Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.


Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • 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 "" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is 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 move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 list[edit]

January 22[edit]

List of shell providers[edit]

Redirect that has no purpose at all. The title indicates a list, but the targeted article does not have a list or anything similiar to the context of the redirect itself. The word "shell providers" appears there. But this is not Shell providers, which is a plausible one to use instead. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Women's March on Washington[edit]

As of 2019, there are already three women's march in Washington DC, not a suitable redirect B dash (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Women's March which should include all of the Marches on Washington (and any that are not included can be added). It can probably be tagged with {{Broad-concept article}} if someone believes there is scope for an article on this topic broadly. -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Probable support This seems to make sense though I'm interested in hearing the basis for any opposition. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ram Man[edit]

Ram Man should redirected into Ram-Man (character) as it clearly about the same character. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Swift Impulse[edit]

Not even mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. The current programming guide mentions a "Late Night Swift" [1] which would be the same as Swift Impulse according to their social media [2], however, if there are no plans to mention that in the article, then there's no point in keeping the redirect. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects created by User:PPdd[edit]

Redirects created by a now-blocked user, not discussed in target article. The last one is an implausible typo. None have incoming links. Place Clichy (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Six times[edit]

A currently blocked user (에멜무지로~enwiki) created this redirect long ago, but I changed its target to Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, however it doesn't have the actual use, except Yukhoe previously that the word means a Korean raw meat dish, not 'Six times'.--TradeJackLandSim (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to 6x as that has a number of possible targets. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Candidates for Speedy Deletion[edit]

This is a redirect from mainspace to category space that concerns project space activity. A 2014 RfD concluded keep on the basis it's useful (I paraphrase) but it isn't anymore: pageviews since Mar 2017 are single figures per month. Time to reconsider a delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep for exactly the same reasons as it was kept last time: we need to give new users who don't understand namespaces a way in to our deletion processes when they find their article is or was nominated for speedy deletion. It doesn't matter that there haven't been very many of them in absolute numbers, but it does matter that those who needed to find it were able to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Little Bang[edit]

Term not mentioned in the target article. The redirect is a WP:SURPRISE since readers looking up this term are most likely trying to find some sort of unique subject comparable to Big Bang. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Quark-gluon plasma; the one source I found [3] makes a mention of little bang in the context of particle physics and draws an analogy with the big bang. ComplexRational (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not retarget to QGP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan[edit]

Delete Descriptive prefixes are not appropriate forms in redirects. Created by User:Neelix. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • For the record, this one isn't "created by Neelix" in the usual sense; the only reason he's shown as the creator is that he moved it to the correct title, leaving a redirect in the process. ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    You're right, of course; struck.UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Chief (Carmen Sandiego)[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn after redtarget as suggested here.

January 20[edit]

Sister Solana[edit]

Term not mentioned in target article. PamD 23:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s not. Here’s some backstory. In December 2018, a few days before Christmas, some unknown hoaxer put an “album” of old unreleased-for-a-reason leaked tracks by SZA (and Beyoncé but that’s another story) onto streaming services like Apple Music under the pseudonym “Sister Solana” leading many people to believe she dropped a surprise album. I created this redirect out of an abundance of caution, because social media was going wild about it. Of course SZA and her record label filed a copyright complaint and it was taken down the same day. So at the most, it should just be a blip in her article. Reliable sources covered it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Alabama (band)[edit]

This redirect was recently retargeted to Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps Alabama (American band) should be moved back to Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be Nirvana (band) and Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title. bd2412 T 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close an old log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Reverse per Tavix and WP:TWODABS: The Canadian band has one album and two singles, and just barely meets the notability threshold. The American band is much better known. --NYKevin 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Special episodes[edit]

Really implausible redirect. Paper Luigi TC 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible Department of Redundancy Department. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Deletes per Special deletes. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Is Special deletes in reference to something? ~ Amory (utc) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It's just word play on "Episodes per special Episodes", sort of WP:PTM-ing the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Cheap to keep, and while the previous content may not 100% be needed for attribution, it doesn't really hurt to keep it. ~ Amory (utc) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless and per WP:MAD. The content was merged in this diff and I would say some of that content still exists at the target in some form, so the redirect is important for attribution. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: involved relist in order to close an old log page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the edit history doesn't need to be moved. I'd be fine with that as a compromise though. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Einstein, Newton, and Autism[edit]

The history of this redirect is an essay that lays out a case for why Einstein and Newton may have had Autism. However, all these years later, there is no mention of Einstein and Newton at the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

10th province of the kingdom of armenia[edit]

No clue what this could be referring to. A Kingdom of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh don't overlap chronologically, so at least I know that the current target is incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tavix: The unsourced Republic of Artsakh#Kingdom of Armenia claims that present-day Artsakh was part of the empire in antiquity. Dunno if that's too tenuous or not, but presumably that's the connection? ~ Amory (utc) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That led me to a bit more digging, and I found Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces, where it lists 15 provinces. The articles for most of the provinces, including Artsakh (historic province), give a ranking (eg: Artsakh was the tenth province (nahang) of the Kingdom of Armenia), but I am having a hard time figuring out what the ranking is referring to. The closest I can find to a reliable source using this ranking is from Utik: According to the Armenian geographer Anania Shirakatsi's Ashkharatsuyts ("Geography", 7th century), Utik was the 12th among the 15 provinces of the Kingdom of Armenia. All provinces give a date of 189 BC, so I don't think it's ranking of when they joined the kingdom (a la 50th State), but I'm not sure what else it could be besides an arbitrary number. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Artsakh (historic province) per Deryck Chan, works for me. ~ Amory (utc) 01:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

List ofsoap operas with LGBT characters[edit]

Implausible misspelling. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 05:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep not implausible, I made it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC).


