightful is a wrestling news website that is possibly notable (it's used as a reference in a lot of articles). It may or may not be a dirt sheet, but even if it is this redirect is the equivalent of redirecting OK! to Gossip magazine - a specific magazine title redirecting to the article about the genre of magazine where is not listed is almost never going to be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Pure Wrestling AssosiationEdit

Not mentioned in target, and on top of that, appears to be an unlikely misspelling. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There appears to be a content dispute at the target about whether to include this and other promotions, but while it isn't listed there it isn't a good redirect. As for the misspelling, if there was an article about this association then it seems a plausible enough mistake to me, but it's worth noting that Assosiation has always been a red link but there are at least half a dozen instances currently in mainspace that I'm about to fix. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It is correct that it is a misspelling, I screwed that up. I am very suprised though that Pure Wrestling Association is not mentioned on the list. It really should be. It's a wrestling promotion that has been around for at least 10 years.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 17Edit

40 nmEdit

Seems misleading, I'd suggest deletion unless someone can provide a justifiable rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hartung HirschfeldEdit

I don't see any indication that this was a name used by Hartwig Hirschfeld, nor is Hartung an equivalent to Hartwig to my knowledge. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have seen him referred to as such at e.g. [22], [23], and [24] — it seems to be a common misspelling. Kyuko (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seventy-sixEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

NavboxesEdit

Hidden inter-namespace link – that's not the way we connect things here. Hildeoc (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please suggest a better way for a user to be redirected to the navigation template.Fleets (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect (WP:XNR). Article to Wikipeda: XNRs are in most cases only good redirects if the target is something that needs to be accessible to those who haven't learned about namespaces yet and are not ambiguous with an encyclopaedic term. The first 20 hits on google are all related to wikis, with Wikimedia sites (including the redirect target) the most prominent among them, so this is not a term that has another use, but equally it's very unlikely that anyone will be searching using this jargon term before they know about different namespaces, so Wikipedia:Navboxes (which leads to the same target) is all that is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Centre (région française)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

XJetEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

X-JetEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Attempted escapes from AlcatrazEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Nipesh DHAKAEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Castle (montsoreau)Edit

Unconventional disambiguations that are unlikely search terms. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep both terms are perfectly matching the article. They are very likely search terms as the Château de X in french is first a Chateau or Castle sometimes both and X comes after. --Philippe49730 (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Proper nouns should be disambiguated by common nouns/descriptors, not the other way around. -- King of ♠ 22:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not really the issue? The issue is that the disambiguator is used incorrectly. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete no indication that this particular castle or chateau goes by the singular name. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This takes the order of term + disambiguator backwards: a generic name in parentheses is used to disambiguate a proper term, not the other way round. An appropriate redirect of this form would be Montsoreau (castle). – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Devil Take The HindmostEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Femi OluwoleEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Missing or misplaced brackets (from history merge etc.)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete all. Consensus is clearly in favour of deletion, this did not need relisting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Priest (Catholic Chruch)Edit

The combination of the spelling error and the parenthetical make this a pretty implausible typo. Reyk YO! 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete only because of the implausible typo. The correctly spelled Priest (Catholic Church) is a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP#4. The redirect gets plenty of traffic and has been around since 2008. Also, for those of you who didn't even see the typo at first glance (because I didn't) "Chruch"!="Church". The typo is plenty subtle enough to be plausible. - PaulT+/C 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. 64 pageviews in the last year (to a target that received 110,000 pageviews over the same timeframe) is definitely not "plenty of traffic". -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Those pageviews show that the page is useful to someone and, according to WP:R#KEEP#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., it should therefore be kept. The fact that the targeted page gets many more pageviews doesn't change the fact that many other people get utility out of the redirect. - PaulT+/C 14:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    If someone comes to this discussion from using the redirect and says so, then they are able to use the "someone finds this redirect useful" argument. Otherwise it's just hypothetical. It's important to frame pageviews as a ratio of its target because that removes the obscureness aspect to it. Some topics are so obscure that they don't receive many page views anyway, but not this one. Not all pageviews come from someone actively typing in "Priest (Catholic Chruch)" and finding the target that way. Typing in "Priest (C" in the search bar gives this redirect as one of the options, for example. Other pageviews may come from redirect maintainers and those stumbling upon it randomly (perhaps even via Special:RandomRedirect). Either way, I firmly believe anyone trying to find the target would be able to do so just as easily (if not more easily in at least one case) without this specific redirect existing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - the proportionality argument for pageviews falls flat for redirects that are clearly erroneous: they never have views in any kind of correlation to the target, because they're errors. I don't know what stats you guys are looking at but I see that it had 12 hits in the 90 days before the nomination. That's not enough to be worth keeping in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Normally I'm not swayed by search-related arguments because someone can enter the URL without using search. That's what I always do, for example. However, I'm convinced by Tavix's comment that misclicks are likely responsible for many hits. Moreover, if you type the whole phrase into the URL and get a nonexistent title, you're likely to expect that you made a typo (even before you see the deletion log entry that references this discussion), and "Chruch" should stand out rather quickly, so you'll fix it and end up at the right article. So in other words, not particularly useful for either method of searching. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Judas-Lady GagaEdit

