Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accueil → wikt:accueil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think we need wiktionary redirects for any non-English words. Pinging Phil Bridger who's objected to an earlier, unrelated speedy tag on this redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and wait. The pageviews for this redirect are significantly higher than the usual new redirect so I believe that this is the best option. — J947 ^[cont] 00:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my impression that all newly created articles receive comparable pageviews (that's a soft redirect, so if I'm not mistaken it ends up on the article (rather than redirect) queue at NPP), and that's probably been compounded by the A1/A3 speedy–unspeedy back-and-forth. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good example of the page view fallacy. Thanks for investigating that, Uanfala. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The software deleted my comment because of the edit conflict but basically – thanks for the explanation, and disregard my !vote. — J947 ^[cont] 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others in the previous discussion and here, this a good application of RLOTE. — J947 ^[cont] 04:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-English words going to Wikitionary? Sounds like it'd get really problematic really fast. The potential for conflict given similarity or exact matches with English terms in particular presents an issue. And that's just the beginning. Deletion is totally the right call here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Zwolf. (I can't believe I can remember this 4+ year old discussion off the top of my head…) -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to home page. It is used by both anglophones and francophones to mean "home page". --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 04:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Please provide evidence that any Anglophone at all uses "accueil" to mean "home page". Narky Blert (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never heard this word being used in this way in English, and, more importantly, I have been unable to find any examples. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In my annoyance at seeing article speedy deletion tags being put on this, not one but twice, I didn't pause to consider whether it actually belongs in the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enwiki s not a dictionary, and this redirect impedes Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per not needing redirects (especially outside WP) from random non-English words per broadly-applied WP:NOTDICT and specifically WP:RFOREIGN. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctor Zhivago (musical) (redirect) → Doctor Zhivago (musical)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Doctor Zhivago (TV miniseries) (redirect) → Doctor Zhivago (miniseries)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Doctor Zhivago (novel) (redirect) → Doctor Zhivago (novel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Doctor Zhivago (film) (redirect) → Doctor Zhivago (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These Doctor Zhivago redirects' targets were created prior to 2013 (the year the redirects were created), and they don't seem to have been the result of an effort to make space for a page move, judging by their histories. Regards, SONIC678 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - None of these seem appropriate. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Interestingly, the reasonable enough 'Doctor Zhivago (television miniseries)' doesn't exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Sonic678, you always need to note when you add a new redirect to a nomination as that redirect must have the RfD notice on it for seven days. Doctor Zhivago (film) (redirect) was added on 03:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC). — J947 ^[cont] 04:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll remember to do it next time. Regards, SONIC678 04:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as creator. I created all these as special redirects for pageview tracking statistics during an RM lo those many years ago. They're no longer needed. Dohn joe (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per creator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Doctor Strange sequel → Doctor Strange (2016 film)#Sequel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently listed on April 5 and closed as no consensus. This was based mainly on Steel1943's arguments in which they said notice how Untitled Doctor Strange sequel targets a section: That's because there is both no article and no title for the subject yet. This is untrue. The Doctor Strange sequel is titled Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and while that also isn't an article yet (it's in the draft space), having the "untitled" redirect is no longer necessary. I regrettably did not have the April 5 page on my watch list, otherwise, I would have presented this info then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ​ Yeah sorry Steel, but there has been a name since before 2020. I do agree there is no article yet, but there is a title for the subject. (I just searched things up, that title has existed since July 2019) OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sure why I'm getting the "sorry"s, ha. I just didn't see the mention of "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" in the target section for some reason. Scrap this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancelled → Megan Wants a Millionaire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not an official name of the target article. Also, it looks as though this title was created due to an undiscussed move which was reverted shortly after the move was performed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak refine to Megan Wants a Millionaire#Cancellation, since this section discusses the events leading to the cancellation of the show after five episodes; weak delete if that doesn't work. Regards, SONIC678 18:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All television programs must come to an end at some point. We shouldn't open up the can of worms that is allowing '____ ____ cancelled' for various entities. Deletion is totally the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing. Which millionaire does Megan want cancelled? It says nothing about that in the article. Is it some sort of euphemism? Narky Blert (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'll check if Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancellation exists and create it if it doesn't. Sure this could open a can of worms, but I'd rather have a redirect that makes grammatical sense as to what it is talking about open a can than a redirect where how the word cancelled is used can make little to no sense. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that keeping this will open a can of worms and for that reason I'd also endorse deletion of Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancellation. Neither is needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. No participants have ultimately defended its continued existence, consensus to delete seems increasingly clear. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from modificatoin → Template:R from alternative spelling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should point to Template:R from modification, but I don't think this misspelling should be kept. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This originally did point to R from modification, but it was oddly retargeted several years later by SMcCandlish. Glades12 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would this redirect be considered a {{R from modification}} if it targeted {{R from modification}}? Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: Nope, I guess it would be tagged with its current target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Nah, it'd be an {{R from misspelling}}. {{R from modification}} needs something like a different word order. Narky Blert (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument over the correct target illustrates why such misspellings are unhelpful and may be damaging. Narky Blert (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to {{R from modification}}. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually this is fairly useless; it has no transclusions and I agree that misspellings don't really belong in this namespace. Weak delete. — J947 ^[cont] 01:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A typo redir for an internal-use template isn't particularly useful to retain. If kept, then retarget back to {{R from modification}}, obviously. I don't recall changing that nor why; I think it was simply an error on my part. Probably editing in the wrong tab or something. It certainly doesn't represent an alternative spelling, nor a legit other modification; it's just a flat-out typo. The original redirect appears to have been created so that someone who typed the template name wrong wouldn't have to fix it, and I can't see that being much of a utility rationale for keeping this thing. This isn't comparable to keeping common typos for actual encyclopedia subjects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Let's just get rid of this. Deletion clearly seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SmcC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 􍁷 → Private Use Areas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 􏰉 → Private Use Areas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unless we want to have redirects for all the other >131000 characters of the Supplementary Private Use Areas, I would delete these random instances of that characters. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – PUA characters, by definition, are reserved for private assignment and cannot have a fixed definition and therefore a fixed target. And certainly no need for 130,000 more redirects of this sort. ComplexRational (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ComplexRational: On the other hand, we have redirects for all 6400 characters of the BMP Private Use Area. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @1234qwer1234qwer4: Hmm. I'm doubtful of their utility because we don't have a fixed codechart or other means of ascribing one specific target (unlike most {{R from unicode character}} redirects), and redirecting them all to Private Use Areas would have limited utility. But that would be another discussion, perhaps at another venue, if you believe their value should also be discussed. In any case, though, the 6400 BMP characters are far more widely seen than plane 15 and plane 16 characters. ComplexRational (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gorobay: As someone who seems to have expertise in this area, do you have any input on this? Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don’t seem useful but the current target isn’t wrong. Gorobay (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep explains that these characters don't have a fixed definition. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete because this character doesn't render on my machine and I have no idea what it represents. Narky Blert (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: If you had read the target, you would know this is represented differently by every font (or not at all). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need 131072 redirects of this sort. There seem to be at least 495 redirects of this kind (full list). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaundryPizza03: As already mentioned above in the discussion, there are such redirects for all characters of the PUA of the BMP, which are not nominated here due to them being more common. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interestingly a google search for the symbol only comes up with this deletion discussion, so it cannot be widely used and thus require an explanation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 Tishomingo tornado → Tornadoes of 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2020 Tishomingo Tornado → Tornadoes of 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, it seems that this tornado didn't end up getting much coverage. I would suggest deletion unless a sourced mention can be added. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundled in 2020 Tishomingo Tornado for the same reason, note that this discussion may not be closed until 7 days have passed from now. — J947 ^[cont] 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event that produced the Tishmongo tornado doesn't even warrant a mention at Tornadoes of 2020. It's unlikely that anyone outside the Tishmongo area will search for it. If it is not deleted, then the target should be changed to List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2020#March 24 event. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I actually had the thought of deleting this yesterday. I agree it is unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I find the above arguments persuasive. Agreed. 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)

While we do have a mentioning of this over at 'List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2020#March 24 event', the only sources are routine reports from governments. As mentioned above, this event appears to have had essentially no coverage. I could live with a retarget, I suppose, but deletion still seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I'm satisfied with the provided sources, withdrawing this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mphephu III → Patrick Mphephu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not seeing any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; he is mentioned as Mphephu III at Makhado#Genealogy, on a crowd-sourced – it would seem – website here, and on various other websites. I think this is enough to indicate plausibility. — J947 ^[cont] 23:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhado it says that Patrick Mphephu ruled as King/Chieftan of the Venda people Mphephu III. Additionally, it states he served as President of the Venda Bantustan.

