Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Contents

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

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

Reasons for 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]

I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

April 20[edit]

Portal:English[edit]

Delete English is a dab; redirect could also refer to Portal:English people. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Vegetable soups in Filipino cuisine[edit]

Declined db-6 by @Spinningspark: based on the rationale that "Article was here for many years, external links may break and redirects are cheap."

1. The length of time an erroneous article stayed up is irrelevant.
2. External links breaking means they can be found faster so they can be fixed.
3. This title is NOT a valid redirect. The previous contents of the page (which was moved) refers to a single specific dish: sinabawang gulay, which I have fixed. This redirect, in contrast, seems to be referring to vegetable soups in Filipino cuisine in general (i.e. a list article). There are many different kinds of vegetable soups in the Philippines. This is merely one of them. Redirecting this title to one specific dish is incorrect. It would be like redirecting Cities of the United States to New YorkOBSIDIANSOUL 12:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

More missing brackets[edit]

Delete all per WP:RDAB and prior concensus. All have missing brackets in the title, no indication that they are in any way useful, no mainspace links and no significant history. PC78 (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Please nominate all of these (and similar ones beginning with letters D-Z in the future) for CSD 6: Housekeeping to save us a repetitive discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • They don't explicity meet any of the WP:G6 criteria, otherwise I would. PC78 (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Fuck Apologies.[edit]

A search will find the target before it finds the errant fullstop at the end of the redirect title. Superfluous in all respects. Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is not "errant" nor "superfluous". The title is "stylized" with a full stop on the cover art and on social media posts and e-commerce listings (iTunes, for example); there are plenty of examples of stylized titles created as redirects like this. Redirects are WP:CHEAP; there is no need to go through and get rid of them all—nor attempt to. Ss112 12:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Egggate[edit]

Useless redirect referring to a hashtag that was made on Twitter about an "egg attack" that occurred during the show's final. Clearly outdated and confusing for most readers. CycloneYoris talk! 09:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Advisor (comics)[edit]

This used to be a separate article, until it was merged into List of Marvel Comics characters: A. It has since been removed for being too insignificant of a character. This redirect was then pointed to a completely different character which has a single mention of it. I have no problem with the list being pruned but I do have a problem with this redirect which can only mislead someone looking for information on this character. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears there are a lot of these, see Adria (comics) which has the same problem. If they aren't notable enough for the list then the redirect should not exist; pointing to a different character article that happens to mention them is a bad idea. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018_December 1#Shirow Ishihara for a similar redirect that was correctly deleted after it was removed from the relevant list. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of Thought[edit]

Delete per WP:SURPRISE; these redirects are not synonymous with their target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-irony[edit]

Term as such not included within relevant target section. No obvious synonymy. Hildeoc (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Armorial of the United States[edit]

I have been largely inactive on Wikipedia for the past year or two. I recently discovered that Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876, a list article that I started, developed, and brought through the FLC process to Featured List, was redirected to Armorial of the United States. The substance of the FL Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 was copied and pasted into Armorial, along with the FL tag. Since this merge the content that was Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 has been hacked to pieces. I think this was an inappropriate redirect and destruction of a FL that was on a very specific aspect (engraving) of coats of arms based on a 1876 publication by engraver Louis Prang.--Godot13 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

KFMASH[edit]

Section heading was added Feb 28th, but no content. Unhelpful redirect until there's some content in the article. PamD 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 77 Spur (Hartwell)[edit]

This highway has never entered Hartwell. It is entirely within rural portions of Hart County. A Hart County-specific redirect has been started. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hartwell is the nearest city. There is no downside to keeping the redirect; the database isn't getting full. --NE2 15:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Queen[edit]

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

  • Disambig. A likely search term, and as long as there are currently multiple relevant portals a dab page makes sense. Iff all the target portals are deleted (which seems unlikely) then this can be deleted as G8. If all but one are deleted then it can just be boldly redirected to that portal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It's almost a random word. There are also portals for Portal:Queen Elizabeth II and likely more. Let search do it's job. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also Portal:Queens is a DAB page. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't put it more succinctly than Legacypac - "let search do its job".  — Scott talk 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Closure conversion[edit]

From the target page: “Lambda lifting is not the same as closure conversion.” Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Vivienne(2005)[edit]

Here is another batch of tropical storm related redirects with a spacing error before the disambiguator. -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all of them due to spacing error. CycloneYoris talk! 02:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Cv[edit]

Seems more appropriate to redirect to Template:Like resume, as CV is another name for resume. Launchballer 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • No opinion but on Wikipedia CV means CopyVio Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: For what it's worth, at the present time, this redirect has no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't suppose it would! It was my understanding that warnings were supposed to be substituted.--Launchballer 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    The only reason I stated what I stated is to show that this redirect is safe to delete or retarget since it has no transclusions (which is a rather valid concern since retargeting a transcluded redirect potentially breaks things.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. WP:XY applies here. feminist (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Lexit[edit]