Retarget to VFD: Current target resulted from the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.F.D., but I think it's rather odd that we have two essentially identical titles going to different places. In 2015, someone agreed with me and did the retarget, but it was quickly reverted. Bringing to RfD to establish consensus on the correct target. NYKevin 02:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slashme and Midas02: Pinging the editors who retargeted and reverted. --NYKevin 02:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Retarget to VFD (disambiguation page) VFD can have many meanings such as vacuum fluorescent display, Virtual Floppy Disk, etc. and not just the various meanings of VFD in ASOUE (Volunteer Fire Department, Very Fancy Doilies, Volunteers Fighting Diseases, etc.) --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Satari (Sub district)[edit]

unused redirect, created in a spate of disruptive page moves Spike 'em (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Besides bringing a possible misspelling for its target, I've also seen this misleppimg also represent a mispelling for "achieve". So, this mispelling seems to be ambiguous in what it could represent. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as plausible misspelling. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep While there are a handfull of uses of it to mean "achieve" the primary use (on a google groups search at least) is very clearly people meaning "archive", so combined with "Achieve" itself being a redirect (to Achievement) I think the best thing to do here is keep it as is. Sometimes when you misspell something you happen to get the correct spelling of something else (e.g. as a kid I used to frequently misspell "shoes" as "shows") and there isn't much we can do about that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep common misspelling, I myself also often misspell "archive" as "archieve" --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Episodes from Ed, Edd n Eddy, Season 5[edit]

Implausible redirect. Paper Luigi TC 08:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Though I have no feelings on whether or not this is redirected or deleted, I am clarifying the implausible statement here. Those Episode pages were created as lists of each episode per season, it was the consensus of the community to have them combined into one Episode list page for all seasons. The redirect is purposeful at the time because of the traffic those pages received that would have otherwise been a dead link, hence the purpose of the redirect. A better statement as to why they should be deleted: Redirect no longer required. «»Who?¿? 16:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

City of Atlanta, GA.[edit]

Excessively implausible orthography. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. No more plausible than CIA., as opposed to CIA or even C.I.A. And redirects ending with periods have a long history of getting deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I must have seen this on a particular website before, but I don't remember where I saw it. I think this is why it's good to keep track of which URLs a particular name form comes from. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see how this is "excessively implausible" at all. It got 14 hits last year, for example, it clearly links to the correct target (City of Atlanta also redirects to Atlanta) and this orthgraphy is used in sources, e.g. Library of Congress, Hathi Trust. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The orthography in both those links is City of Atlanta, Ga. (the state's abbreviation, not its all-caps. postal code). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 14 hits over the course of a year to a target that received 1,676,078 hits last year is excessively implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I was hoping you wouldn't need me to repeat myself, but as happens nearly every time you bring up this fallacy you are wrong - the relative number of people using different targets is irrelevant. What matters is that by deleting this we would, completely unnecessarily be making life harder for people who use this redirect without bringing any benefits to the encyclopaedia or anyone else. There are no maintenance requirements: there is no need to bypass any links to this, it's no more or less likely to be vandalised than any other redirect on the project and in the exceedingly unlikely event the target page is moved a bot will update this redirect so the cost of the redirect is exactly zero and it does help people find the content they are looking for so it's the very definition of WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Given we do not have City of Atlanta, GA I cannot see how the one with the period is more plausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    (previously redlinked redirect subsequently created by another editor; I hold to my delete !vote, as postal codes like GA are NOT abbreviations and so should not have a period) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I recall that there may have been a RfD in the past like this one regarding mailing codes or census codes or something like that. I cannot find it at the moment... Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now, subject to change) per Thryduulf's statement regarding "orthgraphy" in lieu of me finding the discussion which I am referring to. I believe the end result of that discussion was "keep" and included some examples of redirects which would normally seem implausible such as this one (and some contained non-Latin alphabet letters), so I'd believe that there has to be some plausibility in this redirect per either an antiquated use or a current use. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


The term is not mentioned in the target and is not exclusively used in Wilber's work. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Four-year college[edit]

These articles should redirect to the same place. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: why should they redirect to the same place? Do you have better targets in mind? Why does it need to be discussed here? The existing targets appear to be good articles for people searching for those terms. Lithopsian (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete 2-year college and Two-year college since these terms could also refer to Community college. No opinion on the "4-year" ones at this time. In addition, I disagree with the nominator that the "2-year" and "4-year" redirects should target the same place, but now that I'm aware of the "2-year" redirects, I believe that they should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    (Struck our parts that no longer apply to this nomination due to the nomination being split.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Everything at Junior college seems to indeed be two-year, though. That's not true of Community college, so this seems unwise. I'll also register my disagreement with the initial nomination that all four of these should point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Junior college and community college are very nearly the same thing in the US, and generally 2-year colleges, but often very different elsewhere and not necessarily a 2-year college. One or the other still seems like the best target unless anyone comes up with something better. There is Community colleges in the United States - could that be what a majority of people are looking for when they type 2-year college? Lithopsian (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lithopsian, Steel1943, and BDD: Sorry about the nominations. I got confused. Is it OK if I partially withdraw the nomination by withdrawing the four year college redirects, but leave the two year college redirects up for discussion? Mstrojny (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, while you have the two "four-year college" redirects here, I think there is reason to discuss them. See below. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget the two "four-year college" redirects to College. Whether a college is four years or not is not the distinction between a college or a university. Thus, a four-year college is always a college but only sometimes a university. I think those two should therefore be retargeted. --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could anyone be so WP:BOLD as to split this nomination before it becomes even more of a potential WP:TRAINWRECK? Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
     Done I have not modified any of the above comments, since most touch on both the four-year and two-year redirects. Anyone should feel free to modify their own to suit the split nominations, though. This diff shows the single discussion pre-split. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this could remain at College but can also redirect to Undergraduate education. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. another option is Bachelor's degree which implies the four years typical study period, but that would be a degree and not a college. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 18:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to College per Bsherr. IffyChat -- 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Delete: Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 17#SMUX (where I was also the RfD nominator). (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

5-digit numbers that are all the same digit[edit]

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

Throttle (musician)[edit]

