Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion Article

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.


Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

  • 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?

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

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 apply in some cases.
  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

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

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

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

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|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.
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]]
  • 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

December 14


This is a test of the Rfd2 sandbox code. I will revert this fake nomination when the test is done. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Use Philippine English

Contradicts {{ Philippine English}}. This redirect implies that Philippine English = American English which is wrong according to the talk page notice (it says Philippine English uses the British double-l (' travelled ')), the article on Philippine English, and many of the sources I'm seeing online. Even when the sources disagree on what constitutes Philippine English, few (if any) consider it to be effectively the same as American English. Sources: doi: 10.17265/1539-8080/2013.05.003 and ISBN  978-962-209-947-0  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  17:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Eido Kubozuka and Hyde

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Electronic and Numeric Integrator and

Confusing mixed-up partial title, considering that the subject at the target is an acronym for "Electronic Numeral Integrator and Computer". Steel1943 ( talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Oceans and Oceanography

Delete per WP:XY. Oceans and Oceanography are separate topics that are treated with separate articles. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Pennsylvania's 5th congressional district special election

Already has separate redirect, page is unnecessary VietPride10 ( talk) 07:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Tropical depression eight (2016)

Title should be capitalized per WP:RDAB, was created by a disruptive user who was blocked indefinitely more than a year ago. CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. This nomination refers to article titles, not redirect titles. Since this redirect differs only in capitalization, it is helpful. In other words, WP:RDAB does not apply to this since it’s not a punctuation error, but rather a {{ R from other capitalisation}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 07:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Powderhorn & Seabadge

The term "Powderhorn" is not mentioned in the target page. (This redirect is a {{ R with history}}, and was once nominated for deletion as an article via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powderhorn & Seabadge.) Steel1943 ( talk) 06:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ramy Malek

It's a misspelling of the actor's name with no links. Esprit15d • talk contribs 03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep as a plausible {{ R from misspelling}}. Published misspellings are generally regarded as plausible search terms, and this one in particular gets hundreds of Google News hits [1]. The lack of incoming wikilinks is irrelevant either as a reason to keep or delete, per WP:RFD bullet point #4. ( talk) 03:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ankle Biters

Nothing at target mentions this term. See Talk:Codename: Kids Next Door#Ankle Biters? Geraldo Perez ( talk) 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


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

December 13

School of Marine Sciences

Redirect from move from underly specific title. Either delete as not helpful or replace with disambiguation page for all schools of marine science. — teb728 t c 23:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:JFeatured picture candidates/An early implementation of java on the internet

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

Wikipedia:Great Firehose of Ordure

Delete ok, ok, I get the joke. But I still don't think it justifies a cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete no context even for Great Firehose of Ordure. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 02:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Creator's comment I created this after doing research through some of the archives and apparently that is what "GFOO" stands for. I don't agree with the asserted nature of that category, but I wanted to, at the very least, explain that otherwise implausible and seemingly arbitrary initialism. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  05:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary of gastropod terms

Delete Cross-namespace redirect not necessary. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 21:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Appears to have been created in error. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 02:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk contribs 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

Delete Another cross namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Would have been CSD R2 except it's a WP: prefix AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 02:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Comedy Central Romania

Delete Cross namespace redirect resulting from an error (see my talk page item seeking a systematic way to find these). UnitedStatesian ( talk) 20:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Subst:Long comment

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted under G7


Delete Unlikely typo that we do not want to encourage. FWIW, created by a now-blocked user. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. This probably is a plausible typo, but I don't think it is helpful to have {{ R from misspelling}} redirects in templatespace (or modulespace, for that matter). In this case, it would be sitting at the top of an article's code for all to see. No comment on namespaces I didn't mention here. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  05:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a common typo. - Zanhe ( talk) 10:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Rana-ladrona Gris

Redirect from apparent Spanish common name, not mentioned in or spanish wiki articles. Found on dab page for Gris, where it doesn't belong and will be removed. Pam D 18:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cecilia Gris

Spanish name apparently - but not mentioned in the text, nor in Spanish wikipedia. Googling finds this name in one Mexican database, but with no mention in our article this seems an over-obscure redirect. (Found it on the dab page at Gris, where it doesn't belong even if it is a reasonable redirect, so will be removing it from there.) Pam D 18:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Beavers

Unnecessary capitalization and pluralization - Canadian beaver already exists Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Excuse me? Perhaps Elmidae could clarify whether they are disputing whether this is a plausible redirect. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Canadian beaver exists. This one you seem to have created because you used wrong capitalization and didn't know how to pluralize a wikilink. That's not exactly the ideal origin of a redirect. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Elmidae, computers are supposed to serve us, and not vice versa. Yes, I linked to Canadian Beavers, found it to be an annoying redlink, so turned it into redirect. So what?
  • Beavers are often called Canadian beavers. Beavers were found as far south as Mexico, in precolumbian times -- but, even then, the geography of chaotic lakes, ponds, and marshes, in the midst of boral forests, in the region once covered by the last glaciation, meant that, even then, most beavers were found in what is now Canada. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Beavers are the only species other than humans that erect structures visible from space. This bit of trivia is of course not relevant to the redirect. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – acceptable {{ R from alternate capitalization}}. Could potentially aid in navigation/search, and has obviously aided in wikilinking. cymru.lass ( talkcontribs) 15:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Wouldn't "Scouts Canada#Beaver Scouts" be a more appropriate redirect given the capitalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondarywaltz ( talkcontribs) 00:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ Secondarywaltz: unlikely, as it doesn't seem to be the primary topic. I've never heard Beaver Scouts referred to as "Canadian Beavers", and a couple of google searches confirms it's not a common enough use of the term to justify that being the target. A hatnote on North American beaver would suffice. cymru.lass ( talkcontribs) 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ Cymru.lass: I have never heard Beaver Scouts referred to in any other way than just Beavers when the context is understood, therefore the ones in Canada would be Canadian Beavers, with a capital B. The animals would not be capitalized. I am just adding to another stoopid Wikipedia discussion. George is a lost cause and I don't really care. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ Secondarywaltz: yes, in context, the Beaver Scouts in Canada would be referred to as the Canadian Beavers if you were talking about scouting in multiple nations. However, that is an extremely specific subset of conditions, which was the point I was making. It's far more probable that someone searching or linking Canadian Beavers is referring to real beavers. cymru.lass ( talkcontribs) 19:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ Cymru.lass: Thanks. You missed the "George is a lost cause and I don't really care" part. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 20:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seth Cummings

Delete Renomination: according to the targeted section, the spouse is "Seth Cumming" (without the "s"), though sources differ. So this person is not mentioned in the target article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Tempation Come My Way

Delete. Unlikely misspelling. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep only one letter misspelt, and harmless. feminist ( talk) 04:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering both that it is not a common misspelling, and that Tempation doesn’t exist. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk contribs 03:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Pepe Cash

Not mentioned in the target. Maybe it was mentioned in an earlier revision then later removed? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was a bit about "Rare Pepes" and how they get traded on the blockchain with "Pepe Cash" in a previous revision but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. —  pythoncoder  ( talk |  contribs) 18:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldest lake

The redirect doesn’t seem to accurately describe its target. The target subject is about 'any lake that has run for one million years, not about one specific “oldest” lake. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the target does attempt to define the oldest lake, Lake Baikal, but qualifies that claim with others. However I'm in favour of AfDing the target because it appears to be original research. It documents ancient extant lakes, maybe, but what about features such as Lake Algonquin which are clearly ancient, but no longer present? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Direct Commission Officers (DCOs)

I propose deletion of this redirect, which was the result of the correct move of the page, after a long discussion about capitalization of job titles, 10 years ago, to Direct commission officer. In that time, it had only been used in 3 pages in article space, always as a piped link, never directly in its implausible plural form with plural, parenthisized abbreviation. I.e., those few uses could/should have been changed after the move to eliminate the need for the implausible redirect. There are no longer any inlinks to this redirect in article space. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 11:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC) (last sentence added) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 15:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the reasons of the nominator, plus the unlikeliness of this as a search term. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


What is now a redirect has a long and chequered history with articles created under this title being moved at various times to Dahiya (Jat clan) and Dahiya (India) both of which are now themselves redirects to Jat people. Since November 2015 this page redirects to Dahieh, Beirut which other than possible phonetic reasons I cannot understand. It would appear to be more suited as a disambiguation page if the relationship to Dahieh, Beirut is explained. Nthep ( talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect or Disambig, depending on justification - so if there is a link to Dahieh, then it should be a disambig as suggested by Nthep. If there isn't (beyond the phonetics), then it should redirect to Jat people. Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

1017 (number)

No longer has an entry in 1000. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 4#4-digit redirects. The number is not mentioned at the target, so someone searching for information on this specific number will not find it. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, or also delete all the others (e.g. 1006, 1012, 1021, or even those that are mentioned) by the exact same precedent - though we do have to stop somewhere, right? ComplexRational ( talk) 02:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I want to point out Ten-codes, which are sometimes (but not always, though they "should" be) hyphenated. Should those (at least >= 1010, pronounced "ten ten", written "10-10" or "1010") be included at 1000_(number)#1001 to 1099, be hatnoted in the year pages (like 1017), etc.? The California Highway Patrol uses (used?) "11-codes" in a similar way (some of which are here; seems like there was a more comprehensive list in Radio Shack's old Police Call series of scanner guides). —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 04:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. My apologies for not reporting previous parallel deletion nominations. A no consensus result from 2016 was reported to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Harvest Moon: The Tale of Two Towns+