AvRand (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I'm satisfied with the justification, withdrawing discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thư → Shu (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, not clear that these terms are equivalent. Searching on Vietnamese Wikipedia (the only language that uses the letter ư), this term leads to their article for Letter (message). If these terms are not interchangeable, I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'll pull up a better source if requested but Wiktionary indicates that Thư is the Han Nom reading of the character wikt:舒.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Ondor#Fictional etymology. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tark (Middle-earth) → Elf (Middle-earth)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and I believe it's incorrect too. If I remember right, the term is actually Orc slang for humans of Gondor in the Lord of the Rings. Shouldn't stay at the current target by any means, but not sure if it's worth mentioning somewhere else. Hog Farm (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the appropriate place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Where would that be? -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ping Chiswick Chap , but he has commented below, and is probably right. "There's a great fighter about, one of those bloody-handed Elves, or one of the filthy tarks." is the canonical reference for this word. Alternative targets might have been Black Speech or Orcs#Orkish language (a section that seems to have gone, if it ever existed) All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Retarget to Gondor#Fictional etymology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy retarget to Hiram (name) as to not waste the reader's time with this notice for little reason. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^[cont] 23:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hiram (given name) → Hiram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hiram (given name) (disambiguation) → Hiram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Back in 2011, these two were redirected here when it still had a section about the given name Hiram (also note that the first has a long and interesting history), which was later expanded into Hiram (name) (another page with a similar function)-but weirdly these still redirect here. I'm leaning fairly strongly towards retargeting both of them to Hiram (name), unless a justification can be provided for why it still redirects here. Regards, SONIC678 20:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Hiram (name), that's more helpful than the other dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need to ask about stuff like this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cult moive → Cult film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• MTV Moive & TV Award for Best Performance in a TV Show → MTV Movie & TV Award for Best Performance in a TV Show  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• North by Northwest (moive) → North by Northwest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Here's yet another questionably plausible misspelling, this time of "movie," which most likely comes from someone mixing up the V and I keys. I'm tilting towards delete on these three redirects, unless a justification can be given. Regards, SONIC678 04:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Unnecessary clutter which helps no-one when the correct spellings exist. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helps no one? — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. BD2412 T 17:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment North by Northwest (moive) may be worth keeping purely by virtue of being an extremely old redirect, dating to 2003. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all G6 unambiguous errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't uncontroversial maintenance, so please stop referring to G6 and refer to one of these instead. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 18:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: That's your opinion: I think it absolutely is uncontroversial maintenance, otherwise I wouldn't have said so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shhhnotsoloud: This is a nice read. These redirects all pass WP:R#CRD with flying colours and if they the pass the guiding principles in a topic area then I believe it is frivolous to say that they should not survive a lower, subjective criterion along the same lines. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @J947: it's a nice read but irrelevant. The error in each redirect is unambiguous. This RfD appears to be about whether or not we want to keep these unambiguous errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Shhhnotsoloud: In this scenario I believe that G6 is effectively a lower version of CRD. These redirects pass CRD easily so I don't see how they can be construed to fail G6. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per RHARMFUL, a good common-sense rule that gets so frequently disobeyed. Each of the redirects also has their own reason to keep.
  • Cult moive has nice views and thus is very helpful to readers.
  • MTV Moive & TV Award for Best Performance in a TV Show is helpful as per K4; the article was at this title for 24 days fairly recently.
  • North by Northwest (moive) is interesting as Rosguill said; it is also a feature of a complicating moving/merging manoeuvre and we don't want page history to break even more.