The music artist is not mentioned at the target. I would expect something about them at the articles for the record labels they were signed to, but no information there either. (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: Does G7 apply here? I am the creator of this redirect and aside from me, only one other user has changed its target. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, unless Frosteh also agrees to deletion (I've just alerted them to this discussion) this is not eligible for G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as G7 doesn't apply (pending Frosteh's vote) per Thryduulf. There is a mention of the artist at Oliver Heldens, but it's confusing to redirect one music artist to another completely different one from a reader's perspective. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment (yes, my ISP jumps me between IPs): Can someone please keep an eye on this page? Another IP wrote an article over this redirect, which has now been reverted, and it’s likely this might happen again because of this music artist’s fanbase. (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget, there are many other articles for Monstercat artists (I would link the category but don't know how to without setting the category of this discussion page) that redirect to the main Monstercat page, so I changed the redirect when I noticed the inconsistency. My vote would be to keep the redirect but retarget it to the main Monstercat page. Sorry for any trouble I've caused. Frosteh (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem with this action is that Throttle is not even mentioned at Monstercat, and likely won't be mentioned there for a while as he is not a "current artist" (which the list at the moment only contains artists that released on the label in 2019), and there isn't a sufficient source to use to write up a blurb about his time with the label among the other list of referenced artists. Writing up a "former artists" section to justify such a redirect has already proven tedious for users who have edited the page in the past, and was one of the many reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat (3rd nomination) was even a thing. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Fluker (disambiguation)[edit]

Not needed - I created this redirect thinking that Fluker was a disambiguation page but I was mistaken; it is a surname page. Hatnotes at the top of Fluker and Fluker, Louisiana should take care of navigation needs. Leschnei (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep the target functions to disambiguate between articles, it is thus useful for navigation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without any incoming links, it doesn't seem useful to me. --Bsherr (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    Lack of incomming links is not a reason to delete a redirect - many users search for pages ending in (disambiguation) when they know or suspect the topic they want is not the primary topic but don't know what the page title is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
    That's interesting, but I'm frankly still skeptical. What's your evidence that users search with "(disambiguation)"? --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    I do it, I've seen other users do it, and many discussions where this is brought up have comments from others that they do it too. When you've been reading Wikipedia a while you get to know that disambiguation pages exist and that they are a good way of finding what you are looking for when what you are looking for is not (or might not be) the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Keep. As required by WP:DABNAME, after Tavix's edit. --Bsherr (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have converted the target to a disambiguation page, which should resolve this issue. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Laguna Harvey[edit]

A minor character that was removed from the target article three days after this redirect was created. In 2009. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Poison Ivy Gotham[edit]

Incorrect disambiguation that misleadingly implies it's part of a character's name. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Plant Monster[edit]

Too vague, there are many fictional plant monsters. But there's no appropriate article to point this to. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Poisin ivy batman[edit]

Miscapitalised, misspelled, incorrect disambiguation method. Should I have just speedied it? Probably. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dagang Oilfield[edit]

Dagang is at Binhai New Area, Tianjin, China while Daqing is at Changchun Province in the Northeast China, two oil fields are totally different places. See zh:大港油田 (Dagang Oilfield), zh:大庆油田 (Daqing Oilfield), Dagang District. Y814756748 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - incorrect and misleading redirect. -Zanhe (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Term not mentioned at target or anywhere else in Wikipedia. In a Google search it appears only in spam sites which copy WP:RS content and substitute words at random in an attempt to avoid being detected as duplicate content by search engines. Possibly it's a transcription of a foreign word for November that's originally written in some non-Latin script, but I'm not sure from which language, and in any case that would fail WP:FORRED. (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 18[edit]


No mention of Ontari in the target article. This redirect was once itself an article, and the Kapu article listed Ontari as a "subcaste" up to Dec 2011 when removed by Sitush, but no sources were ever cited for any of this : Bhunacat10 (talk), 23:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment In my experience it is not uncommon for an article not to mention a redirect subject. Unless there is doubt that Ontari is a subcaste of Kapu, I should think this would be a useful redirect. —teb728 t c 00:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sources[4][5] ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Financial crisis (2007–present)[edit]

There is no such a thing as a Financial crisis from 2007 to 2019 (or 2020 or 2021) Bertux (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I added three more variants. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Still used in many articles, which should be fixed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee/Banner[edit]

The banner is no longer needed as the WikiProject is now on a subpage of User:Mrwoogi010. Mrwoogi010 21:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

HMS Partridge (G30)[edit]

This should probably be better as a redlink, to encourage article creation. L293D ( • ) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep A redirect is no barrier to article creation. We have a redirect to a class article that covers the technical details of the ship and a one-line history of it. It's already linked from a few articles where it's of some minor relevance. If anyone wants to write a full history for this ship, it's going to be because they've got a particular interest in it beyond that – and a redirect wouldn't deter that. In the meantime, removing the redirect would degrade articles we already have. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I believe this redirect should be converted to an article. I'm making this request here to follow the WP:BRD guideline, as previous attempts by other users have been reverted (one for unrelated sockpuppetry, however). In addition to the games, the character is featured quite prominently in the anime (as a bit of a main character) and in other media (like the incredibly popular Super Smash Bros. series). Greninja is well-known, with sources backing this up (even being featured as the most popular Pokémon of a 700-character survey in Japan). Greninja is consistently featured in Pokémon-related (and other) media, and is more relevant of a character to the world at large than various other Pokémon species that have pages. Edit: See Draft:Greninja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talkcontribs) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep since there is no guarantee that an article will be created and/or that will meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and since this term will continue to be looked up on Wikipedia for the reason alone that this Pokémon is a playable Super Smash Bros. character. I'd recommend creating a draft at Draft:Greninja first (...wait, that exists and is a redirect ... may work to resolve this). Either way, deleting per WP:REDLINK is not really an option in this case due to the popularity of this title as a search term; readers need to go somewhere when looking up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support. The article in the redirect's history looks to be in good shape and has plenty of sources. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ...Just a follow-up, the aforementioned edit is now at Draft:Greninja. I just resolved some WP:CWW issues that resulted from a recent WP:CUTPASTE move, and the edit, as well as the former article, ended up there. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect - Draft does not establish notability yet. Per WP:POKEMON and the WP:GNG, consensus is not to make an article for every single one of these fictional creatures, especially in cases like this, where it’s largely a list of in-game attributes and game appearances. Reception section is very weak, and at least one source (Gamerant) is not considered a reliable source. It’s a valid redirect, so I really don’t think this is the best avenue to discuss this. I’d recommend developing a better draft and then getting a consensus of support at WP:VG by starting a discussion there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just did that! Thanks. Hopefully it better establishes its notability further.
  • Keep as redirect - draft doesn't come close to establishing any real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Its still not there. I think you need to do some research into notability and how to write encyclopedic articles. There’s an entire paragraph in the Reception section listing off how the subject is in trading card games and has its own amiibo (essentially an action figure). That fundamentally not “reception”, nor does it help the case for notability. Large unsourced paragraphs detailing his in-game attributes don’t help either. I dont say this to be mean, but as advice to benefit you - wait and learn how to do this correctly before you end up wasting more of your own time, because you’re not on the right track here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This feels like an AfD in reverse, and given the incremental discussion about the draft article, I think it'll be wise to keep the discussion open for a little longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Electric mouse[edit]