"Harvest Moon: The Tale of Two Towns+" not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. 344917661X ( talk) 17:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I added information on Bokujō Monogatari: Futago no Mura+ to the article. It probably won't retain the Harvest Moon title if it gets released in English, but readers may expect it to. Reach Out to the Truth 16:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists

There is no such list at the target article. (However, List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists is a {{ R from history}} that went through a WP:AFD in 2007, but the result was "no consensus": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists.) Steel1943 ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Serves no purpose. FWIW, Presley Songs covered by other artists is a very tenuous link between songs. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) edited. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The Fourth World (album)/Other albums

The Fourth World (album) exists, but the "Other albums" part of this title is unclear regardless. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Speakers of other languages

Unclear what this redirect refers to. This redirect was created over a decade ago when the content formerly at this title was moved to Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Planets, Stars and Other Cellestial Objects (Star Trek)

It’s unclear what "Other" refers to. Also, the base title without the disambiguator, Planets, Stars and Other Cellestial Objects, does not exist, but the title of this redirect would make readers believe that it does. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Also, celestial is misspelled and capitalization is not compliant with WP:TITLEFORMAT. ComplexRational ( talk) 21:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a media of this title, even in Star Trek. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 02:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

James W. St.G. Walker

unnecessary redirect for missing space Themightyquill ( talk) 11:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User talk:List of Malaysian State Assembly Representatives (2018–)

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


Unlikely typo/misspelling. CycloneYoris talk! 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't a foreign spelling like Novembre. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 02:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk contribs 03:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Obvious mistake, but b and v are right next to each other on my keyboard, and I know a lot of dialects pronounce 'v's like 'b's. Had this been a lower-profile subject, I might have voted "Keep". But badly misspelling such a common word that every English-language learner surely is taught early on in their studies? I don't buy it. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  06:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 12

Swan Reach Country Music Festival

This was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 25#Swan Reach Country Music Festival but recreated to a different target. Same rationale applies: the festival is not mentioned at the target and should be deleted per WP:REDLINK if notable. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Without prejudice of an article being created or a target that covers it. The current (and previous) targets are way too generic for a music festival that doesn't have a stand alone article here. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe it could be covered (but only brieflysince its not common to include large amonts of info on organizations on settlement articles) at Mannum as that's its location per its website. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Tangent Line

This term is used to refer to a section of the Mason–Dixon line. However, as Tangent Line redirects to Tangent i don't think it's a good idea for this to target Mason–Dixon line#History, which makes no mention of tangent.

Two better solutions would either be to redirect to tangent where a hatnote takes people to Tangent (disambiguation) where the Mason–Dixon line is mentioned. Or to delete, so that a search for "the tangent line" will reveal both the tangent and Mason–Dixon line articles. Pontificalibus 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology

Atheism and Agnosticism are two distinct subjects. In addition, the scope of the redirect is broader than the scope of the target page. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Readers won't be helped by a longer redirect. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

List of nontheists

Nontheism is not exclusive to Atheism, meaning that the scope as defined by these redirects is broader than the scope of their target articles. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep all. I appreciate the logic of the nomination rationale, but readers looking for these lists may start by looking for the redirect name, which is in effect a redirect from an alternative name, even if that goes against the actual definition of nontheism. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • ...Considering that Atheism and Nontheism are two separate articles, these redirects also have an WP:XY issue unless the scope of the target pages are updated. That, and per the definition we have for Nontheism, not all nontheists are atheists, which leaves all of these redirects telling our readers the opposite (all nontheists are atheists), which is wrong. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't feel very strongly about the other related redirect discussions on this page, but here I think there is really a serious argument against deletion. It's fine to say that nontheism is not atheism, which is true, but saying it does not make all notable persons obey what Wikipedia tells them to do. There are notable persons who self-describe in all manner of idiosyncratic ways, and our policies regarding fidelity to source material should take precedence over redirection guidelines. It's not like page subjects obediently segregate themselves according to our definitions, and we have to go by what the sources about those persons say. I don't feel too strongly about the other nominations, about "atheists, agnostics, and nontheists", because those lengthy redirect titles are not all that useful as search terms. But it's entirely realistic to expect some readers to come to Wikipedia, and search using the term "nontheism" or "nontheist", and it's better to redirect them to the atheism pages than to present them with an empty search result. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Your comment sounds more like rationale to nominate Nontheism or Atheism for WP:AFD (not really sure which one), but then the result being to either merge or redirect the nominated page to the other. The reason I say that is that if the lines of distinguishing the subjects really are that blurry, they should be at/in the same article. However, at the present time, they are not, which leaves these redirects in a state that is similar to redirecting Number to 10 (an example of a higher-level topic redirecting to a lower-level topic, which is not the case in this hypothetical scenario and doesn’t happen that often in practice since the redirect in this hypothetical case would essentially be eligible for deletion per WP:REDLINK since there would be huge potential for an article to cover the subject “ Number”.) Steel1943 ( talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
          • No matter what it sounds like, I guess I'm coming from a place of wanting to make things accessible to our readers, as opposed to following a rigid set of "rules". I think some of the ideas below about disambiguation and lists of lists sound very promising, although I don't think they can be decided entirely here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
            • I share a similar goal of wanting to ensure that our readers are able to locate what they are looking for when they request it. Quite frankly, it’s been my primary goal during the almost half-a-decade I’ve been actively editing. It's just in this case (as it stands), it’s somewhat misleading and could confuse some due to the target not containing all the information that the redirects are basically telling they will find when they look up these terms. (IMO regarding the "rule" comment: In most cases, I’ve found that "guidelines" [and sometimes "essays"] are created based on what the community has found to be consensus on a regular basis, but again, that’s just my opinion since I’ve also found sometimes that a guideline or essay doesn’t apply to all cases, and then I WP:IAR for the better of our readers if I believe that my action will have next-to-no chance of being challenged.) But yes, the list idea below is something I think will help readers find what they are looking for since it will give them options of what they are intending to locate when they look up the ambiguous terms (but specifically only the first two redirects in this nomination.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is covered in multiple places. List of agnostics would be another valid list of nonthesists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Convert Lists of nontheists into a list of lists, retarget List of nontheists there, and delete the rest. I knew this wasn't a candidate for disambiugating, but a list of lists is feasible, especially considering there are more lists than I had envisioned. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Mormonism and other faiths

Due to the use of the phrase "other faiths" in these titles, they could lead readers to assume that all faiths are listed at the target, which they are not. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine to Mormonism#Relations to other faiths (the current section target no longer exists). While there are often issues with "other" redirects, I don't see a problem here. The "other" is obviously religious traditions other than Mormonism. No responsible reader will interpret this to mean all other faiths, and the section I propose refining to should have relevant discussion on whichever faiths we can speak to. -- BDD ( talk) 16:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

Considering that agnostics and nontheists are not part of the target lists/subjects (the target lists are exclusive to atheists), these redirects are misleading in the spirit of WP:XY. In addition, the scope of the redirects is much broader than the scope of their target pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Unless we are going to create separate lists for the agnostics and nontheists, readers looking for these topics need to be able to find the most relevant list. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • ...Considering that all nontheists are not atheists and agnostics are not atheists, these lists aren’t relevant to the redirects at all. In fact, since there are no agnostics on the targets lists, these redirects lead to a WP:SURPRISE and mislead our readers into thinking the lists contain these three subjects, which they do not. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I do acknowledge that any reader searching for "atheists, agnostics, and...." will get "atheists" showing up in the search box first, so that makes these redirects somewhat less than useful to readers. I don't feel strongly here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:XY. These are different topics and treated differently since List of agnostics exists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Khatris and other groups

Unclear what "other groups" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cadiz City

There is also a Cadiz City in Negros Occidental, Philippines. The Province or any higher division w/c Cadiz City of Spain should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanry ( talkcontribs) 12:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Created on behalf of Johanry ~ GB fan 12:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Deleting this redirect will only make it so that someone typing in Cadiz City does not go anywhere. I think it should continue to redirect to Cadiz, Spain as that is the primary topic. If we do anything we should redirect to Cadiz (disambiguation). There are three cities listed on that page, Spain, Philippines and Kentucky USA. ~ GB fan 13:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Cadiz, Negros Occidental (and hatnote) as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from my research. Of the three cities named Cadiz, Kentucky doesn't ever use "Cadiz City", Spain rarely (only example on Wikipedia I can find is at Autovía CA-36), and the Philippines frequently (for example, it's used 19 times at Cadiz, Negros Occidental). An external search for "Cadiz City" primarily gave me Philippine results as well. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Pontic linguistics