Not mentioned in the target, or in the body of any other articles with the exception of Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) and Issues in anarchism, neither of which would be an appropriate target. A soft redirect to wikt:Lexit might be a possibility. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – Never heard that word in umpteen hours of reporting on Brexit. Made up by some editor? — JFG talk 06:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – it is very much a real word that was used during the referendum campaign by left wing Eurosceptics. A Google search proves as much. --RaviC (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the word was fairly widely used in 2016 and, as I said above, is mentioned in two articles. That doesn't however mean that redirecting it to an article that doesn't use or mention it is helpful: if a reader searches for this term then they're most likely to be looking for a definition and/or encyclopaedic information about it, neither of which is provided by the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I see. Originally, there was a reasonable amount of content regarding Lexit in that article. Since it has ultimately been removed, a retarget is probably due. --RaviC (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very much a real word, and still in use among commenters on political threads in UK newspapers. Mentioned in 10 WP articles. A likely search term.
I propose retargetting to Brexit#Terminology and etymology, and adding a brief definition there with a couple of citations, e.g. this (The Guardian, 2015), this (BBC, 2018), this (The Guardian, 2018), this (The Independent, 2018) and this (The Guardian, 2019). (There are mentions in The Telegraph and The Times also, but behind paywalls.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a good solution, but it should be noted that there are also uses of "Lexit" to refer to EU exits other than the UK's (it's hard to remember now but before there was Brexit there was Grexit; Nexit and Irexit also exist). See Socialism Today on Greece, Yanis Varoufakis on a sentiment in the wider European left. So I think a section in Withdrawal from the European Union would be a more appropriate target than the UK-specific article, if one could be written (though Grexit actually points to an article about a Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone, which is another process again). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we're getting somewhere, but could maybe use some further discussion to narrow down the options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump riots[edit]

Seems no riots occur in any protests against Trump, may be misleading B dash (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per the lede, Some protesters have been criminally charged with rioting. The article uses the word "riot" seven times (references excluded). -- Tavix (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Police authorities have labelled some protests as "riots," such as in Portland. Marquis de Faux (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)[edit]

Delete Strange cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: the reason for this redirect's existence is explained by its author in the creating edit summary. I have no particular thoughts in this discussion, just wanted to make sure everyone is aware. Geolodus (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Geolodus: Resolved (redirect bypassed per Wikipedia:Transclusion: This redirect has no remaining transclusions.) The creator could have just transcluded the article instead of create a new cross-namespace redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Template:Lepidoptera because it exists. Steel1943 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete an extremely unlikely search term and useless for linking Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nunquam[edit]

It isn't clear why this redirects here, rather than, say, The Revolt of Aphrodite. --woodensuperman 14:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not just make another redirect for Nunquam (novel).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) previously User:FFS
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Eurasian Economic UnionEAEU[edit]

Implausible redirect - It consists of the phrase 'Eurasian Economic Union' followed directly by the abbreviation 'EAEU' with no spaces in between. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 13:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very few, if any, readers are ever going to type something like this into the search box. Geolodus (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hamburder[edit]

Nothing in the target article explains, or even mentions, the term. PamD 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

P45 misspelled hamburger as hamberder on twitter when he hosted the Clemson football team.[3] It became a meme, similar to covfefe.[4] 53zodiac (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Hamburger as a {{R from misspelling}}. Given that the redirect is a misspelling of a misspelling, it would make sense to point it to the original meaning over the misspelled meaning. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep only Trump would make this mistake. The error made it to an SNL sketch. Anyone searching this specifically will be well served at the target. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This isn't the mistake that Trump made though. That mistake was Hamberder. The redirect being discussed is a different spelling: Hamburder. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it needs to be mentioned in the social media article for it to have a meaningful redirect, otherwise it could be a portmanteau of hamburger and murder, which is something completely different. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Edited article Donald Trump on social media#Satire, archives, and reactions to include reference to SNL "hamburder" gameshow 53zodiac (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • SNL spelled it the same way Trump did, which was "Hamberders", not "Hamburders". -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • A misspelling of a misspelling is simply nitpicking. News websites have used both hamberder and hamburder in articles about P45, and most people who search for "hamburder" on wikipedia would expect to find some info on Trump.[5] [6] [7] Keep. 53zodiac (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix, or delete per nom. This meme got nowhere near as much covfefecoverage as covfefe did. IffyChat -- 13:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trump's hamburders gaffe was notable enough to receive coverage on SNL. 53zodiac (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely typo. Peter James (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Why was this even nominated for deletion in the first place, rather than simply requesting clarification of the term on its talkpage? After three relistings there is still no clear consensus. Keep the redirect as it is, and stop wasting my time and everyone else's. 53zodiac (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Lambda Omega sorority Norroena[edit]