Besides the fact that there have been more "electric"-type mouse-like Pokémon created since Pikachu (like Dedenne), the term could be confused for the subject at Computer mouse or even electric toys that are shaped like mice. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus, he is not a mouse, he is a pika. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Pika or not, pikachu is canonically a mouse pokemon. ~ Amory (utc) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Optical mouse, feasible that some may search for the optical mouse at this title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Computer mouses are "electronic" as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Then how about redirecting to Computer mouse? That covers both electric mice (and a better mousetrap or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I'd consider that a better option since it's a higher-level topic. (I'd think deletion may be a better option to let search results provide answers for the term, but Computer mouse is preferable.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Computer mouse - the only entry on Mouse (disambiguation) that is plausibly electric. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no mention at all of an "electric mouse" at Computer mouse or at Optical mouse per WP:R#PLA. This should be done to show how (if at all) the name is connected to any redirect target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - no compatible target. "electronic mouse" may be could redirect to computer mouse, although same can be said by appending the word to every electronic device in the world. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Page views don't show anyone going there at all until it was nominated for deletion. No one will ever search for this. Dream Focus 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems a reasonable target to me. Sure, computer mouse or optical mouse may be electric mice, but nobody refers to them that way. Each is simply a "mouse" because, by definition, there is no non-electric version. Nearly all references to "electric mouse" are either to pikachu or to "electric mouse traps," the latter of which is an inappropriate target for this redirect. ~ Amory (utc) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)[edit]

RFD-ing this solve it seems that there was prior discussion (per the redirect's edit history) that resulted in this redirect targeting where it currently does. However, it is a bit unclear what the "(identity)" disambiguator is meant to refer to in the present target.

Long story short, this redirect has several incoming links, and the intended target seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Page history for the redirect shows that it started as a redirect Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) created from a move, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) was itself moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Based on what I'm seeing, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) probably shouldn't have been G7'ed in the first place. Pinging SMcCandlish. feminist (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. NC guidelines and MoS guidelines are not the same thing (though the former are, on "style" matters, derived from the latter – they explain how to interpret the intersection of WP:AT and WP:MOS on particular matters). We have no NC page for identity issues, and it's not helpful to redirect to a failed MoS proposal about the same general subject as it pertains to in-article content; that failed proposal is old historical stuff we keep around "just because", and it doesn't constitute advice to follow, or an ongoing debate to take part in.

    Background: IIRC, the failed proposal began as an NC idea then quickly broadened to non-title, in-article content matters, and thus became a MoS proposal. It languished for several years, and I proposed adopting parts of it (into MOS:IDENTITY) a year or two ago, and that idea was rejected, so the draft is just a dead stick now. Given the length and ranco[u]r of debates at WP:VPPOL about such identify matters, this is probably not surprising. It would take mountain-moving consensus at this point to get more identity-related stuff added to any WP:P&G pages.

    As for incoming links, unless they are about the proposal as such, they should be changed to point to WP:Naming conventions (people) if they're about biographical article titling matters in particular, or to WP:Manual of Style#Identity if they're about identity issues in general; those are the actually pertinent, active pages. Some others that might be good replacements on a case-by-case basis are WP:Manual of Style/Biography and WP:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. If WP:Naming conventions (identity) is kept, then I don't object to redirecting it to the failed MoS page, since that's historically accurate because the draft originated as an NC proposal. I just don't think doing that serves any actual editorial purpose.
    PS: "(identity)" isn't a disambiguator, per se, in the name of this page, but a subtitle. I don't know why the NC pages were named in this manner (compare MoS pages, which are in the form "WP:Manual of Style/Whatever" not "WP:Manual of Style (whatever)"), but they were, and oh well.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I propose that Template:A be redirected to Template:Abbr the current redirect is barley used (12 times) and leads to a template that is only used 15 times. The redirect should be pointed to Template:Abbr because it used WAY more (446, 804 times) and is more useful, making the redirect more useful. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This redirect was created as a result of this discussion, and it was discusssed again at RfD in June. – Uanfala (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments in, and the consensus of, the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace current links and retarget to Template:Abbr. If this is meant to be an abbreviation of "abbreviation", then let's have it target the actual template for abbreviations that is well used, instead of an extremely narrow meta-template that gets barely any use. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The redirect wasn't RfD tagged until just now. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much obliged to Uanfala for properly tagging this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

List of positive integers and factors/bottom[edit]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


(Delete) The title is a random alphanumeric sequence that has nothing to do with the .22 Savage Hi-Power cartridge.--RAF910 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The only thing google finds for this exact string (excluding Wikipedia) is (as best I can make out) something derived from the caption of one photograph of sneakers, adding a space between the mm and R finds innumerable different things where one dimension or measurement abbreviated R (usually but not exclusively the radius) happens to be 291.2 millimetres. None of the first ten were a cartridge. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

James Potter II[edit]

James Potter II as a name does not exist except for Wikia pages. The proper name is James Sirius Potter, as it was discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter II. To no surprise the name is not mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

2017–2019 Iranian protests[edit]

I don't think we can have a title covering 2018–2019 protests since we're just in Jan 2019 and there's no unrest, unless users are predicting protests in 2019. --Mhhossein talk 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Mhhossein talk 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Does this count? --mfb (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Move article over redirect per the first sentence of the article: "The 2017–2019 Iranian protests refer to a series of public protests occurring in various cities throughout Iran beginning on 28 December 2017 and continuing into 2019." Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Weakly symmetric matter[edit]

delete - there is no "weakly symmetric matter". It is an expression invented by the first author. If it would be an article it would be a speedy deletion candidate but redirects don't seem to have an equivalent process for invented names. mfb (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia[edit]