The current target is the unexpected outcome of a recent RfD discussion. I still maintain that deletion is best: there doesn't appear to be such a thing as "Pontic linguistics" (just try looking it up anywhere), and we don't have any content on wikipedia for anything that could reasonably be construed as being referred to by this term. But if we must keep this, then the previous target, the disambiguation page section Pontic#Languages and peoples, seems more appropriate as there are three distinct language-related meanings of "Pontic". And if anything, Pontic Greek is the least "linguisticky" of them all. – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep per the outcome of the just closed RfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There was nothing in the previous RfD that addressed the ambiguity of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The other terms seem to refer to language groups as opposed to a language. I think, whatever it's target, it should be the same as Pontic language, right? -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • "Linguistics" doesn't have any more affinity for "language" than it does for "languages" (though it can be argued that the reverse is true as any article about a linguistic grouping of languages would sound more "linguisticky" than an article about an individual language). For a redirect like Pontic linguistics, if it is to exist at all, there's no reason for its target to be the same as Pontic language rather than Pontic languages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • That's fair. I suppose any doubt should be resolved in favor of the disambiguation page as the target. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • And I guess there might be differences in the background assumptions here. On wikipedia there are altogether fewer than ten redirects that contain a language name followed by "linguistics" [2]. Most of these go to articles that have some content relevant to the discipline (rather than the language), and in the best cases that's a different article than the one about the language: for example, German linguistics redirects to German studies and Russian linguistics redirects to List of Russian linguists and philologists. It's from this vantage point that the redirect Pontic linguistics appears harmful: it leads you to expect content that isn't actually there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, I read that argument in the prior discussion, but it seems to me that until there is an article on the field of study, redirecting to the object of the study is an acceptable alternative. Though I think quite reasonable people can differ on that issue. Bsherr ( talk) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pontic#Languages and peoples per the above. -- Bsherr ( talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 02:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @ Arms & Hearts and Amorymeltzer: Do you have anything to add?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Deryck Chan: Sorry, didn't notice this; I don't think XfD closer pings in the relist. At any rate, I don't have a particular comment on this redirect. I don't think it should have been nominated: the previous RfD didn't close as no consensus WP:TRAINWRECK, so while I've disagreed with the re-nomination of all these redirects as well as the ones on the 25th on process grounds, I've stayed out since others besides the nominator have been willing to discuss them. ~ Amory ( utc) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This still seems to be attracting participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Famous suicide

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


These are old, outdated redirects that no longer serve a purpose. 2006 and 2007 are no longer "recent years". -- Tavix ( talk) 18:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @ Tavix: Since these redirects are {{ R with history}} redirects, I’m comsidering moving the edit histories of redirects to titles without the title issues referenced in the nomination. Do you have any concerns with this? Steel1943 ( talk) 18:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Is the history needed for anything? It doesn't look significant to me, but I could be missing something. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Reviewing the edit history, I really don’t think I have an opinion either way other than just acknowledging that the redirects have edit history. It may be a case of "restore and send to WP:TFD", but I’m not strong on that option either. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to template subspace. The years in the template names refer to the time at which the templates were revised, so it is irrelevant whether they're "recent" compared to today. It is normal for new versions of a template to be drafted on a separate page and then copied or moved to the live template later. These old drafts should be preserved in the subspace of the live template, e.g. Template:This date in recent years/2006 rev and Template:This date in recent years/2007 rev. Deryck C. 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


I just closed Talk:Rival (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 December 2018 as move. There was some discussion over where Rivals should target. Should this point to Rivalry or Rival (disambiguation)? feminist ( talk) 04:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana

Not discussed in target article; a redlink would be better. Catrìona ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Bozeman Hot Springs

Not discussed in target article; a redlink would be better Catrìona ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

New food processor

No utility. Not really sure of the intent here. MB 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I added New Food Processor to the nomination due to it only differing in capitalization. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete with a caveat - I was invited to comment because of my previous involvement with the articles in question. If you look at the history of New food processor [3] before December 11 it shows that someone wrote a full article on an appliance of that name, and nobody else could figure out how it was different than a plain old food processor. Then another editor did a basic redirect and here we are. The thing is, "New Food" really is a term used by health activists [4] and there is also a book on how to process it [5]. If foodies learn of this discussion there may be an argument over whether "new food processing" is a notable new thing. Until then, I recommend deleting the redirects and the history of the offending article, though I admit that my knowledge of the field is limited. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. New food-processors are no different from old food-processors, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a redirect for new-food processors when new food is a redlink. The existing title is unhelpful because it's ambiguous and needs a hyphen somewhere, and there's no point in disambiguating between two pages that don't really need redirects in the first place. Nyttend ( talk) 19:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This should have been speedily deleted. The topic (new food processor) wasn't different from the current article, it was that the article was the new version created by a WikiEd editor, and they probably didn't have adequate instructions. Natureium ( talk) 01:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete totally absurd and irrelevant redirect that no one will ever use and has absolutely no value. Praxidicae ( talk) 01:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 11

Stati Uniti d'America

WP:FORRED. Target does not have affinity with the Italian language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Delete per WP:FORRED. These redirects are in French. In the previous discussion, there were claims that the United States has affinity to the French language. However, the country as a whole does not have French language affinity; that affinity, from my knowledge, is exclusive to Louisiana and possibly Florida. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nagkaisang mga Estado

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target does not have affinity with the Filipino language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Vereinigte Staaten

Delete per WP:FORRED and consensus formed for similar redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika regarding redirects in the German language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Соединённые Штаты Америки

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target does not have affinity to the Russian language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Unlikely search terms due to the use of pluses. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When I created that, the Firefox/Chrome Omnibar search extension added plus signs between separate words, much the same way that Google still does in its urls (but of course it edits them out when it searches Wikipedia). I haven't really used Firefox for years but I think they now have a built-in omnibar and that there's probably no need for this redirect but I haven't tested that myself. I'd be included to leave it just in case there's another search engine that still adds +'s between words. shrug :) Banaticus ( talk) 23:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. ComplexRational ( talk) 02:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Columbian union

Huh? Steel1943 ( talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

United States of America (redirect)

The disambiguator "(redirect)" is unclear in what it refers to. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The United States of America.

Unlikely search terms due to the use of a period/full stop at the end. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Strait

Unclear what this refers to due to the use of the word "The". (If WP:X1 was still active, this could be a candidate for it.) Steel1943 ( talk) 03:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Barry Allen (The Flash) (2)

Not a plausible redirect Gonnym ( talk) 15:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Per the redirect's edit history, this draft was moved to Barry Allen (The Flash), which was then redirected to Flash (Barry Allen) as a duplicate article. I’m thinking that either the draft content needs to be moved back to the draft namespace (though the draft’s creator is the one who moved it to the article namespace in the first place), or this redirect should be kept and tagged {{ R avoided double redirect}} for Barry Allen (The Flash) per the spirit of WP:RDRAFT. Either way though, I oppose deletion. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Term does not appear in target article shoy ( reactions) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It does, at Ringworld#Concepts reused. I've changed the redirect accordingly.-- Auric talk 18:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Processing (language)

The use of "(language)" for "(programming language)" is generally avoided as it can be confusing, but here it's even more confusing as the redirect can be taken to refer to any of the two topics known as " Language processing". – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( utc) 15:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Own label

This whole situation is a bit confusing. Own-label previously targeted Private label until I retargeted it to Store brand since Own label targeted Store brand. In all honesty though, in lieu of merging Store brand into Private label since my lack of seeing a distinction between the two is boggling my mind a bit, these two nominated redirects need to target the same page or not exist at all ... but if they should target the same page, I’m not sure what page that should be. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguation seems plausible. Let's see what options we have got.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge Private label and Store brand per nom. The distinction is trivial and it should be fairly easy to do by removing a lot of the fluff from both articles. I'd be willing to do the merge should this option be accepted. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If you're willing to do the merge then I'm all for that. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. Private label refers to one company making products that are sold under the name of another company. Store brand refers to a retail company selling eponymous products. These are different concepts; the German and Japanese Wikipedias also make this distinction. Maybe disambiguation will work better. Deryck C. 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Cerasuolo (grape)

This redirection should be deleted, because Cerasuolo is not a grape, it is a village, a surname, or two different Italian DOC wines. Further reasoning is on the Talk:Cerasuolo (grape) page; closest thing in WP:RFD 3.1, reasons for deleting, is No. 5, "The redirect makes no sense" Jon ( talk) 12:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10


I’m unable to see any practical reason for a reader or template user to utilize these redirects to reach the target template. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, just Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs) being lazy as fuck again and not wanting to type out more than two characters when slathering articles in maintenance tags that they don't even need. Ten Pound Hammer( What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The plus signifies addition, and the "B" signifies Biography of Living Persons.
  1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [this redirect], I don't see [it] doing any harm." To date, no other use for {{ +b}}, {{ +B}} or {{ b+}} has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. " Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{ tlc}} or {{ tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Short abbreviations like this are misleading. There are 40 other redirects to {{ BLP sources}}, maybe use one of the four-character ones which are a bit more obvious. -- wooden superman 15:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - CHEAP doesn’t apply when it’s existence is actively confusing. It being this short is not intuitive. In no context does anyone’s mind naturally jump to things like “B=BLP”. Please stop making things like this, it’s getting disruptive at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many of my redirects, such as {{ WPCW}}, {{ COP}}, {{ 1r}} and {{ LR}} have stood the test of time. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thats good. I’m not saying “stop”, it’s more like “slow down” or “be more selective in your creations”. I feel like we’re here discussing your redirects every week or two, and most I’ve observed be nominated end in deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Tim Maroney