Created for Research for the Lambda Omega sorority which started as Norroena and which eventually folded into Theta Upsilon. Article on Lambda Omega has been created since which goes into this. Naraht (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Lambda Omega per nom. It's explained at both articles but going immediately to Theta Upsilon would be a bit of a surprise. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible search term under the current title: (sorority name) + "sorority" + (former club name). -- King of ♠ 04:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per King of. There is no usage of this specific phrase outside of Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WEAK[edit]

I attempted to retarget this unused shortcut, and created a new one for the current target, but those changes were reverted, apparently for the sole reason that they were not discussed first [9] so here we are. Neither essay is high-impact, but, despite what is implied in the message I received, nothing was harmed because the shortcut had never been used, and I simply think it makes more sense redirected to the WP:STRONG page, and I created WP:WEAKPA as a new, more specific shortcut for the other essay. (note that the previous RFD on this redirect predates the creation of either essay and is therefore not relevant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget as originally proposed: it's hardly an established shortcut when it's unused, and the proposed changes would appear to be both an improvement and sensible. ——SerialNumber54129 12:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The original configuraiton aids searches (#3), is useful (#5), and is closely related to the word form of the essay (#6). The redirect has been in place to its original essay since July 2017, and points to an essay that has been around just as long. That original essay has been edited by 18 unique editors (I am the original author) and is included on Template:Civility, showing that it has support in the community. Over 800 pages link to the original essay and until yesterday WP:WEAK was its only shortcut. The new proposed target hasn't even been around three months, only has one author, and has links to 14 pages (and it appears that some of those are older than the three months) Such a change is disruptive to Wikipedia and should be avoided. Plus, as this page states: "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."--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's look at those arguments one by one:
  • I can't see how it aids searches since it is unused, there is no reason to belive the new shortcut I made is any less helpful, and in fact more clearly refers to that specifc essay.
  • How many people have edited each essay does not seem the least bit relevant, neither is the relative age of the two essays as all we are talking about here is where the redirect should point.
  • There is nothing disruptive about changing a redirect that isn't linked anywhere, which is what is proposed here, not deletion.
I think that about covers it...Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Response very simple, actually...
  • It aids in searches for editors who remember the shortcut keyword WEAK which is already established. Just because the shortcut link itself is not embedded in other content does not mean that it isn't used or useful--best practice is to avoid the use of redirects if at all possible when editing. Plus the daily pageviews on the essay's talk page show that it gains a good amount of traffic. Plus, the shortcut averages about 10 pageviews per month according to statistics. Certainly not a huge volume, but definitely not "unused" by any stretch.
  • The number of people involved in the essay is extraordinarily relevant. Sure, I was the original author but other editors have found it valuable enough to contribute to the essay--to mold it and shape it into something more driven by consensus; the new essay is nothing more than the contributions of one editor (plus now a grammatical error change from a second). It's not in the Template:Wikipedia essays so it's not really gaining any ground.
  • It's disruptive because the established essay has the history, and users of that essay would have to remember a different search term. For that reason, we don't move shortcuts without first having a discussion. The "apartment" (so to speak) is already occupied.
  • Another point--The new essay is strikingly similar to the shortcuts WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:NOREASON that redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This essay section contains the exact same concept as the proposed target essay and therefore seems redundant and should probably be deleted or merged. The same ideas are already expressed in another place with established shortcuts. There's no need to change the shortcuts because one editor wrote the same thing in a separate essay. That, too, can be disruptive. I think it may be best to consider deletion of the new proposed destination, or possibly merging the content to the larger and more widely accepted essay.
  • Still another point: checking the history of the proposed essay, we can see that the original author did not think much of this essay during its creation. Comments like "may write more later but this is basically it" and "shortcut to this highly important essay" show a sense of apathy toward its creation. The "weak" references weren't even added until yesterday (after the original author let the essay sit untouched for several months). It doesn't look like there's much enthusiasm at all for this work from its lone author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
One more comment, I do not get a sense of any "bad faith" here -- I believe that the proposed changes are made in good faith, I just believe that they should not be executed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Just FYI: you come across as being very condescending, starting with your talk page message to me, right up to this last remark. I'm not usually a fan of pissing contests but for the record I've been an admin for nearly a decade and on the functionaries team since 2010, not some new user who just doesn't know what's going on as you seem to keep implying. So, let's not make this personal, because it isn't, it's a discussion about a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If so, I apologize. I don't think I could be more polite. I made no presumption about any history of your editing, but I must point out that there is no WP:SENIORITY on Wikipedia and the best argument should be used regardless of its source. The points I have presented still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There's no seniority; but experience is a tangible thing. As Beeblebrox is trying to tell you :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
All of these personal comments about experience are variations of WP:ADHOM (arguments to the person), specifically listed as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggest WP:BLUDGEON is also required reading. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

The Greatest Hits (Boney M. album)[edit]

There are 2 " The Greatest Hits" albums by Boney M. The Greatest Hits (2001 Boney M. album) and The Greatest Hits (1993 Boney M. album). I see no reason to redirect them to any of those. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