Country appended to place name. I don't see the point. No precedent, city-state-country is not the way we link. MB 01:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So we should create a few hundred thousand of these? MB 15:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No. If a human finds any particular one useful then they should feel free to create them, and once created they shouldn't be deleted (assuming there are no other issues with them) but there is no need to create them systematically. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I already changed the link from Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia to Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia, and wouldn't be surprised if someone else changes it to Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia. So there is no use of it and don't see how that even if someone did think it was useful, we shouldn't judge that it really isn't. MB 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said, internal links are no the only reason redirects exist. There are links from old revisions of that page that could be reverted to or viewed, there could be links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. and it's a very plausible search term. Just because you do not find a redirect useful does not mean that someone else doesn't - see WP:RFD#KEEP point 5. Points 2 and 4 also apply. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17[edit]


Generic term that could apply to many things in addition to autos. MB 02:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, Considering both that Restyle doesn’t exist, and it would be best for Wikipedia’s search function to help readers find what they are looking for when searching up this ambiguous phrase rather than being forced to choose from a list of concepts/partial title matches on a list page. (I fail to see how such a page could be a disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Restyling is the Italian term for the word Facelift (automotive), which is also used in Spanish-language media. I thought it interesting, since it is not used in this Wikipedia, redirect it to the English term. --Geom (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC) (Moved comment from Talk:Restyling. -- Tavix (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I just added a comment that the redirect's creator left on its talk page that I believe is relevant to this discussion. As a general note, it is unhelpful to suggest disambiguating without specifying which articles are to be disambiguated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment should this go to Style? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page Style as an {{R from gerund}}. I'm sympathetic to dab arguments, but I think disambiguation should occur at the root word when disambiguating between general concepts like this. Luckily, such a disambiguation page already exists with relevant entries. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Style as suggested by AngusWOOF and elaborated on by Tavix. That is a much cleaner approach than a separate DAB page as I had proposed above. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more chance, I think we can get to some agreement here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This title should lead to a disambiguation page, but whether that is here or at a different title I don't have a strong opinion about. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I can probably live with retargeting to Style, though I don't want to change my vote. This feels a lot like those Neelix redirect. I note that Styling already redirects there, and Restyle doesn't exist, as has already been pointed out. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the current target is valid, and is excluded from the style disambiguation page as it isn't something that "style" can refer to. Nothing else in the disambiguation page appears relevant. If there are other things it can refer to that we have articles about, a disambiguation page that can include these can be created on the redirect. Peter James (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


although "tonelada" is Spanish for tonne, "tonelada" (or its plural "toneladas") are meaningless in English. The word is never mentioned in the article, therefore, there is no reason to be redirected there. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Neither of which apply as the word is used in English. And please check this before issuing redirect deletes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: This is Redirects for Discussion not Deletion. What are you talking about? Nowhere I asked it to be deleted, but to stop the incorrect redirection as it is meaningless in English (regardless how much you are stretching the "meaningful in English"; as Largoplazo said, quotations from Spanish texts are not valid). Secondly, "Tonelada" means the same in Portuguese, and the proposed Spanish customary units is not about Spanish-language customary units but about Spaniard customary units. Furthermore we are discussing a plural form, the fact you hadn't created Tonelada yet says a lot of what you do here. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Then please tell the "Delete" vote below. At 07:41, 25 December 2018 I asked "How can GBook searches with "tonelada is" "tonelada was" "toneladas are" "toneladas were" be "Spanish excerpts"? So how at 18:28 can you asking the above? In ictu oculi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
If he considers deletion is the best (it is a plural, not a singular) it is up to him. I checked the Gbooks. Those are hardly 50 specialized books, it makes little difference to the previous situation--that tonelada is meaningless in English. But it makes it clear you want the term to be a dictionary entry alone, as nothing at Tonne is about the Spanish name. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Also, regarding comments above, it isn't a Spanish weight. It's the Spanish word for the metric ton(ne). The word had a life before metricization—just like the word ton(ne) did. In English contexts, there isn't any particular connection between the Spanish word for the ton and the amount of weight that was considered a "ton" at any time during history. There's no reason to suppose that in commerce between England and Spain 500 years ago, the English speakers in a transaction would have said "tonne", and not "tonelada", any time they were referring to the same unit of measure as the Spaniards were calling a "tonelada" in the context of the transaction. Even if they weren't the same measure, I suspect that English speakers would referred to the Spanish measure as "Spanish tonnes". 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, a search here for "tonelada" shows that it appears almost exclusively (a) within Spanish or Portuguese excerpts, (b) within direct quotations, (c) in articles about the units of measure of specific countries, and (d) in song titles, people's names, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Question: How can GBook searches with "tonelada is" "tonelada was" "toneladas are" "toneladas were" be "Spanish excerpts"? Is/was/are/were are English. And yes obviously "in articles about the units of measure of specific countries" because the tonelada was a unit of measurement of specific countries. WP:NOTDICTIONARY means "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." It doesn't mean that measurement words punto (unit) línea pulgada pie (unit) vara paso (unit) milla (unit) legua (unit) are not encyclopaedic content and must be deleted. On that basis inch would have to be deleted. We'd also have to delete tonelada from Cuban units of measurement if we're not allowing the measurement in en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Notice the difference between "a search here" and "a GBooks search". Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly; Not a significant difference, and our source is WP:RS, Wikipedia is not a source. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
NB a couple of those didn't have articles/redirects so I have created them. Pulgada is now a #REDIRECT to Spanish customary units But the point is if Spanish measurement units are banned from en.wp it's more than one redirect which needs deleting, weu'll be deleting Spanish customary units and all sub articles as well. And for other countries... In ictu oculi (talk)
That may be what is motivating this delete discussion, Shakira fans, but no - doesn't mean anything of the sort, as Spanish customary units indicates. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Mention at & retarget to Spanish customary units, with optional hatnote for any songs or whatever. I'll go dig up some sources tomorrow. Tonne, which refers specifically to the metric ton, clearly isn't the right target. (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 17:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ALL-CAPS with spaces redirects to Wikipedia:Protection policy[edit]