Delete – not mentioned in target. Hildeoc ( talk) 19:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


IMHO it makes much more sense for this to redirect to {{ YEAR}} than {{ Year needed}}. Currently {{ year}} only has 68 transclusions. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 08:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Even better: flip the relationship. Five rationales apply here (that I can think of):
    1. What is presently {{ YEAR}} has nothing to do with any acronym, and should simply be at {{ Year}} itself. If the redirect already went to YEAR, I would RM it (or, more likely, just go round-robin move it on the spot, since such a move could not be controversial.).
    2. {{ Year}} redirects to {{ Year needed}} only because the latter was originally created at that short, vague name, in the era before we decided to have template names that are not confusingly cryptic. The redir is just an old {{ R from move}}. I think it simply wasn't noticed at that time that {{ YEAR}} existed (and would be my own oversight, though my memory for page-moving trivia doesn't go back that far).
    3. It does genuinely make the most sense for "year" and "YEAR" to end up at that particular template, since all it does it output a year scraped from the input. The bare word "year" doesn't convey "year needed", any more than we'd usurp the name of {{ Citation}} (a template that outputs a citation) for a redirect to {{ Citation needed}}. Similarly, {{ Page}} does not redirect to {{ Page needed}}, {{ Volume}} does not go to {{ Volume needed}} (it had actually been temporarily userspaced for repair, and I fixed it just now), {{ Season}} goes to the {{ Weather}} (and seasons) navbox not {{ Season needed}}, {{ Pronunciation}} does not go to {{ Pronunciation needed}}, etc.
    4. For WP:CONSISTENCY with {{ Date}} and other related templates.
    5. It's standard practice to have "FOOBAR" and "Foobar" go to the same target page, unless we have a really good reason not to. We do make exceptions when we need them, on the WP:SMALLDETAILS page-titling principle (e.g. {{ DATE}} is a separate, special-purpose template, not a redirect to {{ Date}}), but we don't make them for confusing, counter-intuitive redirects , only for actual content/code.
PS: I have upgraded what is presently {{ YEAR}} with two new features (output of current year instead of senseless "0" if not provided any parameter input; and safesubst'ing), plus clearer documentation and testcasing.
 —  SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far there seems to be consensus that {{ Year}} and {{ YEAR}} should be the same template, and {{ Year needed}} a different one. This would require deprecating all existing transclusions of {{ Year}}. The debate also remains open as to whether {{ YEAR}} should be moved to {{ Year}}. I'm relisting this to provide more time to agree on the plan of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @ SMcCandlish and Enterprisey: Tavix makes a really good point about the other Category:Date-computing templates being in all caps. Why don't we start by changing {{ Year}} to point to {{ YEAR}} and then start a broader conversation about whether these date templates should be in all caps. I think we can all agree that {{ Year}} and {{ YEAR}} should both do the same thing. The discussion about which one should be the actual template and which should be the redirect I think needs more discussion to make sure there is consistency with the other templates. Does that work for everyone? -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget and close. The argument for sending it there is compelling, and this isn't the place to decide on renaming a whole batch of templates, all but one of which is unrelated to {{ Year}}. RFD decisions aren't necessarily permanent; there's nothing wrong with re-retargeting {{ Year}} if a discussion decides that {{ YEAR}} ought to be at a different title. Nyttend ( talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • This all-caps stuff dates to a different era, and renaming some other templates is probably fine and something we can get around to. Some should probably stay as-is; e.g. {{ DATE}} isn't a normal date-formatting template, but something special, always used with subst, inside other templates. Anyway, nothing needs to be "deprecated", just replaced, probably by bot (i.e., change extant calls to {{ YEAR}} to be {{ year needed}}, then redir {{YEAR}} to {{ year}}.

Miss Multinational 2018

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

Template:Ctie book

Delete Unlikely misspelling. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Sufficiently likely that it has happened. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 15:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete. Considering that Ctie and Template:Ctie do not exist, I don’t see this being a likely misspelling. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a common misspelling. -- Atomicdragon136 ( talk) 01:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hope (comics)

"Hope" is too vague a name to warrant a redirect to a minor character like this. I'm sure many other characters in comics are also called Hope - Hope Summers (comics) springs to mind instantly. This should probably be deleted. -- wooden superman 13:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Is Hope Summers frequently referred to as "Hope" alone? Externally, I mean, not just with characters talking to each other. "Peter Parker" is well known, but Peter (comics) redirect to Spider-Man would strike me as somewhat ludicrous. -- BDD ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
But it would be equally ludicrous for Peter (comics) to redirect to a little-known minor character that is barely mentioned in a section of another character's article. -- wooden superman 12:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Self titled debut album

Trope not discussed on target article. Nowak Kowalski ( talk) 21:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, or retarget to Eponym#Other eponyms where there is a brief mention. This may or may not merit an article. feminist ( talk) 09:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems related to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_14#Debut_album. While the 2015 discussion's result would point towards deletion of this nomination's redirects, that discussion had more discussion so it may be worth leaving this discussion open for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper

Why? No precedent. Dropping the trailing paren isn't a likely "misspelling" or alt punctuation. MB 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Qualifies for WP:CSD R3. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It’s not broken. But also, I created it because there was a red link to it. Creating the redirect silently but gracefully repaired the problem and sent the user to the intended article. — LLarson ( said &  done) 20:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The resolution for the red link you found would have been fixing the red link to The Hill (newspaper) and not creating this redirect to accommodate one bad link someone created. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but I am supposing that if one errant editor created a misformed link with an unambiguous target in the article namespace, that the same mistake is almost certain to occur again in the future. This redirect applies the robustness principle to ensure that future readers end up where they intended to go, rather than being invited to create a new article. — LLarson ( said &  done) 15:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
By that token, every single article title with a parenthetical disambiguator in it at all should always have a redirect in place from the form that's missing the closing parenthesis, because any Wikipedia user could potentially make the exact same error for any article title with parentheses in it. There's no reason to presume that The Hill is somehow uniquely more prone to this error than any other disambiguated title, and no reason why a comprehensive program of creating redirects from unclosed parenthesis errors for every disambiguated title would be a valuable or productive use of our time — but one or the other of those things would have to be true to warrant keeping this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 17:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Parenthesis-closing errors in links, while they do happen, are better corrected by fixing the broken link rather than by creating redirects from the error. WP:RDAB even explicitly cites unclosed parenthesis errors as an example of where creating a redirect is not valuable or justified. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

See WP:CNR. Redirects from mainspace to Project space are normally not desirable, and I don't see the value in keeping this particular one, which a reader (non-editor) would be unlikely to search. funplussmart ( talk) 02:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. By that same token, if it's such an unlikely search term, anyone who does search for it would logically be looking for the WP process. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. ( Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete We have to set a pretty high bar for cross-namespace redirects, and this one does not reach it. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect could refer to some sort of specific featured articles list of some publication, etc., causing confusion. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to propose that it go to a section of Wikipedia covering internal ratings of article quality (as opposed to external ratings, e.g. the Nature Wikipedia-versus-Britannica study), but to my surprise I didn't find any such section. Looks like our only options are keeping or deleting. Nyttend ( talk) 23:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Poet Warrior

Delete No longer appears in the target article. Nor does the section, as it was appropriately removed per WP:TRIVIA. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, as it is taking the place of a legitimate topic. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You may want to convert the redirect to an article about your linked topic. feminist ( talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, retarget or create article - It appears there now, so one should keep, retarget or create article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class

Not mentioned in the target article. (The redirect was created when the article previously here was redirected here via 3 years after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes-Benz CLE-Class; this redirect is a {{ R with history}}.) Steel1943 ( talk) 08:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment This previously went through VFD; see discussion from 2005. Nyttend ( talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oops, that's the same page as the one you linked. I think you messed up, because the discussion resulted in "keep", not "redirect". Nyttend ( talk) 23:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Oy yah, 3 year delay on that change. Striking. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a good example of why WP:CRYSTALBALL is a good idea. An article was created on a rumored vehicle class, survived a VfD, and the article survived another three years before being unceremoniously redirected. Then the redirect lasts another ten years before being discussed now. I cannot find anything beyond rumors; there's no evidence that this was/is/will be an official Class. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


The term "6-2" is not exclusive to volleyball, and could refer to a variety of subjects. This could even be a score in various different sports games. Steel1943 ( talk) 07:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate for Volleyball#6–2, 6–2 defense, February 6, June 2, and any others. ( talk) 10:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • ...Or just retarget to 6/2, a page I just found? Steel1943 ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Retarget to 6/2 better solution per WP:DPAGE: A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include: Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks ( talk) 23:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sony TV

Why are they being redirected to an Indian TV channel? They may refer to the television sets manufactured by the Sony Corporation in Japan, or some other TV channels operated by Sony Pictures. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 14:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirect may cause confusion. Note Sony tv redirects to Sony Pictures so I've RfD'd it today 7 Dec 18. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. There are multiple targets someone could be looking for here. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Retarget Sony TVBravia (brand) -- Atomicdragon136 ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sharpe's Rifles