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

Doctor BobertEdit

This is a very uncommon variant of the name. So uncommon, in fact, that the page Bobert goes to the only subject with the name mentioned on Wikipedia, a fictional character. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete results on google seem to be either derived from Wikipedia or very old newspapers (presumably OCR errors). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete no such character or notable person. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

FoftyEdit

The term "Fofty" doesn't appear a single time in 50 Cent, so it makes no sense. Instead, it should be a redirect to 50 (number) as a potential typo of Fifty (which is a redirect there) DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to 50 (number) might "make sense", as you put it, to anyone who had not cracked a single source of popular media over the last week. At this moment, Googling for "Fofty" (in quotes) yields "About 982,000 results". Maybe some other brave Wikipedian will one day track down one of those 982,000 hits and update 50 Cent accordingly? Right now, Fofty has 21 pageviews. These were not typos, so let's serve our audience. --NoApostropheInIts (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • DeleteWeak retarget to Nik Richie as a neologism that Richie is going to trademark. [25] It's related to some feud said between 50 Cent and Randall Emmett but that feud was not elaborated upon in the 50 Cent article. Delete if that doesn't even show up on Richie's article in any significance. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) updated 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    Nothing's changed in the Richie article to cover this so recommending delete now. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 50 (number) with {{R avoided double redirect|fifty}} added. Whatever the term means, it isn't mentioned at any of the above articles. Until there is an actual explanation for it (that is relevant enough to actually be retained at the article(s) in question), there is no reason for it to link there. - PaulT+/C 03:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't a typo for "fifty": read this: [26]. If it's not worthy of mention in 50 Cent then delete it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I understand that there is an actual meaning for the term, but it is not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia currently and it is a valid typo for "fifty" and should not be deleted. See WP:R#KEEP#2. - PaulT+/C 16:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Actually, after reading that article a typo for "fifty" is exactly what the term is.   smh - PaulT+/C 16:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I take the point, but we don't create redirects for likely typos (we don't have Fufty) so we don't need this one, especially if there's ambiguity in its meaning (WP:R#DELETE#2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Redirects for typos happen often. See {{r from typo}}. - PaulT+/C 01:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    This isn't a common typo though or alias like Fourty / Forty. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    It seems pretty common to me. On a QWERTY keyboard "i" and "o" are right next to each other. Seems like an easy mistake to make when typing quickly, especially on a touchscreen keyboard. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because someone meant to type "fifty" to 50 Cent but it came out as "fofty" on their iPhone keyboard. - PaulT+/C 23:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something about it is added to the 50 Cent article to show that it means him. As for typos, this is not necessarily a typo for "fifty"; it could equally well be a type for "forty". (I and O are next to each other on the keyboard, but so are R and F.) The typo is ambiguous and thus should not be redirected to either number. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    I was waiting for someone to make that connection (re: forty/fofty/fifty rf/oi). There is potential for confusion, but that doesn't mean one isn't more likely than the other. The main argument for redirecting to 50 instead of 40 is the actual provenance of the 'word'. Another, less obvious point is that the typo is more likely to happen while trying to type "fifty" than "forty". Here is why. Typos are less likely to happen with letters in the home row and two different rows ("F" is in the home row "R" is not). Typos are more likely to happen among letters right next to each other in the same non-home row (like "O" and "I" are). If you are aiming for "R" and your fingers "know" they need to move up (after having just typed "F"), you will be less likely to hit "F" again than the potential ambiguity between "I" and "O" being right next to each other. Admittedly, this is a very obscure, opinionated (though I would argue not dogmatic) point and doesn't change the fact that a typo with "forty" can also turn into "fofty", but I do think one typo is more likely than the other. Anyway, just wanted to make the point in case someone brought up the rf/oi ambiguity. I will not belabor it. - PaulT+/C 22:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Acadêmicos de São JorgeEdit

Full list of redirects (117)