James Silcox[edit]

Convicted serial killers do not need, as a matter of course, to automatically have a permanent redirect from the name of every individual victim they killed. The victims are not famous in their own right, and are extremely unlikely to ever actually be searched for by users expecting to reach an article that way. And we doubly don't need such redirects to be categorized for life trivia, like their birth year and birthplace or their prior occupation, that isn't even reflected or sourced in the article at all. (Category:Tinsmiths, for example, is supposed to contain people who were notable as tinsmiths, not non-notable tinsmiths like Maurice Granat who exist only as redirects to notable murderers.) While Category:Canadian murder victims does contain some other redirects, those are from "Name of Victim" to "Murder of Victim", not from "Name of Victim" to "Name of Murderer" -- the Wettlaufer batch are literally the only ones that are doing the latter thing at all. So these simply aren't serving any genuinely useful purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is Wikipedia practice to have redirects of murder victims linking to the perpetrator article (or vice-versa). Whether or not the perpetrator has one or several victims is irrelevant, in fact you could make the case that serial killers are generally more notable than regular killers and thus their victims are of just as much significance as an individual who was the sole victim of a particular murderer. About the only time where we might not have redirects is when victims are not named in the article, perhaps in a case of a serial killer with hundreds of victims and where perhaps they'd only actually been directly convicted of the murder of say a dozen of them. However, you'd still see all the victims who were part of the conviction/capture named in such an article, and thus there would still be many names of victims redirecting to the article. As for usefulness, well plenty of people might remember the name of a victim but not that of their murderer, and thus the redirect is useful. As for categorisation, Wikipedia consensus is that we do indeed categorise such redirects unless there was some particular strong reason against doing so. One useful function of Wikipedia categories is that redirects show in italics, and thus readers can still easily distinguish between entries that go directly to articles and ones that redirect elsewhere.Shakehandsman (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, no, it is profoundly unlikely that anybody outside of a victim's own family would remember the name of a serial killer's victims more readily than the actual name of the actual killer — if the killer is famous enough to actually have their own standalone Wikipedia article at all, then their name will be well-known to the public. In any case where the murder victim is genuinely more famous and notable than the killer, such as Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena, the article is by definition located at either "Name of Victim" or "Murder of [Name of Victim]", and never at "Name of Killer" — and neither Shepard nor Teena were victims of serial killers, their fame as murder victims accrued because they were standalone murders. But for serial killers, go ahead and name me just one of Jeffrey Dahmer's or John Wayne Gacy's or Bruce McArthur's or Ted Bundy's victims without looking them up first.
Secondly, most serial killers do not have redirects from the name of each individual victim. So no, it's clearly not standard "Wikipedia practice" to do so, if we verifiably usually don't.
Thirdly, it is also not standard practice that redirects always have to be categorized like regular articles, either. Redirects may be categorized if there's a navigationally useful reason to do so, such as the redirect represents a title that people might actually be looking for in a category where the target page would be out of place, but there is no rule that redirects are always or even usually required to be categorized at all. And even if they are being categorized, redirects should certainly still not be categorized on points of information, such as their pre-death occupation or their place of birth, that are not actually reflected or sourced in, or even really relevant to, the target article. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Queen Elizabeth II[edit]

Pointless WP:Cross-namespace redirect. If we created redirects to mainspace from possible portalspace searches, we could have billions of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

CP([edit]

Delete. Unhelpful typo of "CP9" (so the intended target should really be List of One Piece characters#CP9), but could also be interpreted as a typo of other things, i.e. CP, CP(BSTI), CP(B)U, etc. PC78 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Psionic storm[edit]

An ability name that is not covered or even mentioned at the target article. Briefly mentioned at StarCraft in esports but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Lightwhip[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. Has a brief mention at Betrayal (Star Wars novel) but there's not enough to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Psionic Spirit Blade[edit]

I think this is some old D&D meme item? Not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia, unsurprisingly. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Some role playing games used that as a non-copyrighted/trademarked name for a light sabre. It was later referenced in The Gamers film franchise. If someone is searching for what one is, the redirect just sends them over to Light Sabre.Sturmovik (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars lightsaber redirects[edit]

All of these redirects refer to content that used to be at lightsaber combat, which was merged into the lightsaber article at some point and has since been completely removed. There is no mention of any of these terms. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

High General[edit]

A fictional rank that is not mentioned at the target article or any other Star Wars article. This isn't even unique to Star Wars. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gargantuan (Battle Platform)[edit]

A minor Star Wars vehicle, like those listed below, but pointing to a different target. This target makes no mention of it. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Heavy Missile Platform[edit]

Doesn't appear to be mentioned at the target article, and the term is far too vague to be of any use. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars vehicle redirects[edit]

Various minor fictional vehicles that haven't been mentioned at the target article for over 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Conduction block[edit]