• Most importantly, none of these redirects cause much harm at all and that should be the binding principle of RfD. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I don't have strong opinions on the matter, but I'm inclined to think that these really aren't that helpful. The non-word "moive" is so weird and visually arresting in the first place... people who type this in are likely to immediately self-correct. Really, deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for badgering, but I don't see how deleting this redirect would be worth it. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:RHARMFUL, and (the first in particular), as a plausible typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 07:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Note there were two "moive"s in Wikisource and more than a dozen in en Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 07:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    

• Keep all. The first two are simple, highly plausible typos, and are completely and utterly harmless. The third one contains that typo in a word that's not needed in the first place, so it DID strike me as less plausible, and less worth keeping, but it's had over 100 views in the past 30 days alone (remarkably, that's more than the other two put together), so it's clearly helping a lot of people get where they're trying to go. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ...but only 47 pageviews in the year before it was listed here, 20 of which were on one day when it was probably mentioned on a project page somewhere. Certes (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. RHARMFUL doesn't apply: there's no useful page history and no likely relevant incoming links. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DrKay: I'm genuinely confused here. how does RHARMFUL not apply? From the guideline verbatim: Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. — J947 ^[cont] 06:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Therefore". The guideline (not sure what to call it but it doesn't appear to be a guideline) is: the deletion of redirects is harmful when the redirects have substantial edit history or incoming links, therefore only consider deletion where necessary. We don't need to create lots of redirects for typographical errors: type "moive" into the search box, you immediately get "Did you mean: movie" and lots of links with the word "movie" in them. These redirects are pointless: search engines can cope easily with single letter transpositions and direct you to the correct article anyway. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all If the typo Moive is so un-useful that it has never been created as a redirect, it is difficult to see how the same typo embedded in longer text could possibly be useful to anyone. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We don't need redirects for random typos such as "Cult moive", especially as it's not even a misspelling of the target's title (Cult film). "MTV..." is a weaker delete as there might possibly be incoming external links, though I can't find any. The final case is a typo for Wikipedia's own internal disambiguator; again the normal qualifier would be "(film)" rather than "(movie)", and this has the strongest case for deletion. Certes (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Catholic Church in Georgia. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 03:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Georgian Catholic Church → Georgian Byzantine-Rite Catholics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Catholic Church in Georgia. As stated in the target, a separate "Georgian Catholicism" was never major. Readers are most likely looking for the Catholic Church's organization in Georgia, not an extinct subgroup. Wikiacc (¶) 19:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retargeting. There is no hierarchy and no sui iuris Church corresponding to the Georgian Orthodox, so the only sane thing to do is retarget. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - This seems to be a pretty clear-cut case. Agreed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. PPEMES (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Indian state flags. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of Arunachal Pradesh → Emblem of Arunachal Pradesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Flag of Arunachal Pradesh does not even exist, neither it is proposed by the state government yet. I don't understand the purpose of keeping this redirect. Hemant Dabral^Talk 02:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a plausible search term, even if no flag exists. Narky Blert (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget (changing !vote) per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Indian state flags. I agree with Narky Blert that it is a plausible search term, but the current target doesn't say anything about flags. The list of state flags explains that there are no current official flags but that when a banner is required the state emblem can be displayed on a white field and displays all of them. I will improve that further by adding direct links to the articles about the emblem as well as the state. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, it is a plausible search term. Also disagree with a user stating that this flag does not exist. If you follow this link you will see this flag displayed at a meeting of the Arunachal Pradesh state cabinet - https://arunachalobserver.org/2019/12/21/cabinet-approves-vital-policies-rationalizing-teachers-transfer-posting-boosting-industrial-sector/ Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cordyceps-Zombie: that's the emblem displayed on a white field, exactly as described at List of Indian state flags. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Indian state flags per Thryduulf as the most helpful thing we can do. — J947 ^[cont] 20:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Indian state flags. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag of Uttarakhand → Emblem of Uttarakhand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Flag of Uttarakhand does not even exist, neither it is proposed by the state government yet. I don't understand the purpose of keeping this redirect. Hemant Dabral^Talk 02:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (in some form) Considering the many uses of [1], and File:Flag_of_Uttarakhand.png/{{User_Uttarakhandi}}, I think it's useful to either a/ keep this a redirect for a reasonable search term, but add {{R from incorrect}} and fix up Flag of Uttarakhand#Government banner (the current reference needs to be nuked); or b/ convert to a DAB (TWODABS/WP:NOPRIMARY) listing Flag of India and Emblem of Uttarakhand. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a plausible search term, even if no flag exists. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget (changing !vote) per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Indian state flags per my comments above at #Flag of Arunachal Pradesh. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Indian state flags per Thryduulf as the most helpful thing we can do. — J947 ^[cont] 20:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Indian state flags per Thryduulf of course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastern Commandery → Dong Commandery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous title and doesn't appear to be used to refer to the topic Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep from creator – The alternative translation is used by some sources. Google search. Esiymbro (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wikt:東 means east or eastern -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This appears reasonable enough as per the above comments. Deletion seems to be the wrong call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I agree that the title is theoretically ambiguous, but I'm not seeing any other actual uses of this specific phrase ("commandery" is a rare word form), and the justification of Dong -> 東 -> East makes sense as an alternative translation. ~ mazca ^talk 14:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingston's → Kingston, New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm unsure why this possessive form redirects here. I suggest Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kingston's what? This could refer to any place, person or thing called Kingston on the planet, and we certainly don't want redirects from possessives without a good reason (such as unambiguous ambiguity, e.g. King's). Foidermore, Kingston, New York isn't a significant enough place even to be mentioned on the DAB page Kingston, instead being one of the 100+ entries in List of places called Kingston. Narky Blert (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creator hasn't edited since 2014, so we probably can't ask them what their intention was, and I can't think of any reason why this needs to redirect to Kingston, NY (which I visit quite often). Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I can't find any justification for this redirect. Second choice is to retarget it to Kingston but I can't imagine that would be too helpful. — J947 ^[cont] 03:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I find the above arguments persuasive. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mit ranks → Massachusetts Institute of Technology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article name is not even "MIT Rankings", instead seems like sloppy search term. Wikipedia is not a search engine Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. This seems like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Huy (Egyptian name) (disambiguation) → Huy (Egyptian name)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target does perform a disambiguation-like function, but there's no benefit from this double-disambiguated redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NAzGuL → Nazgûl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

sTraNGE caPitaLisatION. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Well, this is useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I remembering things wrong, or haven't we had past discussions that established a consensus on these? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useless clutter. Hog Farm (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; meh. Unencyclopedic content from 2005. — J947 ^[cont] 20:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty nonsensical. It's quite hard to imagine someone typing this in in this exact format. Thegreatluigi (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like someone was trying to using alternating uppercase and lowercase to mock it somehow. – numbermaniac 01:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DElEtE. NO ONe WOuLd SEaRcH FOr THiS. JIP | Talk 16:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Which King → Nazgûl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - While I can see somebody making this error, it's so blatant and easy for somebody to spot while typing immediately that... well, the redirect just doesn't appear practically helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we go round making all whichs redirect to their witches, witch I'd rather not Shadowssettle_(talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Before someone creates "The Which Queen of New Orleans". Narky Blert (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. In its current form, it is not an attack on anyone, but it is pointing at the incorrect target as "Obama bin Laden" is much more likely to be an attack on Barack Obama than a misspelling of Osama bin Laden. But to modify the target would make it an attack. Hence there is no suitable target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Obama bin Laden → Osama bin Laden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Obama Bin Laden → Osama bin Laden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could equally be a non-neutral name of Obama. In fact, Urban Dictionary seems to use it as such. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this was nominated for deletion before. It's a common misspelling.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both - It's maybe not that common, but it's honestly rather plausible as a mistake. I'm inclined to assume good faith all around here, including among our readers, and given the helpful-seeming nature of this redirect... deletion seems to be the wrong call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tweaking a bit to note that there's two redirects being considered now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The misspelling was so common at one stage that the US government changed from using "Osama bin Laden" to "Usama bin Laden". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US government used "Usama" long before anyone knew who Barack Obama was [2]. Wikiacc (¶) 19:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect is a commonly used derogatory term for Barack Obama. Polyamorph (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant BLP violation. Dr. K. 12:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – there is the similar redirect Obama Bin Laden. —Quondum 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, added. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATTACK. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. Also implausible typo (the "B" and "S" keys are about 2 1/4 keys apart on the QWERTY keyboard and hard to hit accidentally) WP:R3. Aasim 19:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP violation, probably should've been CSD WP:G10 Shadowssettle_(talk) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G10 unless G10 applies to recently created articles, redirects, or files. Also the s and b keys are a little far from each other making this an implausible typo. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the criterion: Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. This is plausible because many a source has accidentally typed it this way. — J947 ^[cont] 01:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give me a source that says Obama instead of Osama as a typo? OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @OcelotCreeper: Plenty were listed in a previous discussion; however, all of those seem to be archived now. Furthermore, here's a simple google search revealing heaps of articles. — J947 ^[cont] 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments in the previous RfDs. Many a source has made this mistake, and so have the readers. This is a classic case of RNEUTRAL. Delete !voters need to explain – not assert – how this redirect is a violation of BLP and ATTACK. — J947 ^[cont] 01:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I did. It's a common disparaging term used to attack Barack Obama. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also a common typo, and we should be cater to the genuine searches rather than the trollers. From RNEUTRAL: Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. — J947 ^[cont] 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Weak keep: it would be a BLP violation if it redirected to Barack Obama, but it redirects to Osama bin Laden. I'm not sure the statistics about pageviews are relevant though, because they might be from people checking out of curiosity or actually looking for "Obama bin Laden" as the attack version. --MarioGom (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree re: page views and since it's only 1-2 per day it's hardly high traffic. In my view it does more harm than good. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very common misspelling of Osama. Redirects are not required to be neutral. Nothing has changed from last time. feminist #WearAMask😷 03:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATTACK.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CTV's The Big Bang Theory → The Big Bang Theory#International broadcast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect used to point to a section in the article that was removed a long time ago. It's not a plausible misspelling and pageview stats show that it isn't being used so it serves no purpose. AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Brojam (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-refine to The_Big_Bang_Theory#Canadian_ratings because when readers do search this up, it's the best we can do for them. — J947 ^[cont] 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor procedure → Surgery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Surgeries are not usually considered "minor procedures", but the title is ambiguous anyway, so deletion is recommended. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this seems to be a technical term. — J947 ^[cont] 05:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As pointed out by J947 this is a technical term and it's certainly common, along with minor surgery, here in Australia (I don't know about other countries). Contrary to what the nom has stated, surgeries have different levels. Excision of an ingrown toenail is an example of a minor procedure. (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor but I've had a lot of minor procedures) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a comment, I'm wondering now... does anybody else think that the difference between "minor" and "major" surgery is something that deserves its own page? Appears to be a broad concept worth an article? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @CoffeeWithMarkets: The topic feels a bit WP:DICDEFfy for an article, but it might be worth adding a brief description of major vs minor to surgery. They're a bit busy at the moment, but the idea could be raised at WP:Wikiproject Medicine. Narky Blert (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Commonplace term in UK. Narky Blert (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, whatever happens, I think that we shouldn't delete this, although maybe the target should be changed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very plausible search term, and I can't find an article that would be a better target. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I am satisfied with the improvement of this section. No other grievances with the redirect. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Transport News → Public Transport Commission#Publication  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be an unlikely search term Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Transport News" was the name of a publication issued by the Public Transport Commission and as such is quite likely to be used as a search term and is used in two articles.Fleet Lists (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not ambiguous, links to relevant section of article. Caen5120 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am un-withdrawing the discussion after a conversation on my talk page. The sentence long mention of "Transport News" was unsuitably referenced by the only source pointing towards its existence is a reference to itself, and is not necessary to have in the article. With that being said, I have gone ahead and removed the one mention and link to Transport News, as it was an unnecessary recently added tangent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for State Wide, the sentence has been reinstated with improved reference - very notable as far as Australia is concerned.Fleet Lists (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only apparent links are links of the magazine's title in citations. It's a non-intuitive/low value redirect for a defunct publication from a defunct organization. The same name is used by other currently publishing magazines, notably Transport News in the U.K. and others that use similar names, e.g., Australasian Transport News and (the recently closed) International Transport News. Carter (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per reasons given above. Bromptop (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I am satisfied with the improvement of the section. Can now agree that this is the likely target for this phrase, and is unambiguous at that. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• State Wide → State Rail Authority#Publication  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous term for state-wide [blank]s, suggesting deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete State Wide was a publication issued by the State Rail Authority#Publication in the nineteen eighties. Hence the redirect to that link from the Devonshire Street Tunnel article which refers to that publication. That article has been changed to go direct to that article instead of using the redirect.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is interesting – I corrected this typo (maybe not a typo) less than two hours ago. — J947 ^[cont] 05:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. We should simply delete this. Interestingly, 'statewide' doesn't exist. That's more of an ambiguous situation since I believe that multiple business exist by that name, but there's none that I'm aware of called 'state wide'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not ambiguous with this capitalisation, and the use is explained in the article section. See WP:SMALLDETAILS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not ambiguous, links to relevant section of article. Caen5120 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Actually, upon some more thought, the capitalization means that this isn't ambiguous. The redirect goes to the correct sub-section in particular. Yes, it's an obscure publication. Yet the redirect unambiguously does its job, so we shouldn't get rid of it. 14:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)