{{R from shortcut}}s are traditionally supposed to have no spaces in them. For all of these, their non-space versions exist. I do not see the usefulness of these since the versions without spaces will be used, and having to maintain these redirects is unnecessarily WP:COSTLY. (All of these were created by the same editor around the same time frame.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep all as harmless per WP:CHEAP. Maintenance requirements are minimal as the targets do not frequently change, links to them do not need to be corrected and they are all plausible search terms leading to the correct target so the argument these are costly doesn't hold any water at all. I tried to spot check the usage of some of them, but the pageviews API seems to be broken at the moment, but I don't see any evidence of them being problematic in the slightest and someone evidently finds them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 22:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Spaces aren't a reason to delete, others have existed for a long time, such as WP:NOT HERE. Peter James (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Help" redirects to Help:Contents or Help:Help[edit]

It's rather confusing that for one, Help:HELP targets Help:Contents instead of Help:Help, the redirect's non-caps equivalent. In any case, my primary opinion is that all of these redirects should target the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Retarget all to Help:Help. Help:Contents has no useful information to justify redirecting, except links to other help pages. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with all going to our main Help:Contents as H:Help is just an info page. If people are looking for help the main page should be linked as it is on our contents sidebar. Going to be bold and fix this now!!. move Help:Help to Help:About help pages and fixed the redirects with the ? and fixed targets as seen here. The last thing we want are people not familiar with our help system redirect thousands of pages to the wrong thing as mentioned above. We could close this now if User:Steel1943 is ok with me implementing hes suggestion. --Moxy (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    It also seems that you removed the {{Rfd}} tags from H:? and Help:? after retargeting them both to Help:Contents. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    What really should have happened is a talk at the help project over a talk here or at least a notification. The reason I was bold is because I saw the suggestion by User:Jalen Folf that would have messed up thousands of info pages and their talk pages. Best bring theses kind of things up at project pages before bring them here. --Moxy (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    That comment you made regarding JalenFolf's vote would have been helpful to form consensus for this discussion prior to the page moves you performed as that comment could/can be used for determining consensus on all of this. In addition, I nominated all redirects, so this is the proper venue to bring this up first; moving pages and targets during an an active discussion fragments and breaks the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    This is the proper venue, as defined at the top of this page: "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed."    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I think all (except WP:Help page which should go to Help:About help pages) should be redirected to [[Help:Contents[[ and a hatnote on the top of this page like "Several titles redirect here. For more about help pages, see Help:About help pages." PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed my mind, i think The Transhumanist's suggestion is better. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion – The context of the help namespace is help on Wikipedia. The main help page is Help:Contents, our help starting point, so, all shortcut equivalents of the F1 key should lead there. It's where the user generally needs to go when they mean "Help me please", as it will direct the reader to more specific pages to address their specific need at the moment. Therefore, redirect all of the above to Help:Contents. Shortcuts to metahelp (help about help) are H:A and H:ABOUT.    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Should be deleted as misnomer. Александр Мотин (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Philippine Americans[edit]

Surely this should point to Filipino Americans instead? The current target is an anomaly compared to all other "[demonym] Americans" article titles. feminist (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)[edit]

Implausible redirect. There is already a page at Maram language, but even that is not a plausible target. (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to the Maram language article it is a Sino-Tibetan language (as are the Kuki-Chin languages) not Austroasiatic so obviously neither of them are the correct target. I can't find information on Ethnologue about any language with this name, other than the Sino-Tibetan language we have an article on. There is though a mention of one at Khasic languages (which are Austroasiatic), I don't know that it would help anyone looking for information about the language though and I can't see what else is available (the table with the mention is referenced but only to an offline source and google isn't showing anything useful). I'm left at delete as misleading without prejudice to recreation as an article if sources are available. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Rd to Maharam language. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Unununium element 111[edit]

Delete. This is a strange title that reads more like a search engine term and that would be inappropriate as an article title (WP:AT), and it is probably no longer even a common search as element 111 has been known as roentgenium since 2003. ComplexRational (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: implausible. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Names are redundant in this title ("gold element 79", "Moscow capital of Russia"). -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Heart pain[edit]

Delete. "Heart pain" can have various reasons, and hence, that term is not to be restricted merely to angina pectoris. Hildeoc (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • This feels like the sort of title that would be best targetted at a broad concept article or set index. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
This could be a dab, referring to chest pain, angina, heartache, or other ideas. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Environmental issues in Europe[edit]

We do not have an article about environmental issues in Europe, and the category targeted by this cross-namespace redirect does not concern environmental issues in Europe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


At the very least this needs a hatnote to Rotator (album) and Rotation (disambiguation) but there are other targets too that might be suitable for dab page - Antenna rotator, Polarization rotator, Kicked rotator, Faraday rotator and maybe others - e.g. I was looking for the type of tow truck, but I don't have time now to fully investigate the options and whether the current target is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Make a dab with a link to the current target. I can't pinpoint the best primary target for the redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DABify many possible meanings. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A draft disambiguation page would be helpful. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreed BDD: "A draft disambiguation page would be helpful".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @BDD and Steel1943: I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect but it requires a significant amount of cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

William henry west[edit]

Combining a second list of unnecessary redirects from implausible capitalisations I reviewed these at NPP but on second thoughts they are beyond what's reasonable:


Not necessary: his notability is entirely from being a policeman, not a soldier. I've just reviewed at NPP a vast number of redirects to this man from likely and (mostly) unlikely variations of capitalisation, initials, "officer", etc (eg William h. west (policeman)), and I really don't see that we need this extra swathe of "soldier" redirects. I'm a great believer in making redirects from plausible alternative titles, but this lot is going too far: was someone trying to make a point? There are a list beyond this in the NPP feed which I will include under this discussion. PamD 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Tweaked and expanded PamD 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • note I've combined these very similar nominations into one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the ones with uppercase "Solidier" and/or lowercase "h", keep the rest as plausible {{R from other disambiguation}} - he was a solider (the article even lists that before policeman) so it's not incorrect and redirects are WP:CHEAP so there is no harm in keeping those that are correctly formatted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • My above comment applies only to the "soldier" list, for the "policeman" list: Delete those starting with "Officer" and/or which are incorrectly capitalised, Keep the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Creator comment A full list of redirects can be found under the collapsed header on the article's talk page. I wasn't trying to make a point, just be helpful as there were other people named William H West and I tend to get frustrated by deficient redirects, esp when I am on mobile and making 15 queries isn't easy. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Can also referred to an author and a character B dash (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep but add a mention of the term into the target article (sources such as thisand this as evidence of its use). We don't take account of topics which aren't in Wikipedia when deciding on redirects etc: if the author or the character get an article, or a mention worth a dab page entry, then create a dab page (or a {{redirect}} hatnote). Until then, the redirects are good once the term is included in the target page. PamD 10:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pam D. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pam D. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15[edit]