  • Delete - conduction block is not exclusive for heart block. It can also refer to block of nerve conduction in other tissues (examples [10] [11]) Coming from the link in Neuromuscular-blocking_drug, current redirection confuses the reader. ycanerol 16:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nerve block - don't see why that wasn't just done in the first place. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambig could refer to nerve, heart and possibly more. I don't think there's a clear primary target here; would lean towards heart if had to choose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hope more user comment on it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"John"[edit]

I think I've seen redirects-in-quotation-marks discussed before in RFD, and deleted. I came across this one as an ambiguous link to a song, which I replaced by a link to "[[John (Someone's song)|John]]" to one or other of the entries on the DAB page. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep If "Heroes" (David Bowie album) is an acceptable title, "John" is acceptable for John (Lil Wayne song), a redirect to it, or a disambiguation page that includes it. Peter James (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I take the point about the Lil Wayne song stylisation, but whereas ITunes and Amazon both do use quotation marks for the David Bowie album, they both don't for the Lil Wayne song. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Dunne D.10[edit]

Delete to encourage article creation. D.10 is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have now added it to the target and given a reference. A standalone article is unlikely, as so little is known about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. To clarify my vote. Very, very little about the D.10 is to be found in RS and even that is not wholly consistent. It is generally treated as a variant of the D.8 and so no standalone article is ever likely to be created for it. It is now mentioned accordingly in the Dunne D.8 target page, and cited. Perhaps I should declare an interest here: I have studied Dunne's original papers and I can confirm that this situation is unlikely to change. If it does by some miracle, then that miracle will also ensure that no encouragement will be needed to convert the redirect into a standalone article. The rationale put forward for this RfD is both misplaced and obsolete and any burden for further discussion lies with those who would delete a useful redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana[edit]

Delete redirect to create the new page for Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana which redirects to Agricultural insurance in India. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is special insurance scheme in agriculture sector and its a big deal and needs a separate article. Rocknstone (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural: The redirect was not tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 00:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep You don't need to clear out the redirect to start a new article, just take the existing redirect and expand it out. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Tropical Storm Toraji(2007)[edit]

Here are some more tropical storm related redirects with a spacing error before the disambiguator. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete the whole lot as implausible search terms. JIP | Talk 20:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, not useful. PC78 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them. CycloneYoris talk! 02:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Unexpected Love (2016 film)[edit]

This film appears to have been struggling for a release since 2016 and the article just gets moved every year. Since it wasn't actually released in any of these years the redirects are misleading. PC78 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian Royal[edit]

May be confused with Monarchy of Australia B dash (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, but potentially hatnote to alleviate potential confusion. If someone is searching "Australian Royal", the most likely usage of that exact phrase would be the currency. I don't think they would be looking for the Monarchy or Monarch itself. To demonstrate, I think it's telling that similar redirects like British Royal and Canadian Royal, etc. don't exist. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Iran Football's 1nd Division[edit]

Created by a relatively inactive user, over 3 years ago. Had one unnecessary inlink as a pipelink that named the target article, which I fixed to point at the target, so it is now no longer used. 1nd appears to be an unlikely misnomer for 1st (i.e. it should show the editor a redlink so they fix it). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. No one is going to use "1nd" as a search term. JIP | Talk 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible. GiantSnowman 11:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

1nd Libyan Division Sibelle[edit]

Created 6 years ago, apparently by mistake. Has no inlinks. 1nd appears to be an unlikely misnomer for 1st (i.e. it should show the editor a redlink so they fix it). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. No one is going to use "1nd" as a search term. JIP | Talk 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Assassin[edit]

Assassin currently redirects to Assassins, an Islamic sect. However, pretty much every single incoming link (of which there are loads upon loads) is instead intended to mean assassination, the murder of a target for political, ideological or monetary reason. Therefore I propose changing the redirect to assassination. The page Assassins could perhaps also be moved to use the original Islamic spelling. JIP | Talk 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to assassination per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think Assassin and Assassins should be about different topics, but I agree the current set-up is not ideal. I think the best solution would be to move Assassins to Order of Assassins (WP:NATURAL), move Assassin (disambiguation) to Assassin with prominent links to Assassination and Order of Assassins, and retarget the resulting redirect at Assassins to the disambiguation. That way all the incoming links would then be picked up by WP:DPL. -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This sounds indeed like the best solution. Having the singular and multiple form of the same noun as different targets is usually wrong. I can only think of a single counterexample: Transformer (electrical device) vs. Transformers (robot toy franchise). Therefore it would be best to have Assassin and Assassins point to the same target, retain the article about political murder at Assassination and move the article about the Islamic sect to Order of Assassins. JIP | Talk 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Making Assassin a dab page is a terrible idea per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Pointing to the disambiguation page in a hatnote is enough. SpinningSpark 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. I'd also support moving Assassins as well. PC78 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. I'm in two minds about retargeting Assassins. I get the point about them having different targets, but most of the many incoming links seem to be aimed at the correct target and it is less likely that if assassination was intended that the plural would be typed. A lot of links would need to be edited. It's been at that title for a long time, so there is also the risk of breaking external links. On balance I'm against retargetting that one. SpinningSpark 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Norwegian Civilian Marksmanship Association[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources, and searches have included specific site:.no searches, that have translated Det frivillige Skyttervesen to "Norwegian Civilian Marksmanship Association". Sam Sailor 07:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The name "National Rifle Association of Norway" is used on this old web page of the organization itself. [1] It is also the name used in English publications by the Norwegian Government itself, which both founded and continues to fund the organization.[2][3] It is also the English name used within the World Forum on Shooting Activities.[4] Sauer202 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Interior solution[edit]