What is the primary topic here - Sharpe's Rifles (novel), Sharpe's Rifles (TV programme), Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation), or Sharps rifle? Where should Sharp's Rifles (the search term I used looking for the TV programme) and Sharp's rifles point? Thryduulf ( talk)

Retarget all 3 to Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) since no primary subject. Add the two that don't exist, targeted at the same place. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment You can't redirect Foo to Foo (disambiguation) leaving nothing at the base name: you should move Foo (disambiguation) to Foo. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This RfD is created because there's a malplaced disambiguation page at Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) which exists without a page at the base name. Another course of action would be to post a Requested Move to move Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) and discuss there, but given that's a bit of a faff and we are here already, I'd say move Sharpe's Rifles (TV programme) over the redirect at Sharpe's Rifles, with a hatnote like the one already at Sharpe's Rifles (novel), and create the other 2 current redlinks to redirect there too. I say this because I think the TV prog is the primary topic by pageviews, and by long(ish) term significance since 25 years after broadcast here we are talking about it. And delete Sharpe's Rifles (disambiguation) as no longer required. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @ Shhhnotsoloud: if I was certain about what should be primary then I would have just boldly moved it/gone to RM. I choose RfD as I wasn't sure what (if any) topic of the three was primary and this needed discussion. In my experience RfD handles discussions of this nature much better than RM. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

F. P. Lutke

This looks like a typo in the redirect itself. Target says "T.P. Lutke" is the author abbr in botanical context. There is no redirect for T.P., which would be useful. But F.P ? MB 17:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Google search comes up with lots of references to F.P. Lutke for the subject targeted. His name in Russian is Fyodor Petrovich Litke. Examples here and here for example. FloridaArmy ( talk) 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep it was very common in the 1700-1800s to refer to people by initial, initial, last name. The botanist link at the bottom of the page however, seems to be an error so I have removed it. There does not appear to be any plant experts by this name in the database or our article List_of_botanists_by_author_abbreviation_(T–V)#T. This man was a geography guy, no stated interest in plants. Legacypac ( talk) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Henan dialect

错误的 (Wrong)重定向 (redirection) (Please_)参见 (refer to_)中文维基百科的 河南话 (Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia.) (the Central) ( Plains)官话 (Mandarin) (is)一个 (a)广泛分布于中国中北部地区的汉语方言 (Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China) (, )并非 (not)河南特有 (unique to Henan)而且 (and)河南 (Henan)也分布着 (also distributes )一些 (some ) ( non-)中原官话 ( Central Plains Mandarin_)的汉语方言 ( Chinese dialects)例如 ( such as )晋语。 ( Jin Chinese.) Ngguls ( talk) 09:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment For anyone who overlooks the ruby characters or can't easily read them: the inscription says Wrong redirection. Please refer to Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia. The Central Plains Mandarin is a Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China, not unique to Henan, and Henan also distributes some non-Central Plains Mandarin Chinese dialects such as Jin Chinese. Nyttend ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 简而言之,河南话和中原官话并非同一个概念,尽管他们有重叠。我认为,河南话应该介绍的是河南境内的汉语方言,而不是重定向到中原官话。这个页面上的河北话同理。 Ngguls ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Translation of above comment: In simple terms, Henan dialect and Central Plains Mandarin are not the same concept, although they overlap. I think that what Henan dialect should discuss is Chinese dialects in Henan, rather than redirecting to Central Plains Mandarin. The same applies to Hebei dialect on this page. ( talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hebei dialect

错误重定向。尽管河北大部分地区的方言属于冀鲁官话,但河北境内仍分布有晋语、北京官话和中原官话,而且冀鲁官话也不仅仅分布在河北(冀),他也广泛分布于山东(鲁),冀鲁官话和河北话无论如何都并非同一个概念。这个页面应该被删除直到有人以正确的定义重新创建他。 Ngguls ( talk) 12:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Google Translate states that the previous comment reads as follows:

    "Error redirection. Although the dialects in most parts of Hebei belong to the official language of the Lulu, there are still Jin dialects, Beijing Mandarin and Central Plains Mandarins in Hebei, and the official language of Lulu is not only distributed in Hebei (冀), he is also widely distributed in Shandong (Lu). The official language of the Lulu and the Hebei dialect are not the same concept anyway. This page should be deleted until someone recreates it with the correct definition."

    Steel1943 ( talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Town tramp

Doesn't seem to be a nickname that is associated with this fictional character. Not mentioned in article. — Xezbeth ( talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Retarget to tramp as there isn't an article for it like town drunk. Several celebs, most notably Dolly Parton have used the moniker. [6] [7] AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 18:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How helpful will that be? I don't know. If a reader knows the term "tramp" but is looking for "town tramp" specifically, this will be unhelpful or condescending. If the whole phrase is unfamiliar to the reader, that could be helpful. There are a few uses of the phrase on Wikipedia, but none that make good targets. -- BDD ( talk) 17:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( utc) 02:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Forced birth

This phrase could also relate to situations where a mother has to give a forced/early birth. This phrase does not seem to have exclusive affinity with its current target. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Question My first thought is a situation in which birth is induced early due to problems, e.g. someone I know recently bore a child a little early due to a diagnosis of Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Is that what you're talking about, or do you mean something different? Nyttend ( talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I’m not 100% sure. I mean, for example, a Caesarian section could be loosely considered a "forced birth". I think what I’m trying to say is that unless the redirect has some sort of strong connection to its current target, it may be a WP:SURPRISE and may best assist our readers if the redirect were just deleted so that the Wikipedia’s search function can help readers find what they are looking for. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't really make sense, especially (as you note) it could also apply to someone " from his mother's womb / Untimely ripped" via C-section. Nyttend ( talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement/version 2

These redirects with unlikely names existed so that their edit histories could be moved to these titles. Their edit histories have now been moved elsewhere, and these redirects are unlikely search terms for their target. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @ Steel1943: They are both strings of redirects (created by a page being moved many times in succession) which were moved aside out of the way of an incoming move, beause a deleted parallel history sitting under a visible edit history is liable to accidents if a page must be temporarily deleted. (We need selective delete, and selective move of visible edits, and ability to move deleted edits either all or selective.) Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Clean up these leftover redirects unless there is some technical need for their continued existence. – dlthewave 03:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:King Ali

I don't know what the aim was here, but quite sure there shouldn't be a Draft->mainspace redirect like this. Pinkbeast ( talk) 01:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete since this redirect is not an {{ R from move}}. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Striking out my comment due to the creation of a draft at this title. Steel1943 ( talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promote to mainspace probably the aim was to have King Ali redirect to Ali of Hejaz (as IPs & new users can't create mainspace redirects or articles), in which case it should have gone through WP:AFC/R. However in this case the lemma is ambiguous, so I've drafted a dab page like the others in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages. ( talk) 03:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace, as this is a good disambiguation page for putting at King Ali (although I'm guessing it's rather incomplete), and now that it's not a redirect, deleting it here would be a bit absurd. Per Steel1943, the crucial factor here is that the target wasn't moved from the draft title; we routinely keep draft titles when pages are moved from there to mainspace, but it's a bit bizarre to create a draft as a redirect to something else. Nyttend ( talk) 01:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's changed radically under my feet since I RFDed it and I guess now looks like a plausible mainspace diambig... but I fear it might need some attention to determine if the pages linked are actually individuals who might been known as "King Ali". (Granted they are all kings with the name "Ali", but how royals are commonly referred to varies from place to place and time to time....) Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Tony Bray

Redirect from the name of a person notable only for briefly dating the redirect target in her youth. He's not a plausible search term on this basis, because even the few people who've ever heard of him at all would still be unlikely to expect him to have an encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 01:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ARC (language)

An WP:XY situation: this is an implausible incorrect name that one could equally well attempt to connect to either Arc (programming language), or ARC Macro Language, or, apparently, to Aramaic language (whose ISO 639-3 code is "arc"). Just noting that this was kept after a recent batch nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep or disambiguate. ISO 639-3 is not case sensitive to ARC and arc are both correct, if kept then hatnotes can be added. This is nothing to do with WP:XY. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Uanfala that this is a situation in which the disambiguator "(language)" doesn't sufficiently disambiguate between the potential targets, and it is better to delete so users find ARC instead. -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That is an argument for disambiguation or retargetting to ARC (the dab page) as {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}} not an argument for deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it could be if someone were likely to search for or link to this term with the disambiguator, but that seems unlikely. Bsherr ( talk) 20:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I've explained on other similar redirects the use that these redirects have, which apply equally here: Language code plus disambiguator to guarantee a link to the correct article, as neither language names nor language codes are guaranteed unambiguous. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Except that here, language code plus disambiguator could justifiably link to other targets, as set forth in the nomination. While that kind of uniform scheme might be nice, it needs to yield to the regular practice of how we use redirects and disambiguation, no? -- Bsherr ( talk) 18:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
          • It does - we do not disambiguate programming languages or macro languages using "(language)". Thryduulf ( talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
            • We apparently sometimes do, even if we shouldn't (I know of about two dozen redirects like Basic (language), if anyone's interested in the full list, give me a shout). But speaking of what we do and don't do, can I check we're still aware that we don't disambiguate languages using ISO 630 codes? – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 19:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate there's no possible redirect target. Not sure if ARC is sufficient; Aramaic is only on Arc. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Linguist are often presented with data that use ISO 639 and want to look up wider information about the language. I expect [ISO 639 code] + "language" to at least take me somewhere that points to the relevant language. If there is ambiguity with the name of another natural language or computer language, take me to a disambiguation page where I can find the language represented by that code. Deryck C. 12:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This particular redirect cannot be disambiguated per WP:INCOMPDAB. What can be done is to retarget to a disambiguation page, such as ARC (although deletion is still the better option). -- Tavix ( talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 01:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Human life begins at conception