Delete Very unlikely natural search term given its length. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, given this is what a googol is. It's plausible via copy and paste, or if someone knows that 1 + 100 zeros has a special name, but doesn't know what that name is. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --B dash (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this one per above. Ben5218 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll take Tavix's word that the redirect contains 100 zeroes ... because of it does, the redirect is accurate and helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I counted the zeros and its accurate (and helpful). Rlendog (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP is not a search engine. If someone has a long number they want to know about, they can try a search engine. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Egg Gang[edit]

No mention of "Egg Gang" in article it redirects to, which is at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@world record egg). Redirect was originally a dup which was then deleted under A10. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep That is the name of the Instagram account which is what the page is about.  Nixinova  T  C  04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete - because it's a joke. WP does not catalog memes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete per ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia. Ben5218 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Delete Yes, that is how you write out 10^60, a British decillion, But no, no one is going to type that many zeros and commas into any search box, anywhere. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely; searches for this number would probably be 10^60 without writing so many zeros. ComplexRational (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for exactly the same reason that the googol nomination above, this takes a searcher to the content we have about this number. I agree typing it into the search box is unlikely but copying and pasting and links are both very plausible ways to reach this title. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Copying and pasting from where? What links? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian: Copy and pasting from anywhere on the internet or offline document where they see it. Similarly links to Wikipedia can be found on many websites on the internet but whatlinkshere shows only links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't think anyone might actually type that in the search box. Ben5218 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --B dash (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because a title is long does not make it implausible. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Thryduulf. It may not be typed in often but there is no reason not to have the redirect for the rare times it is (or copied and pasted). Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page Curation.[edit]

Delete Apparently originally created in error; full stop makes this an unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2019 in basketball[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Votes for Keeping[edit]

This redirect serves no purpose whatsoever and redirecting it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion does not make it any useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the discussion for "Wikipedia:Votes for keep" referred to above as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process per Thryduulf. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only stated reason for retargeting was to keep it in sync with one bizarre peripheral redirect, which has now been deleted. The current redirect, however, is an established historical remnant of the times when its target was known as "Votes for Deletion". Its only in this context that the redirect makes sense, and retargeting it anywhere else would be gratuitous. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugs & Daffy Show[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. However, The Bugs & Daffy Show is a {{R with history}}; per the history, these redirects seem to not be about the subject at Bugs 'n' Daffy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Not nearly so clear cut – The Bugs & Daffy Show is how the Looney Tunes were shown in television syndication (in the 1970s and 1980s?... I think on ABC). Anyway, I'm definitely inclined to Keep these redirects (and then maybe add a mention of this at the Looney Tunes page...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The last sentence of the lead of Bugs 'n' Daffy states that the block was shown on Cartoon Network, which correlates with my memory. —Ost (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Ladyboy sometimes means an offensive term of Shemale. Sharouser (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is another synonym. See Lady Boy (song). Sharouser (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this points to the primary topic for the term, the song is already linked from a hatnote and one can be added to shemale if required. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as primary topic. [6] AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Delete per WP:RDAB: malformed (no space). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Voltron: Defender of the Universe[edit]

Currently Voltron: Defender of the Universe redirects to Voltron. The Voltron article specifically talks about Voltron as a media franchise and the multiple versions while the Voltron (1984 TV series) specially talks about the 1984 cartoon version Voltron: Defender of the Universe is the actual name of the first season of the 1984 version that is the reason why I believe that Voltron: Defender of the Universe should be redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series). }} Dwanyewest (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vehicle Voltron[edit]

Currently Vehicle Voltron redirects to Voltron. The Voltron article specifically talks about Voltron as a media franchise and the multiple versions while the Voltron (1984 TV series) specially talks about the 1984 cartoon version and the second season of the 1984 version was referred to as Vehicle Voltron that is the reason why I believe that Vehicle voltron should be redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series). Dwanyewest (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


There is no reason Go-Lion should redirect toVoltron when Go Lion redirects to Beast King GoLion its a minor difference in spelling. Go-Lion should redirect to Beast King GoLion Dwanyewest (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Equation of State (Cosmology)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB: capitalized disambiguator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: misinterpretation of the guidelines. The guideline only applies to capitalisation errors in the term disambiguation within parentheses, not to any disambiguator word: "the capitalization and spelling errors portion only applies if (x) is an error variation of "disambiguation"". Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a WP:COSTLY redirect due to the use of capitalization in the redirect's disambiguator for a non-proper noun. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep with over 700 hits last year this is an unquestionably useful redirect which is WP:CHEAP. The costly argument is erroneous: the maintenance required is zero, and it's no more or less likely to be vandalised than any other redirect so the actual cost to keeping the redirect is trivial at worst and far, far outweighed by its proven utility. . Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:CVG character[edit]

Unused redirect and not something a reader would probably write as it isn't very clear what the "c" in "cvg" stands for. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Castlevania character[edit]

Unused redirect and not following the convention of prefixing by "infobox". Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


This is a template redirect, a shortcut intended to save typing during the large-scale project of adding short descriptions to ultimately all articles in Wikipedia. However, Gonnym appears not to like this shortcut and has removed the links to it from the project pages Short description and WikiProject Short descriptions. As a shortcut is of little value if no-one knows about it, should this template shortcut be kept (and the links reinstated), or deleted? : Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support deletion Seeing a trend the past few years of templates moving from short, unreadable titles, to clear full word/sentence titles, which I personally agree with, I see no value in having a template, which is used only once per page, be cryptic. If this were a template which was used a lot on the page, I could see some value in the arguments for it saving time, but since it is used only once, better for it to stay clear and let editors know what it is, without them needing to click the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion {{short description}} is clearer in the wikitext; only benefit would be to save typing but one should be using User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper anyhow :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support deletion per Galobtter. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please delete There is enough confusion about the strange squiggles at the top of many articles without adding another layer of obfuscation. A good example of useful obscurity is {{dda}} which is a redirect to {{death date and age}}; the shortcut is useful in tables listing dozens of people along with birth/death dates. However, {{death date and age}} should be used when it appears only once in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cornelia Maria Catharina Andreoli[edit]