"Interior solution" has two meanings. Current redirect reflects specific example of one meaning. Current redirect target is not a primary meaning. --Sugyoin (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First meaning is a "interior part of the solution". Current redirect is a specific example of this meaning. There are other usages of this meaning.(Local Effects in the Analysis of Structures, Ocean Hydrodynamics of the Japan and East China Seas). Second meaning is an antonym of corner solution. Second meaning is important in economics. --Sugyoin (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So I support Disambiguation. It's hard to determine primary topic. (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#No primary topic)--Sugyoin (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Make dab page, or otherwise disambiguate, but note that the putative second entry Interior solution (optimization) is up for deletion at AfD. However, even if deleted, the entry could still point to Mathematical optimization which explains this meaning (and does a much better job than the article up for deletion). I'm not entirely convinced that the first putative entry (stellar modelling) is not just a plain English usage of the term, but it is bolded in the target article (ever since creation in 2005) and is used by multiple RS on the subject so I'm AGFing that one. SpinningSpark 14:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. As the current redirect would be the primary topic (being a standalone article). Then hatnote the primary. Onel5969 TT me 23:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Education in Nepal[edit]

Delete as misleading cross-namespace redirect. Per WP:SURPRISE, when you click on a Portal, you expect to land on a portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Mouse Genome[edit]

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

Template:Three Men in a Boat[edit]

I believe that this redirect should be deleted. The result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_16#Template:Three_Men_in_a_Boat was merge. However, when templates that I have created for similar subject areas have been up for discussion, the result has generally been to merge the content and delete the page. There is obviously a trivial edit history involved as an artifact, but that has not been an issue in similar TFD and CSD outcomes. N. B. Three Men in a Boat (1920 film) is the only article space use of this redirect and it should just be replaced by the target like all other uses have been.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hara (film)[edit]

As far as I can gather, Hara was an early title for Dheera which is a now-shelved film by this director. Given that this abandoned project isn't mentioned at all in the target article, I don't see how this redirect is useful, especially as it has no significant history. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

More missing brackets[edit]

Delete all per the outcome of similar RfDs, i.e 2019 February 25, 2019 March 5, etc. All are missing an opening bracket in the title, no indication that they are in any way useful. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

🌼[edit]

Redirects to Blossom, but the reader could be looking for Flower instead. Either way, it's confusing. ToThAc (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per Emojipedia, this emoji is defined as a blossom. -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm also fine with a retarget to flower per Plantdrew, especially since Flower has blossom bolded in the lede. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to flower? Blossom overlaps quite a bit with cherry blossom. Cherry blossom has it's own emoji, 🌸. is the generic flower unicode symbol, which redirects to tulip. I'm not sure that the blossom article is necessary (rather than having it as a redirect to flower); while some incoming links do intend blossom in the sense given in that article, many are intending flowers. Most renditions of 🌼 depict something that's clearly in the daisy/sunflower family (Asteraceae), which doesn't produce blossoms in the sense used by the blossom article. Plantdrew (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • targeting Tulip was a recent retarget which I've reverted back to Flower. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to either flower or daisy not sure what one is better as emojis can vary by device Abote2 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but add a hatnote to flower. The uses in the real world seem to predominantly mean "blossom" per the definition, but it can be used to mean flower so a hatnote to the secondary meaning is most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unicode says the CLDR short name is "blossom." Many vendors use the CLDR name for sutocomplete, so we should match that. Vendors can interpret the short name visually how they want, like how Apple can make 🔫 look like a squirt gun, but it's really "pistol." I agree that on most platforms it looks more like a flower than just a blossom, but I think Unicode is the authority we should use. --Nessie (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti sexism[edit]

To where should these redirects point? The first 2 used to point to Sexism but I retargetted them to the disambiguation page Anti-sex because I considered them to be ambiguous. The 3rd is a new creation. My retargetting was undone by @Flyer22 Reborn:, so bringing here for discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: You were pointing these pages to the Anti-sex disambiguation page, which currently lists "Anti-sexism, against sexism" because you added it there. So you were taking readers away from the page on Sexism, where it's easy for them to deduce that "anti-sexism" means "against sexism" to a disambiguation page that states "Anti-sexism, against sexism." That is circular and unnecessary. And I see nothing ambiguous about "anti-sexism." I also don't see how anyone can think of "anti-sexism" when thinking of "anti-sex." That listing should be removed from the disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I considered it to be ambiguous with Pro-feminism: various groups coined and defended other terms like antisexism and pro-feminism. Anti-sex disambiguates anti-sex, antisex and antisexism. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep pointed to sexism Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

