Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2014.

Membrane Theory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. The ony articles explicitly noted here are the original target and Membrane theory of shells. If there are others, then they should be added (pinging |The Whispering Wind). Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. According to a discussion I have recently had with Polytope24 "membrane theory" is not an accurate alternative term for "M theory" and should not redirect to it. I do not know that there is any other topic to which it should redirect, therefore it appears a deletion may be the best alternative. KDS4444Talk 10:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Disambiguate per The Whispering Wind. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - from a GSearch this term is more often associated with M-theory than with shells. The fact that it is not strictly accurate is not a deletion ground; redirects are purely search term and, per WP:RNEUTRAL, it is for the target article to set out the facts. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original deletion rationale rested on the assumption that there is no other target for the redirect. As this is no longer true, deletion is no longer at issue, only what to do with it. Seeing as there is a +"cell membrane theory" -"shells" -"strings" -"superstrings", as well as a more general membrane theory related to semipermeable membranes +"membrane theory" -"shells" -"strings" -"superstrings", disambiguation looks like the best choice. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Venetian snares/Higgins Ultra Low Track Glue Funk Hits[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered this by accident: can't see a CSD criteria but article clearly should have been moved without creating this. Despite its age it serves no purpose and should be deleted. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: article only resided for a day there, and the naming scheme makes this title implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Braveheart (Neon Jungle album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. View points are pretty evenly split between deletion and retarget, and a no consensus closure here would not be out of place - except that would default to keep which is one thing that nobody wants and so would not be best serving the readers (and Dream Focus notes that there are a large number of views). In light of this I feel it important that this discussion comes to a conclusion, so as there is a belief that there is a target this can point to usefully - even if that is not universally held - the least harmful course of action is to retarget. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Jungle have never released an album called Braveheart. Their new album is called "Welcome to the Jungle". Launchballer 09:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that singles and albums were distinctly different things.--Launchballer 23:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they are, although I didn't know that, and I am pretty sure I am not alone in doing so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see the potential for confusion if the song were a "single" in the sense that it was the A-side of two-sided albums that were distributed. That doesn't seem to be the case, unsurprisingly, so I would have to call this an unlikely search term, and misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be a mistakenly created redirect. Who would search for this given that it's a song/single, not an album? starship.paint ~ regal 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the song article. Someone is searching for this. It has been viewed 222 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 15:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - plausible search term, and would clearly send readers to what they're searching for. No case for deletion. WilyD 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Whom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Consensus is weak here, but after two relistings and discussion lasting over 2 months I don't think we'll get anything stronger than this. I'm coming down on the side of "keep" rather than "no consensus" as the only argument for deletion has come from the nominator, while all the others are for keeping either explicitly or implicitly by preferring the status quo over any changes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:LEAST. Should be bypassed and redirected to Template:Whom2 instead. � (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: any action on this redirect will break 7 years worth of pages, so people inspecting page history will see bizarre statements like this:

    The physical properties of the final gelatin product are better.[whom?]

    Given that "According to whom?" is one of several reasonable things to expect from typing {{whom}}, I don't see the benefits of change outweighting the damage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both good arguments, though I'd suggest that if we're going to follow Ï¿½'s recommendation, it would be better to simply move Template:Whom2 to Template:Whom. At that point, it might be worth updating uses of Whom2 and deleting that. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:According to whom is used far more often than either whom or whom2. Do we need whom2 at all? Bots automatically read the relevant things, and rearrange things to a new format, so it wouldn't break articles. I doubt anyone ever types in According to whom, it just a bot that changes Whom into that. Might as well rename it Whom to begin with. Dream Focus 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