Is this phrase exclusive to the United States, should it be retargeted to Anti-abortion movement, or deleted? Steel1943 ( talk) 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 9

Vern Watts

There is no indication that the individual named in this redirect is notable nor held the position aside from their own linkedin/blog claim, nor are the sources added in the target article supporting this (and the one that does is not at all reliable.) Praxidicae ( talk) 17:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep as his connection to the target is easily verifiable in third-party printed sources [8] [9], the target is the topic with which he is most closely connected, and redirects are not required to be notable. ( talk) 12:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


The subject of this redirect may be confusing pointing to its current target. I’d think there would be a better target fur this redirect somewhere, such as an article about a subject pertaining to how to measure the chances of someone being elected, but I cannot find such a subject at the moment. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete or soft-redirect to wikt:electability as a well understood everyday word ( WP:OVERLINK). Only three pages link to this and they all refer to the same matter: that based on opinion polls, Chris Shays asserted during a primary campaign that he had more "electability" than Linda McMahon in the general election. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is a possible misunderstanding with eligibility. Wakari07 ( talk) 13:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Possessing the likelihood of winning an election" is a topic that isn't likely to get an article any time soon (if I'm wrong, we can always undelete and retarget), and I can't think of a target that's close enough to warrant this redirecting there. Per Wakari, if I didn't know what the term meant, I'd be confused by the current target and imagine that it referred to one's ability to win, not one's likelihood of winning. Nyttend ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Election in absentia

The subject of this redirect doesn’t seem to be explained or identified at the target. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's an {{ R with possibilities}}. About 10 articles link to this; from those a list of people who have been elected in absentia could be created. – wbm1058 ( talk) 11:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That rationale falls in line for deleting this redirect per WP:REDLINK. But, now that a draft stub has now been created at this title, that satisfies the WP:REDLINK rationale. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment started a stub. Dunno how far it will ever progress beyond an WP:EXAMPLEFARM. ( talk) 12:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added to stub a (failed) example from the current Spanish constitutional crisis. Wakari07 ( talk) 13:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

American settlers

retarget to a more appropriate target. Some options

-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


The target no longer exists (and hasn't been replaced or renamed). Dan Bloch ( talk) 14:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt, since there's no wikipedia page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A ralph epperson

No precedent for creating redirects for lower case versions of names. There are only 3500 in "redirects for miscapitalizations" and most are more plausible because they are things other than people. MB 00:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • For one, the redirect isn't just for a miscapitalisation, it also has an absent period. At the very least, I think that there should be a redirect for the title without the period. Also, as far as I can tell, redirects for lower case versions of names may not be universal, but they don't seem to be uncommon. A survey of a couple random people seems to suggest to me that this is the case. There doesn't seem to be any issue with having redirects for miscapitalization of other people's names, so I don't really see why there'd be issue with this one. DinoD123 ( talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. a. ralph epperson and A Ralph Epperson might both be useful, since no-capitals titles are often useful (many of us search Google without specifying capital letters, and probably many people use Special:Search that way as well) and it's good to create redirects for absent punctuation, but the chances of both errors occurring simultaneously are a good deal smaller. Nyttend ( talk) 23:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 8

Huge Ackman

Delete: This is a silly redirect that is very unlikely to ever be used in practice. (Note also that currently nothing links to this redirect.) Ross Finlayson ( talk) 23:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Family game

It is a bit unclear why this redirect targets where it does. The only mention if the word "game" in the target article refers to "video games"; the word "game" is not exclusive to video games. This phrase could also in a way refer to board games. The current setup seems misleading. In addition, this redirect is an {{ R with history}} about a subject that seems somewhat unrelated to anything I have mentioned thus far in this nomination. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Family Game Night

Based on page views, it's a WP:NOPRIMARY situation between Family Game Night (TV series) and Hasbro Family Game Night. Therefore, Family Game Night and Family Game Night (TV series) should be swapped, with the TV series article residing at the base title. Then a hatnote to Hasbro Family Game Night can be added to the TV series article. -- IJBall ( contribstalk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I’m confused: The first part of this nomination is claiming WP:NOPRIMARY, but then the next sentence claims that there is a primary topic. It’s contradicting itself. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Either way, my vote is for convert Family Game Night into a disambiguation page (I agree with WP:NOPRIMARY for this), then tag the page with {{ dabconcept}} since this phrase seems exclusive to the Hasbro concept. (Seems that there is a series or franchise-type article that should be made in regards to the Hasbro concept.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Should really redirect to Window (disambiguation); there is no proof that every time we talk about Windows we always mean the Microsoft program, really the term "windows" is so unprecise it should redirect to a disambiguation page, that is what it's for. Also the page history looks to show that it looks like the majority agree Abcmaxx ( talk) 18:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment but really, every time someone means Microsoft Windows, they should really put the words "Microsoft Windows" in full as the wiki link. There are plenty of examples where one acronym or nickname is much more popular than their disambiguation counterparts; however most still point to the disambiguation page as the term "windows" is not synonymous with the program. For example the link word and words point to the linguistic meaning however Microsoft Word is a much more popular search term as an encyclopedia entry. I think the reason Windows, the plural of window, only redirects to the operating software out of laziness. Abcmaxx ( talk) 12:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
..."but really, every time someone means Microsoft Windows, they should really put the words "Microsoft Windows" in full as the wiki link." But that doesn’t mean that they do, and per the page view data, there’s no definite way of determining that either. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It also could redirect to the older and broader computer term Window (computing), from where the operating system got its naming. It's still used a lot when discussing graphical user interfaces. Also, from the WP:BRAND guideline: "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed." Wakari07 ( talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Steel1943. Strictly as far as computers are concerned, the operating system is dominant. If you took a bunch of people, said the word "windows", and asked them to write down the first meaning that came to mind, how many of them would write anything in computing other than the OS? I'm inclined to treat Microsoft as primary over the plural of "window" because this is such a well-known concept; if some minor topic of any sort were called "oranges", we'd give priority to the plural of "orange" because it was minor, but this is far from that. I strongly doubt that there's anyone in the world with the technical ability to access Wikipedia who is aware of the meaning of the English word "window" yet unaware of the OS. Nyttend ( talk) 20:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Abcmaxx, there's over 3,260 links to [[Windows]] so surely you can prove there is a problem here by finding a couple that are misdirected to the operating system and should be redirected elsewhere? Don't try to fix things that aren't broken. My plate runneth over with actual problems that aren't getting fixed until I fix them. It would be a ridiculous diversion of resources to force someone to pipe all 3,200 links to Microsoft, unless you want to do it yourself. Even then, this would become an ongoing maintenance issue as new programs written for Windows continue to be released and not every editor will take the time to pipe the |operating_system= links in their infoboxes. – wbm1058 ( talk) 05:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target page, and it may be a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not an American so I'll just comment that the term seems to be the Hawaiian term for the dollar according to wiktionary -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hawaiian dollar, which is the topic with a sufficient WP:FORRED connection, and where kālā is now mentioned (albeit in a footnote; not sure if it needs to be more prominent than that). Hatnote to Kala (disambiguation), which has uses for the easily-confused kāla and kalā, but none others for kālā exactly as far as I can see. ( talk) 02:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Kālā is the IAST transliteration of wikt:काला in Devanagari. Originating from Sanskrit, in Hindi it means "(pitch) black". Toponyms as Kālā Pānī, Kala Chauna, Kalanag, Kalaram Temple, personal names as Kalaratri, and other terms starts with it. See also Kaal, Kāla (time) and the disambiguation page Kala. I'd suggest to redirect to the Kala disambiguation page, since then we don't seem to prefer Hawaiian over Hindi contexts. Wakari07 ( talk) 14:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget or disambiguate, since Hawaiian dollar is an appropriate use, and I don't have an opinion about retargeting per Wakari. I agree that it's not good at the current target and disagree with the idea of deleting. Nyttend ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