300-metre tower[edit]

No mention in the target article. Further, three towers are on the List of tallest towers with an exact height of 300 meters, thus making it difficult for this to redirect to any one of them. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: It is easily sourceable that the Eiffel Tower was referred to as the "300 metre tower" in the conceptual stages before it acquired the name of its architect. It should also be noted that the Eiffel Tower predates any other 300-metre tower, as building something 300 meters high was thought impossible before the Eiffel Tower's completion. And if you believe that the phrase "300 meter tower" is ambiguous, then this should be turned into a disambiguation page, not deleted. pbp 13:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: If it's easily sourceable perhaps you could edit the article. If you were to do that I'd !vote keep with an explanatory {{redirect|300-metre tower|other towers|List of tallest towers}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There are many other towers that are also 300 meters Abote2 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but add the hatnote per PuprbleBackPack and Shhnotsoloud. No cause for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's hard to think of many landmarks that are as well-known as the Eiffel Tower so I can't believe that this redirect is useful to anyone. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi Mirpuri[edit]

Propose deleting per WP:XY. The redirect is apparently a misnomer for Mirpuri Punjabi, which is one possible way of referring to the Punjabi variety spoken in Mirpur (which is described in the target article). However, this is not plausible as a misnomer, and if there actually were such a thing as "Punjabi Mirpuri", it would more likely be taken to instead refer to Punjabi-origin inhabitants of (any of the number of places known as) Mirpur. – Uanfala (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Lower Decks (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)[edit]

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

2012 Southern California hurricane remnants[edit]

Not a formal redirect and unlikely to be searched and used. B dash (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: Ambiguous redirect, doesn't refer to any hurricane in particular which could be misleading to most readers. CycloneYoris talk! 19:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Vamco(2009)[edit]

Redirects are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Typhoon Vamco (2009), I see no reason why we should keep this B dash (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect with obvious format error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, malformed redirect. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Urduja(2009)[edit]

Redirects are not properly written. Title has no space between name of the storm and the year. Properly titled redirect already exists which is Tropical Depression Urduja (2009), I see no reason why we should keep this B dash (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete redirect with obvious format error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, malformed redirect. PC78 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Main apge[edit]

Implausible misspelling. I can't see this being used very much. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete unlikely typo, not needed --DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Used 78 times last year. I often find typos with two letters transposed, and the Main Page is a common destination. Art LaPella (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: Given the frequency with which people visit the Main Page, even implausible misspellings show up on a regular basis. --Carnildo (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – Are you seriously telling me that readers would be unable to find the main page without this misspelled redirect? I think not. Furthermore, we do not need a collection every possible misspelling of an article title, just in case someone makes a typo. As with any search, if you don't get what you want on the first try, you check what you typed and try again. Out of the tens of millions of readers annually, 78 people is a fraction of a insignificant number, and that alone doesn't justify keeping this. And lastly, just because something is plausible doesn't mean it is necessary.Senator2029 “Talk” 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not think this should be deleted as I think it is a plausible redirect Abote2 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pageviews show very few searches per month, so I think it's safe to say that the typo is implausible. ToThAc (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete redirect with obvious format error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Art LaPella's page view stats. This is not a common error for such a high trafficked page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not like the main page is hard to find. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete -- even if it were a useful typo redirect (it isn't) I don't think there should really be redirects to the main page considering how easy it is to get there --204.98.170.118 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Driest continent[edit]

This should probably be retargeted to a list of continents or something, because many continents like Africa for example, are also quite dry. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know whether it is a useful redirect, but if kept it should definitely go to Antarctica rather than a list. Many places can be quite dry, but some will be drier than others, and one (unless there's a tie) will be the "driest". CMD (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article does say, with a source, that "Antarctica, on average, is the coldest, driest, and windiest continent". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as an entirely plausible search term. Goveganfortheanimals, if you think Africa is "also quite dry" I take it you've never been there. (Africa has precipitation of 740 mm/a, roughly the same as Europe or North America; for comparison Antarctica has precipitation of 110 mm/a.) ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Karl Ivanovich May[edit]

Unreasonable redirect (notable person -> semi-notable school named after the person) Zocky | picture popups 13:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm torn between keeping this as a redirect to the section of the article that is most about the person and deleting per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep until an article is written on him because the target offers a good amount of information on the redirect subject. -- Tavix (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018–19 North Alabama Lions women's basketball team[edit]