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


Not mentioned in target article, though creation edit summary says "Ishyaka FPR-Inkotanyi in kinyarwanda language" - please add this info with a source. PamD 10:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)- edited my own garbled text for clarity. PamD 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Television companies of the United States[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no longer a redirect

Ascending chain[edit]

No mention of term in target article. PamD 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The term "chain" is defined there, and it is easy enough to understand what an "ascending" chain is in the context of a total order. But ascending chain condition is a reasonable target as well. —Kusma (t·c) 13:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: the nominator has the point; I know I have made the redirect but maybe I was little too lazy. The readers may be able to guess the meaning of ascending but that’s a very bad practice (the readers should not be asked to find the definitions themselves). ACC is related but it’s about the condition on a partially ordered set and so it’s not an appropriate redirect target. —- Taku (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Incidentally, there is an article “Infinite descending chain”; what is needed is an article ascending chain and descending chain. —- Taku (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


We don't need redirects from capitalised version of every company name. PamD 10:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

MAS 78[edit]

Term not present in target article. PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

because FAMAS first use in 1978, so they may be called MAS-78, just like MAS-49Scout MLG (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Then mention in target article with reference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Princess Changge[edit]

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


Nokmim is the Hebrew word for "Avengers", it was the name of several Jewish partisan groups in Eastern Europe during the Holocaust, none of which were directly related to the later Nakam group that tried to get revenge. Delete per WP:REDLINK. Catrìona (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the interwikis, the Hebrew wiki link is for HaNokmim, "organized the final stages of World War II and thereafter" -- which would appear to be the relevant concept for this redirect. If User:Catrìona is correct that Nakam should be identified as a different concept, then a new item for it should be created on Wikidata, and the various current sitelinks be assigned to one or the other appropriately. It might be worth starting a new stub here (perhaps based on a translation of the he-wiki article), that these present redirects could be updated to point to. The subject does appear significant. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: The hewiki article on "HaNokmim" actually discusses two separate groups, Nakam and Tilhas Tizig Gesheften, both of which already have enwiki articles. A dab page is a possible solution, but the phrase "(Jewish) Avengers" is probably too vague for a separate dab page from Avenger, considering that across history there are many Jews who have sought revenge for various offenses. And I don't think it would make sense to redirect "Jewish Avengers" or a Hebrew word for Avenger to that dab page, per Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages. Catrìona (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: So, probably makes sense to create a stub-dab at Nokmim (or at one of the terms being discussed), that would pick up incoming interwiki clicks and appropriately dab them. No opinion as to whether it would make sense to include a link from Avenger to that new page, but you may be right that it might be too niche a meaning. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it makes sense to keep Nokmim as stub or dab just for interwiki purposes: the Czech, German, Romanian and Spanish interwiki articles are all about Nakam itself. Besides, as stated above, Nokmim was the name of several Jewish partisan brigades during the Holocaust itself. Catrìona (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or disambiguate "Nokmim" and "Nokim"; disambiguate "Jewish avenger" or hatnote to Goel. The Modern Hebrew name for this group he:הנוקמים transliterates to haNokmim (pl.), i.e. Nokmim (pl.) and Nok(i)m (sg.). If we don't have information about the other Nokmim on the English Wikipedia, then Nakam stands as the primary topic. If we do, a disambiguation page would be appropriate. As for "Jewish avenger", this can also refer to Goel (i.e. "avenger of blood") so disambiguation would be appropriate, whether by a standalone disambiguation page or by a hatnote. Deryck C. 19:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since Nokim and Jewish Avengers were not tagged with {{Rfd}} until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Warsaw Film Festival NETPAC Award for Best Asian Film[edit]

Not mentioned in target buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Network for the Promotion of Asian Cinema (NETPAC). It's not specific to the Warsaw festival, but this would get people to the article that mentions all the venues in which NETPAC awards have been given as well as the actual recipients which is probably what the searcher wants. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Witches' Church[edit]

Implausible search term, not mentioned in target buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Wiccan church as a possible term. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose retargeting to Wiccan church as Wicca is not the only religion with witches. feminist (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for sanction[edit]

This isn't really a useful redirect as there hasn't been ever been voting for sanction in the first place when I look at the history of this redirect. There were only 5 pageviews over the past year which suggests that this redirect isn't really useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Storm of a lifetime[edit]

It can also referred to a book "The Storm of a Lifetime: A Report to U.S. Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis" in 2016, or other notable storms B dash (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-Tropical Cyclone Michael[edit]

Michael in 2000 also became post-tropical B dash (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree with you. Obviously the 2018 incarnation of Michael is the primary topic. It caused over $15 billion in damages and killed 60 people, whereas the 2000 has unknown damages (minimal) and killed nobody. NoahTalk 01:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Crate Amplifiers[edit]

suggest deletion or other more relevant redirect. It appears that Crate Amplifiers are no longer in production, and there is no article currently for the parent company most relevant to the topic (St Louis Music). synthfiend (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

American Studies Journal[edit]

American Studies (journal) (ISSN 0026-3079) is not American Studies Journal (ISSN 2199-7268) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, is the second one notable enough for a stub page? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Based on their self-description, I would say they do. It's got a relatively long history (1960, as the American Newsletter, then American Studies Newsletter from 1983+, then American Studies Journal from 1996+), with circulation in the 20,000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap[edit]

Delete This cross-namespace redirect was created to make a point, according to the edit summary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unnecessary and confusing cross-namespace redirect to an essay page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep because 1) redirects are cheap after all and 2) I'll recreate it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "...and 2) I'll recreate it."??? If there's consensus to delete this, a recreation of it will be eligible for speedy deletion criterion G4. Unless you intend to get the title WP:SALT-ed due to continuous recreations, I'm not clear what purpose that part of your comment served. Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The purpose is that redirects are clearly not cheap as this discussion shows. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I like it. Not sure who would be confused by it. Whatever you do, do not retarget to a mainspace page because that would be confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 10:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A user essay does not merit its own article - not even as a redirect. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete While the joke might have been amusing for a short while, an unused POINT violation has no purpose and should be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The only joke is that redirects are cheap is a policy adhered to when it's convenient for some. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect stock theatre[edit]

Delete "Redirect" should not be part of the article title UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)