This feels like vandalism to me. I think it should be deleted. Nothing links there, too. Mateussf ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Abcmaxx ( talk) 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. People searching for Individual-1 should be directed to the person to whom that refers. Fullmetal2887 ( discuss me) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    Struck out since the nomination appeared incorrect when I made this comment. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems to be a thing, per WaPo and Atlantic headline usage. Quiddity ( talk) 22:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this name apparently originates from the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) [10]. I'm not sure exactly which of the many sub-articles of that topic would be the best place to mention this name, if any. In any case the current target is no good; people searching for "Individual-1" should be directed to a sourced explanation of the term in context, not a page about a TV show which doesn't mention the term at all. ( talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It now redirects to the correct place. However, as previously mentioned, there is no explanation of the (perhaps legalistic) rationale for using this term. A properly-sourced couple of sentences in the main Trump article should suffice, imo. jxm ( talk) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment in that case, could you go ahead and try to add those few sentences? RFD can't dictate consensus on what content should appear at target articles, so we have to try and see in advance if editors of Donald Trump will accept including discussion of the name "Individual-1" there. If it turns out they will not, we'll have to come up with an alternative target where content can be included, so that readers aren't left typing in a search term and landing on a page with zero explanation of that term. ( talk) 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - pretty obvious. If not, we'd have to make an article on it. And if it's not mentioned, then perhaps it should be. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, or possibly redirect, or expand, but certainly not delete. The term is mentioned in RS, and so deserves coverage here. Benjamin ( talk) 00:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - possible vandalism/soapbox, and just seems bad idea to make a bit of single report’s procedural trivia into an odd redirect. Seems like just a quirk SOP and “individual 1” would be a different person in other dispositions by Cohen, or in other cases. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah but now this is more than just a placeholder in a disposition. It's how people are referring to him:
"Manafort, Cohen, and Individual 1 Are in Grave Danger" [11]
"The utterly lawless ‘Individual-1’" [12]
"Individual-1' memes are everywhere after 'substantial' prison time suggested for Cohen" [13]
"The walls are closing in on ‘individual #1’" [14]
"Prosecutors: Cohen committed crimes at the direction of ‘Individual-1’ aka Trump" [15]
"President ‘Individual-1’ Trump Hasn’t A Clue, But Twitter Wits Aim to School Him" [16]
"Trump, 'Individual 1,' is newly cast as center of special counsel's probe" [17]
And so on and so forth. Come on. I know, that you know, how to use google. So just type "Individual 1" into that search bar and let me know if someone OTHER THAN Trump, from all these "many other cases" pops up.
What IS the downside of having this redirect actually? Not seeing one. If you don't know that he's referred to as such, then you can live blissfully on in your ignorance, unaware that such a redirect exists. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek Naaah. The question is what is the point of making a bit of procedural trivia into an article redirect, that a generic term is used in such reports was in this one report, esp. if a search would find any case(s) of it anyway ? It does not seem to be any of the guideline reasons WP:POFR. It seems sort of like making "Orange face" or "Small hands" a redirect to Trump, just a bit of snark - and the WP:R#DELETE guideline reasons to delete it. Especially with needing to explain the term of redirect means Trump and that it is a legal generic also done with many other cases and which report is meant or why it seems going too far for a silly prank. (Will we then have a paragraph that explains that yes, in every disposition the outside parties are referred to in generic ways, so that in another brief Individual 2 is Trump and Individual 1 is Comey and in some other case Individual 1 is someone else or perhaps they are identified as Employee 1 so on ? And shall we do redirects for all the variations Individual #1, Individual-1, Individual one ?) Seems simpler to just have the article say "Trump" and skip the fillip of there is this procedural abstract in the Cohen report except perhaps in the article text in which case a search would find it so a redirect has no value. The findings you see today seem only a common example of WP:RECENTISM or flap du jour are a bit viral -- it's not like the label was not in evidence a year ago, it's just that today its in the news -- wait a week and see if it has any enduring WEIGHT or goes away again among the other uses of individual 1. That brings up that there are other
  • Individual 1 - term in biology cases, e.g. genetics Generation 1, Individual 1
  • Individual 1 - Medicare category, e.g. Qualified Individual 1 (QI1)
  • Individual 1 - IRS descriptive (e.g. Taxpayer, Trustee, Individual 1 and Individual 2 are each 25 percent partners.)
  • Police reports use "Individual #1", e.g. " Individual #1 is described as a Hispanic female, between 20 and 30 years old, approximately 5'5 ..."
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Geni - seems a possible spot, though I'd expect the Secret Service codenames to be there (e.g. "Timberwolf") . But it will take time to see if this one rises to the common use of "Dubya" or "Slick Willie". Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: the term is used in this phase of the legal proceedings and is likely not to have any significance long-term. We don't need to tell anyone who "Individual-1" is. What is the point of the redirect.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: at 21:08, 9 December 2018, Reach Out to the Truth ... updated this nomination to show the current target this redirect has always targeted: Donald Trump. When the nominator inputted this nomination, the target on the nomination displayed as Donald Drumpf. The nomination was performed manually, considering that the nominator did not tag the redirect with {{ Rfd2}}; I tagged the redirect. Any comments that were made prior to this correction may be referring to when the nomination erroneously stated that this redirect targeted Donald Drumpf. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. - Mr X 🖋 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and to be really precise, the redirect target could be Donald Trump#Trials of associates, which is where Individual-1 is mentioned. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine to Donald Trump#Trials of associates where explanation of the name "Individual-1" has now been added thanks to MelanieN, and has survived for a couple of days. Although there are many people who may have been known as "Individual-1" within the context of an investigation, given the high profile of this individual & investigation it appears to be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT at least for now. However there should be no prejudice against speedy renomination if the relevant content gets removed from the target and efforts to add it elsewhere also fail. A redirect which wastes the reader's time by sending them to an article where they get no explanation of the term they searched for is expensive, not cheap. ( talk) 01:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Australian films: 2005 – Upcoming

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

Go (Kelly Clarkson song)

Not mentioned at Kelly Clarkson, Kelly Clarkson discography, nor List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, because if they're not mentioned at any of those places, these titles may well be hoaxes. Anyway, redirecting Item X to List of Items is almost always a bad idea. Nyttend ( talk) 21:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Way I Like It (album)

Kelly Clarkson does not have albums by these names. These redirects were from a couple of old, incorrect guesses at the title of her next album. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss The Way I Like It (album)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Twitter handle of biography subject that is not even mentioned in the entry on the subject; moreover the source for it is a Daily Caller article. Redirect is currently only serving as a reason for an undue hatnote on the encyclopedic biography. [ETA: now removed, but had been added back twice following previously removals.] Innisfree987 ( talk) 23:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment it is mentioned in the article as a footnote, and there's a writeup of him Tweeting a lot. Not clear if he was well-established as a social media person though. When his death occurred, they didn't immediately point to his Twitter presence. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 23:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes: like I say, there's a Daily Caller reference (although that is now deadlinked), but the Twitter handle that this redirect points to is not mentioned in the body of the entry. FWIW, this Slate reference, which relies on the original Daily Caller piece, does not suggest Martin was a significant social media presence beyond his classmates. Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirects that formerly targeted OnlySee

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

National Panic at the Disco Day

I struggle to see how this was redirected rather than deleted. There are a few tongue-in-cheek references to a "National Panic at the Disco Day" floating around, but nothing significant and/or official. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Satish Bhaskar

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

Escape from New York (upcoming film)

No information about a remake or an upcoming film is present in the target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the section about the remake was removed in January. The section was well sourced, but the project seems to have languished in development hell for over a decade without ever moving towards starting principal photography. ( talk) 00:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • After some thinking I've decided this should be a delete. If it were an obscure page with few editors my opinion might be different, but I looked it up and saw there's 129 people who have this page on their watchlist [18]. None of them contested the removal in almost a year, and there's some discussion (albeit from 10 years ago) on the talk page stating that the remake is not notable. So I think RFD should presume that the removal has consensus among editors of the target page. Also it's worth noting that the content was removed only about a month after the redirect got created. ( talk) 13:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


This doesn't look to be a popular nickname for Kelly Clarkson. I found an Urban Dictionary entry but not much else. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure nickname -- Lenticel ( talk) 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Harvard Open Access Project

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

Public holidays in North America

North America consists of more than the United States. This redirect does not represent a global view. Redirect should be deleted or re-routed to template "North America in topic|Public holidays in" Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as we have nowhere to send the reader. List of holidays by country isn't subdivided by continent, and the various countries of North America largely don't have public holidays in common anyway (besides a few religious ones). Retargeting to {{ North America in topic}} and passing "public holidays" as a parameter would be an interesting suggestion if that parameter-passing were technically possible, but I don't believe it is. ( talk) 00:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment. That isn't directly possible, but there is a way to do it: redirect this to Template:Public holidays in North America and create that page with {{North America topic|Public holidays in|state=expand}}. That might be a good solution actually. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps this would make sense if there are holidays that are celebrated continent wide, and it could be an article that discusses these holidays. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether the possibility of retargeting to a template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Change to disambiguation page redirects are cheap, can use it as a disambiguation page for Public holidays in the United States and Public holidays in Canada Abcmaxx ( talk) 18:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Abcmaxx. This can cover Mexico and countries farther south, too. Nyttend ( talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation. This isn't an ambiguous term that can mean multiple things. This is one thing that is covered in multiple articles. If we must keep it, List of holidays by country has the full list, but I don't see the point since there aren't any public holidays that are continent wide. "Redirects are cheap" is a mantra for redirects in general and doesn't help explain why we should keep this particular redirect. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