Delete because this redirect has a spurious Misnested tags lint error that will not go away despite numerous null edits over a period of weeks, and it is annoying to see on Outstanding linter errors on enwiki that there is 1 (one) Draft article with misnested tags only to discover, oh it's this one again. I wouldn't care so much if this redirect were actually doing something useful, but it serves no purpose. Anomalocaris (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see any misnested tags for drafts (Special:LintErrors, firefly), and there aren't any reported on the page information. The redirect was created from a history merge. There could be a bug with Linter, the merge history functionality, or a the combination of the two. In any case, I don't care what happens to the redirect. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • JJMC89 is correct that the error is no longer listed at Firefly or the lint error page. My theory is that my non-null edit adding the request for deletion finally forced the linter to do its job, which null edits failed to do for no good reason. I still think the redirect should be deleted, but only because it serves no useful purpose, not because of the now-gone spurious lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT now that the lint errors are fixed. IffyChat -- 09:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, the redirect serves no useful purpose. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT per above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Wikipedia:ERRORS[edit]

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

Hochelaga Airport[edit]

There is no evidence this airport was ever known by this name. The only hits are from Wikipedia and wiki-mirrors. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – per nomination to remove factual errors. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople Atatürk Airport[edit]

Similarly to the recently closed RfD here, the Istanbul Atatürk Airport has never been known by either of these names. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – per nomination to remove factual errors. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Cuvier, 1829[edit]

Bot creation. Presumably the source used by the bot had a non-standard value in a field parsed by the bot. A taxon authority is not a likely search term for a taxon. Cuvier named at least 140 other taxa in 1829. This might be a reasonable search term for a work published by Cuvier in 1829 (Linnaeus, 1758 redirects to a particular publication), but we don't have an article on that work. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Cuvier, 1814[edit]

Bot creation. Presumably the source used by the bot had a non-standard value in a field parsed by the bot. A taxon authority is not a likely search term for a taxon. Cuvier named at least two other taxa in 1814; Julis and Corycus (both are currently considered to be synonyms). This might be a reasonable search term for a work published by Cuvier in 1814 (Linnaeus, 1758 redirects to a particular publication), but we don't have an article on that work. Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Db-unfree[edit]

Somewhat convoluted history here, but a brief summary:

In short, from late 2005 to mid 2016, Template:Db-unfree redirected to F5, and from 2016 to present it has redirected to F9. This was brought to my attention by JJMC89; I'm opening this to discuss where it should point, either Template:Di-orphaned fair use or Template:Db-f9. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates and Template:Db-multiple/doc still note this as referring to F5. ~ Amory (utc) 15:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • {{db-unfree}} is ambiguous, so I lean toward deleting it. I've created {{db-f5}} to handle the immediate deletion part of WP:F5, like {{db-f7}} does for WP:F7. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    This isn't necessarily the place for this, but while I likely favor doing so, it's not immediately clear to me that {{db-f5}} should be the immediate rather than seven day version given that it has pointed to {{Di-orphaned fair use}} for a decade. Might need a discussion on that. ~ Amory (utc) 01:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. This has long existed, so there are many people who will likely continue to use it. I suggest replacing it with a notice that (a) lists the different criteria under which non-free images may be speedily deleted, (b) requests taggers to replace it with a specific tag for the criteria they mean, and (c) places the page in an appropriate category so that the nomination isn't lost if the tag is not replaced. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gehaz El Reyada Stadium (version 2)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted as G6. A temporary page was needed to unwind the history of Gehaz El Reyada Stadium from Egyptian Army Stadium but it wasn't completed because there was still some old history at this title. I have now tied the loose ends, so this page is no longer needed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Babbar clan[edit]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant article, merely a handful of people with the surname. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Brexit means Brexit[edit]

See discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_7#Brexit_means_Brexit_does_mean_Brexit Mstrojny (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible search term. [12] This is Paul (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlike "Brexit means Brexit does mean Brexit", this is a very plausible search term having been used as a slogan/meme by those in favour of Brexit and as a way of mocking/denigrating/expressing wholesale exasperation at the lack of detail regarding Brexit and/or planning for Brexit by those opposed to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hill tribe[edit]

Not sure where this should redirect. Looking through a brief Google search, the term is most commonly used to refer to the ethnic peoples of Thailand, but is also used for Vietnam and other neighbouring countries. We don't have an all-encompassing article dealing specifically with the term "hill tribe" in the entire Zomia/Southeast Asian Massif region, which would ideally be the primary topic. So the choices are Hill tribe (Thailand) (should be renamed to replace the redirect if chosen), Hill people, or to disambiguate. Paul_012 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I would be inclined to make it a disambiguation page, at least for now. The reader could be looking for something like the very broad Hill people, or (more likely) is looking for the people who live in northern Thailand and adjoining regions, who are described in Hill tribe (Thailand). That page could perhaps be better named Hill tribe (Southeast Asia), but that is a separate discussion. Aymatth2 (talk