People's Republic of Kalifornia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Politics of California. The target can be refined to a specific section of that article if desired, but nothing specific was suggested in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name. TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's not a novel invention, it's derogatory slang used by some right-wingers against left-winger areas. [1]; the "K" is faux-Russian. There's similar terms for other areas of the country like the People's Republic of Massachusetts [2] or People's Republic of Vermont [3]. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then current target is inappropriate: it doesn't seem likely that people would use this query to search for information about California. Most likely the search would be intended to reveal the context of this term. Do we have any article where this subject can be mentioned and retargetted to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the article that should be pointed to as "California" covers the sociology of the state, the politics of the state, the government of the state. Since the term in question, PRKal, is a critique of the state as it is, it would seem that it should point to the state article, because it is a term that criticizes big government, the social safety net, taxation, government regulation, government inverventionism, pro-environmental policies, sociological mindset, left-coast liberalism, of the state. IOW, it criticizes the state in its government, sociological whole and body politic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe if there was some kind of article on political perceptions of each state? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's the more general topic Left Coast, but that only deals with left coast liberalism, and not big government found in the state of California, as it deals with the political bias of the entire western seaboard of central North America -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Politics of California which is probably the best match. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Arguments for keeping are less effective if the phrase isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. Relisting to allow for more opinions, or for incorporation of the phrase somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Robotrain[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Automatic train operation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one calls the L line the "Robotrain", not even in New York City. If anything, it is more suitably redirected to Automatic train operation, but the "Robotrain" term is very sporadically used. Epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per TWW, add a hatnote. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which hatnote? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Robotrain" redirects here. For the New York City train, see L (New York City Subway service).
        -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absent evidence of usage. The nominator says it's "very sporadically used"; it's used nowhere else on Wikipedia, at least. From what I can tell, it's a neologism. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be mentioned at the target article, in which case it can be kept. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Automatic train operation. As a lifetime NYC resident, I hardly believe the term is exclusively used in New York City, but the term was used for trains on the L line because it was the first to have such an overhaul. The 7 line is slated to be next; so if my assertion in the second sentence did not apply, then I would have suggested retargeting to Automation of the New York City Subway. Thus I would retarget per The Whispering Wind. I also have not heard the term in general usage except for some specific newspaper editors (such as the author of the article cited above), but what do I know? I'm not in the loop of such 'hip' terms. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:ONUS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The consensus is that this is a reasonable target. Though WP:BURDEN is an alternative target, the harm caused by retargeting would outweigh any benefits. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 09:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep has been used here as abbreviation -- I don;t think that abbreviated redirects in WP space should be judged on the basis of "not used in target article". There is no target article, and such redirects are meant as mnemonics. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the whole reason I nominated is because I thought that it redirecting there was an error and that it should redirect to a page which says 'the onus is on...' which I couldn't remember the name of, and was hoping that this would unearth it. What exactly is 'onus' an abbreviation for?--Launchballer 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an abbreviation, but a Latin word for legal concept of "burden" (as in burden of proof). Page you are looking for is onus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while I would prefer to see this redirect mirroring WP:BURDEN, current target is also appropriate, and this shortcut is used enough to make any changes really damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' per above. I think "onus" goes nicely with the burden of getting sources which is discussed in the target page. --Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ウィキペディア[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. There is no consensus below to delete any of these redirects, especially as only the first one listed was actually tagged for RfD (I have explained the importance of this to the nominator on their talk page, but that post-dated this nomination). There is consensus that redirects from "Wikipedia" in foreign languages to the article about that language Wikipedia (e.g. "ウィキペディア" → to Japanese Wikipedia) and these can be retargeted without prejudice from this discussion. Speaking as a normal editor and not in my role as the admin closing this discussion, I would not consider a renomination of any that use mixed writing systems to be inappropriate at this point, but I will not be instituting such a discussion myself. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language not particularly relevant TheChampionMan1234 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see a problem with these redirects. Jaqeli 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an rticle on appriopriate language edition of Wikipedia. � (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least two
I have no strong opinion about whether the rest should be kept or deleted. Retargeting to the entry on the language-specific Wikipedia might work for some of these. However it would be problematic for many of the Cyrillic ones because the title is ambiguous as to which language it is but only one of those language-versions has an article (e.g. Вікіпедія where Ukrainian Wikipedia exists but Rusyn Wikipedia does not). quant18 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: this is English Wikipedia, and the way "Wikipedia" spells in English is easy to find on every single page of English Wikipedia. This is just a well of WP:BADIDEAs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just expand a bit on "BADIDEAs":
  1. These redirects aid accidential linking exactly where they should not: Russian Wikipedia should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles and talk pages as Russian Wikipedia, not as Википедия. English Wikipedia is supposed to be used by English speakers and should not require knowledge of other languages.
  2. The task of providing translations is not the task of Wikipedia. We have Wiktionary for that.
  3. These redirects are inherently ambiguous – one can't deduce whether the link Википедия is supposed to mean Wikipedia in general or Russian branch of the project. Each of them requires disambiguation, and disambiguating non-English words is not the business of English Wikipedia.
Keeping such redirects means saying that such redirects are OK, and similar redirects may be created. In my opinion, we just should not send such messages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For cases that are spelled correctly, I think retargeting as � suggested would be good. --BDD (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW the following table lists the targets for these redirects according to proposal by �:
Redirect Target Problems?
ウィキペディア Japanese Wikipedia no
Википедиja Bosnian Wikipedia first 8 letters Cyrillic, last 2 – Latin
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Википедию Russian Wikipedia in accusative case
Википедия Avar Wikipedia no
Bashkir Wikipedia
Komi-Permyak Wikipedia
Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia
Lak Wikipedia
Lezgian Wikipedia
Moldovan Wikipedia
Russian Wikipedia
Tatar Wikipedia
Tuvan Wikipedia
Udmurt Wikipedia
Википедија Bosnian Wikipedia no
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Вікіпедія Rusyn Wikipedia no
Ukrainian Wikipedia
Уикипедия Bulgarian Wikipedia no
Kazakh Wikipedia
Kyrgyz Wikipedia
Վիքիպեդիա Armenian Wikipedia no
ויקיפעדיע Yiddish Wikipedia partial match
ویکیپدیا ? can't find it
ويكيبيديا Arabic Wikipedia no
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
विकिपीडिया Bihari Wikipedia no
Hindi Wikipedia
Marathi Wikipedia
Nepali Wikipedia
Sanskrit Wikipedia
விக்கிபீடியா ? can't find it
వికిపీడియా ? can't find it
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ Kannada Wikipedia no
വിക്കിപീഡിയ Malayalam Wikipedia no
วิกิพีเดีย Thai Wikipedia no
ვიკიპედია Mingrelian Wikipedia no
Georgian Wikipedia
維基大典 Chinese Wikipedia no
위키피디아 ? can't find it
위키백과 Korean Wikipedia no
Википеди Chechen Wikipedia no
Chuvash Wikipedia
Hill Mari Wikipedia
Ossetian Wikipedia
Supporters of retarget view (�, quant18, BDD), please specify targets for non-obvious cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“ویکیپدیا” is the Persian “ویکی‌پدیا” without the necessary ZWNJ. “விக்கிபீடியா” is vikkipīṭīyā instead of Tamil vikkippīṭīyā and “వికిపీడియా” is vikipīḍiyā instead of Telugu vikīpīḍiyā; I don’t know whether these are valid alternative spellings. “위키피디아” (Wikipidia) is well-attested in Korean sources. Gorobay (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the multitarget versions become disambiguation pages? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depens on this discussion. I strongly oppose disambiguating foreign language titles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with disambiguating, as the language is relevant to the subject of the article. � (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheChampionMan1234 08:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per "Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary," which may not be a formal guideline, but it's blinking obvious. Look, people looking in the English Wikipedia for foreign words can be presumed to know what Wikipedia is, so all these links do is provide a bunch of translations. When we get this far out in the orthography it's hard to imagine that people either can decode the word out enough to sound it out, or they can read it outright and therefore don't need our help, or they can't even tell what part of speech they're looking at. These links are thus unnecessary for the first two groups, and unhelpful to the last. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or disambiguate to appropriate language-specific Wikipedias if they exist, according to Ï¿½'s proposal, as likely search terms for a topic related to the language. Keep the accusative-case Russian one, as it may be encountered in text by someone without the knowledge or keyboard to transform it to nominative. Delete the mixed Cyrillic-Latin one (Википедиja) as unlikely misspelling. Delete the "can't find it"s in the table, except the Korean one 위키피디아 which is common in Google news. And delete the partial title match Yiddish one ויקיפעדיע Siuenti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible idea. If people are in a Google function, then it certainly makes sense for them to use Google to find the foreign language wikipedia directly rather than trying to route them through us. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are assuming they are looking for the English Wikipedia article about the foreign language Wikipedia. If they are looking for the foreign language Wikipedia itself then yes, they should be using Google, the proposal isn't designed to help them. Siuenti (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in general. Where specific language version articles exist, retargetting to those specific versions is preferable, I think. In general, no reason has been presented for deletion, nor do any appear to exist; deletion of these useful navigation links would only serve to damage the functionality/usability of the encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 維基大典 is the name at the Classical Chinese Wikipedia (currently redirects to List of Wikipedias). The (modern) Chinese Wikipedia uses 維基百科 (already redirects to Chinese Wikipedia). The current article about zhwp has only a passing mention of the creation of the classical-zhwp, which I think redirecting to there is inappropriate unless expanded (or create an article, but discussion is not for here). Redirect/delete per table above for the rest. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and recreate those that might be useful. We just lose much time here. One month to decide something that seems trivial. We can just delete all and start recreating slowly based on the real needs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Honor, Courage, Commitment[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the US Navy should be the target of this article. The phrase is not mentioned in the article. While the Navy describes these as their core values (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=193), so do the Marines (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/hrom/NewEmployees/AbouttheMarineCorps/Values.aspx). There is also a non-profit veteran's organization with this name (http://www.honorcouragecommitment.org/) which may not be notable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as far as I know, this wording is not specifically tied to any organization (apart from non-notable non-profit), and the concept is too wide to be worth disambiguation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chumathang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted to move Chumathang Village there. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has repeatedly and incorrectly tried to apply a CSD tag to this redirect. So I will take it to RfD. No opinion on it myself. That user can comment here if he wishes. Safiel (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry - this is the first time I have tried to speedily delete a redirection page and I have, obviously made a mess of it. However, it clearly needs to be deleted, as Chumathang is a completely separate settlement to Nyoma where one is redirected to. The two towns are about 41 km apart along the Indus river valley. I am sorry to have caused all this inconvenience - please accept my apologies for giving you extra work because of my ignorance. In the meantime, I have created a new page called Chumathang village to fill the gap. sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Democratic America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. - TheChampionMan1234 01:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most Americans will think of the Democratic Party, which might suggest Blue state or Left coast as possible targets. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the Democratic Party of America, not about democracy in the Americas, etc -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Could just as well mean Canada, after all (/snark). Too open-ended to even disambiguate. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we generally only keep POV redirects when they are not ambiguous. Canada is at least as democratic as US. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Politics of the United States. I'm also open to Delete if we really can't find a viable target. BTW, Democracy in America is a book so it's not a good idea to retarget it there. --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

蒙古族[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. Consensus below is to retarget, but there is not unanimity on what the new target should be. Of those suggested, my personal opinion is that Mongols in China is the one more likely to be useful, but if anyone disagrees with this then it can be discussed at the talk page as per the normal editorial process. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_13&oldid=1138579413"