• Note: Utopes removed the sub-section. — J947 ^[cont] 21:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Apologies, I did not get around to notifying this discussion due to Easter plans. I intended to remove the section before I nominated this redirect for deletion, for the sentence-long section on the publication was an unnecessary tangent from the rest of the article, and was not suitably referenced. The only source provided was that of the article itself, and without any reliable, independent sources for the publication, there is no need to include it in the article. I got ahead of myself when I nominated the redirect for discussion, so I apologize. But the fact of the matter is that the content on this publication was not encyclopedic at best and unnecessary at worst. This is the same case as Transport News, as these were both recently added sentence-long sections about an obscure publication without any proper references. The only difference is that, WP:SMALLDETAILS aside, I can't believe that people searching for "State Wide" are looking for information on an obscure, non-notable publication. There is a case to be made for "Transport News", but we did not have adequate information available for either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The publication has been important enough to be detailed in the official government archives and have its own little description here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - And as such has been reinstated in the article with improved reference - certainly very significant as far as Australia is concerned.Fleet Lists (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reasons given above. Bromptop (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Added to the article (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Matern kernel → Matérn covariance function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "kernel" at the target, and appears to be an unlikely search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an alternate name for the the covariance function, often used in machine learning. I have added it to the article, along with a ref. I think this variant, without an accented e, is a likely misspelling for English speakers. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Francais phonetique → Reforms of French orthography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Français phonétique → Reforms of French orthography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Equivalent to "phonetic French", this phrase is not mentioned in either the English or French Wikipedia articles for the target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per Rosguill. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to French phonology. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned at all in French WP, therefore a highly implausible search term in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - These don't appear helpful given, as stated above, the implausibility. 14:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)

I'd like to add that 'phonetic French' doesn't exist. Neither does 'phonetics in French'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 94 → Cairo (operating system)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Microsoft "Cairo" project wasn't known as "Windows 94". Purplneon486 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I could find no source for "Windows 94" as a name for "Cairo". However, it looks like there was some speculation in 1994 about Chicago being released as "Windows 94". I see no evidence this was considered inside Microsoft, but it was a thing in the press ([3], [4]). --MarioGom (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - The association makes sense, but then I still favor deletion. Minor speculation isn't the same thing as an actual link, and the article mentions as 'Windows 94' nowhere. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Windows 95 (according to the sources I provided) or delete. The redirection to Cairo is definitely wrong. I could only find references about "Windows 94" as Cairo that used this redirect from Wikipedia as their source. The speculation about Windows 94 as Chicago (later Windows 95) in specialized press in 1994 is quite amusing trivia, but it is a so obscure reference that it is mostly impossible anyone tries to look for "Windows 94" when they meant "Windows 95". --MarioGom (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this fandom wiki that cites Windows 94 as Cairo without providing any source at all: [5]. But that does not count. --MarioGom (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If someone finds enough sources to add this info to whatever target article, then the redirect should be re-created. --MarioGom (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Development of Windows 95 , considering as pointed about it was used to refer to the prerelease beta. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. "Windows 94" never existed. JIP | Talk 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to User:Karenviera10/Chasing Coral. Let the student keep their work. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coral Reefs and Coral Bleaching → Coral bleaching  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There isn't anything special about this title in particular as it pertains to the subject, so delete per WP:XY. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The targeted article specifically discusses coral bleaching in the context of the damage to overall coral reefs. See, for example, the particular sub-section: 'Coral_bleaching#Cost_benefit_analysis_of_reducing_loss_of_coral_reefs'. This appears to be mostly appropriate. I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to oppose deletion. I'll maybe invoke WP:IAR over WP:XY in this circumstance. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably should be moved back to User:Karenviera10/Chasing Coral as it is a student exercise converted to a redirect to show where they should have edited, if changes were required. The whole class has been writing essays and putting them into article space. This title is not useful as a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.