List of store brands

No such list at target. In theory, this list could contain almost any store that manufactured their own brand of products. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Category:Store brands which contains all the store brands we have articles about, which in the absence of a list of notable ones is the best we can offer. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no such list. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per above. dml ( talk) 06:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the category recommended above. Plausible search term for a Wikipedia user, and the cat is better than nothing. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 22:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Intro

Though I cannot find an example at the moment, there is more than one album that has an untitled introduction track, so I’m not sure why this target gets precedence over any others. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Introduction, a disambiguation page that lists many untitled introduction tracks. cymru.lass ( talkcontribs) 20:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That statement/claim seems erroneous. After glancing at Introduction#Songs and tracks, all of the songs listed there are titled "Intro" or "Introduction", meaning that are not "untitled". Steel1943 ( talk) 21:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Either delete or repurpose to a list of songs with this title. -- wooden superman 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Searching with this title did give some hits, most of them with the format "Untitled (Intro)". They include: Riverfenix (album), El Producto (EP), You Fat Bastards: Live at the Brixton Academy, Inquilaab (album), and Bee Hives. The problem is that "Untitled Intro" is more of a descriptor than a formal title for any of these. Because of this, I don't think we need a separate list/disambiguation for this set. Untitled already has a good list going, and one can probably pick what they want from that list if Wikipedia has it. That being said, I would be fine with retargeting to Untitled or deletion to reveal search results. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Last thoracic nerve

Not mentioned in target. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade

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

Liu Xin (politician)

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. It is linked from List of members of the 11th National People's Congress, and User:DPL bot is complaining. The corresponding Chinese article links implausibly to Emperor Ai of Han, and there's no modern politician on the Chinese DAB page. I propose deletion. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 22:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per the IP. We really ought to disambiguate by what this person's really done, e.g. (soldier) or (officer). If I understand correctly, unless you're prominent enough that you'd have an article already, if you're a member of the National People's Congress, you're almost certainly something other than a politician; you're elected because you're dependable enough to be trusted to vote the way the party wants you to. (It's like calling someone a "politician" solely because he was chosen to be a US presidential elector.) Politicians are those who participate in decision-making, not rubber-stampers; the only politicians in the Congress are members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or other leaders whose Congress membership is tangential to their real jobs or is legally necessary for them to hold a top position. Plus, taking List of X and redirecting one of the list entries to the list is generally a bad idea. Nyttend ( talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreleased and/or cancelled media subjects with "upcoming" redirects

Unreleased and/or cancelled media subjects are not upcoming. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- wooden superman 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Viral actually canceled? The latest reference there said the film was about to "go on floors". I wasn't familiar with the phrase, which I thought meant cancellation, but it turns out to be an Indian English phrase meaning "in production". Regarding Breakaway, I could see some value to holding onto it for a bit longer for readers who may not know that it's been canceled. Eventually, though, it will be outdated; I don't think there's a good argument for keeping the Motorcycle Diaries one 14 years later. -- BDD ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the Viral and Breakaway redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel

Has a title now. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Untitled Avengers film since that is what the film was called (and existed at in the mainspace) from July 2016 until December 6, 2018. Because of this, I initially thought to keep the redirect for a few days to handle all the linking adjustments, but since the article was at that name for so long, I think it should be kept as a redirect indefinitely. Delete Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel no issues there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 7


Not sure why this redirects to WP:Beans. Seeing that it was created around the time of WP:GMORFC I expect it was a bit tongue in cheek. The topic area has calmed down extensively since then and there is no ARBGMO2 or any indication one is eminent. AIRcorn  (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn  (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


Autograf is an electronic dance music trio from Chicago, but I don't see anything related to them in the target article (which is a single from another dj named Alesso). CycloneYoris talk! 20:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment should this redirect to the Autograph (disambiguation)? It seems to be the spelling for Autograph in several languages in Europe. Also consider Autograft and Autografh. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 00:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 18:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

2027 FIFA Women's World Cup

WP:TOOSOON. There are no details about either of these events at the target; someone looking for specific information will not find it. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per prior discussion Hhkohh ( talk) 01:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:TOOSOON. Bids for these tournaments won't be seriously considered for another half-decade if not later. Sounder Bruce 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sony tv

This is ambiguous/confusing in the same way as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Sony TV. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 15:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Liga 4

Probably hoax after I found there is no related articles and no related competition Hhkohh ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't appear that a Liga 4 actually exists, so the redirect is quite pointless. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 22:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Delete. Unlikely someone would type all those hyphens; the space bar is so much bigger. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recoeded by U2

Delete Unlikely typo. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 14:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Completely possible that someone may mistype to that - O and E are next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. [ Username Needed] 15:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely typo. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM [ Username Needed] 10:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You’re right, and I’m okay with that. My opinion on this differs from the nominator’s by a whole 0%. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Avengers: Annihilation

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 23#Avengers: Annihilation, the suggestions were to delete the redirect once the official title was revealed. It has been, and it is Avengers: Endgame. -- Alex TW 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The rumored title apparently isn't even worth mentioning in the article since it was never in any way official. In a month at most, no one will even remember it. Roadsguy ( talk) 01:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 14:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no longer useful Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


As far as I'm aware, Blue Nile state in Sudan isn't known as Al Wusta Wilayah (Central Region) but I could be wrong. There's no mention in the article, but the creation of these redirects pre-dates the formation of South Sudan. I suggest retargeting the first 2 to dab page Al Wusta, and a discussion about the other 2, and if necessary adding Blue Nile (state) to the Al Wusta disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget the first two per nominator. No opinion yet for the other two: up until a year ago, the target stated that Blue Nile state was known as Central state between 1991 and 1994. I am looking to see if there's any WP:RS verification of this but I haven't had any luck yet. ( talk) 14:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Xindi/version 1

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Non-admin closure

Ashen (upcoming video game)

Delete no longer upcoming UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Father Akaki

Redirect to a page that's now been merged, and the target is no longer on the page. Readers will therefore be steered to a page with no mention of the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 02:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as a redirect to a redirect to a page without this name. Legacypac ( talk) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This redirect to a now merged page that has no mention of him is not needed as it serves no purpose. Newshunter12 ( talk) 00:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Finnish supercentenarians

Redirect to a page that's now been merged, and the target is no longer on the page. Readers will therefore be steered to a page with no mention of the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 02:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete no longer useful. No one listed on the old list now qualifies for inclusion on the target page Legacypac ( talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    Funny thing, I actually meant to nominate an altogether different page and just now see my mistake! You'll know which one. Let's nominate the right one now... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 02:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore and send to AfD if desired. This list was just redirected a few days ago, and RfD is not a backdoor for deleting content of this nature. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a redirect to nowhere, so its useless and no longer belongs on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 ( talk) 00:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note from nominator following up from earlier, this was truly an accident. I was attempting to nominate Father Akaki, listed above, and got this page. I only declined to withdraw it because someone else had already commented on it. This was not an attempt at sneaky deletion, though I do agree with deleting this too; I can see why it looks that way, but this was merely an amusing mistake on my part. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


This slang expression does not appear within the target article. Retarget to Sexual slur and perhaps add a link there to the Wiktionary definition of butterface. -- Muzilon ( talk) 02:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Retarget which does not need a discussion. Legacypac ( talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and and let the search engine handle it. If readers are looking for the random non-notable topics called butterface (e.g. DJ Butterface or the Chris Burnham comic), they can find those; if they're looking for a definition, search results show Wiktionary in the sidebar. Turning the sexual slur article into a list of non-notable sexual slurs (or as someone at Talk:Sexual slang called that idea, "a less useful version of UrbanDictionary") is not likely to be a long-term stable solution; pages which accumulate random lists of terms like that regularly get purged , leaving us with a bunch of {{ R to article without mention}}s again. Note also that butterface has been salted for over a decade. ( talk) 12:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: Good point, I'd probably change my original proposal to Delete on that basis. (Just for the WP:DAB record, there is also the unrelated Butter Face (song), which redirects to an article about a comedy album featuring that song. -- Muzilon ( talk) 12:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget - Keep or retarget per above. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete do not need it linking to the suggested article, or any article. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Baruch Hashem

This redirect should be deleted as Baruch Hashem is not an alternate phrase for Besiyata Dishmaya. They mean completely different things. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep Although indeed the translations are different, Baruch HaShem (correct capitalization per WP:HEBREW) means "Praise be to God" and BeSiyata DiShmaya (correct capitalization strikes again) means "With the help of Heaven", but the usage is the same: both are used at the beginning of letters written by religious Jews to express their thankfulness to God. Debresser ( talk) 19:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I hear these expressions used often in my community, and in my personal experience, they are not at all used in the same way. “Baruch Hashem” is used after remarking about a good event. Example: “I thought I was going to miss the bus, but I managed to catch it, Baruch HaShem.” Besiyata Dishmaya on the the other hand, is used when expressing hope that something will happen. Example: “We will begin this project now, and hopefully have it done by next week, Besiyata Dishmaya.” Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 23:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That is another usage of Baruch HaShem. The one I mentioned is the well-known writing of 'B"H' at the beginning of a letter. Not the same thing. Debresser ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt what you are saying, but I personally have never seen B"H used in that way. Regardless, however, they still mean different things and aren't the same thing just because they can both be used in a similar situation. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)