Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 27, 2018.

Bumfuck[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 trainwreck, default to delete all since the consensus is that the current target is inappropriate, but different outcomes have been proposed for the various titles. @Nowak Kowalski, Largoplazo, Godsy, and Arms & Hearts: If you feel strongly about any of these titles, you're welcome to create a new redirect or soft redirect at any of these titles as you see fit. Deryck C. 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This, ugh, does not seem to be the primary topic for that term. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

جيمس خان[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no affinity to Arabic, recently created AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it matches the Urdu name listed in the infobox. Assuming that's correct, this redirect is also correct. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't see that. Withdrawing as it's related to Pakistan for sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Freddy Mercurie[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity to French, unlikely misspelling, recently created. I could understand Freddy Mercury since Mercury is spelled with Y, but Mercurie is not a likely spelling, and if it were, it would be IE on both words. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I don't see what it would have to with French, in which the name for the Roman god is "Mercure". It could be that someone knew that one of the names ended in -y and the other in -ie and kept forgetting which is which (like forgetting which consonants are duplicated in "exaggerate" and which ones aren't) and figured on helping others with the same problem. I don't know how likely that is, but I can see the potential for helpfulness and it's harmless. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Largoplazo. Also, though most new {{R from typo}}s are unnecessary at best, the search engine gives totally useless results for this particular typo (search on Simple English Wikipedia where this redirect doesn't exist, to see what the search engine does in its absence). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's still two typos away from the correct name, per WP:RTYPO this is not likely. Searcher would either go with all Y's or all IE's. And by typing "Freddy Merc" in, they should get the right one in the suggested search spellings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Two typos" would be something like Greddie Nercury where someone hit two different off-by-one keys. As LargoPlazo points out, this is basically a single misspelling (swapping two phonetically equivalent parts of the name). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Phonetic misspellings are usually helpful for those who hear the name but may not know how it's spelled. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, especially 59.149's point regarding the search engine. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Upcoming Nas 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Nasir has already been released, the title "Upcoming Nas album" no longer makes sense. — Newslinger talk 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Field Music(military)[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term / incorrect spacing. Compare with Field music (military). Senator2029 “Talk” 22:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Incorrectly generated redirect whose properly created one already exists and does the job. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB and WP:R#D8. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that this was created suggests that it's a plausible typo. To my knowledge there's no other topic to which this could possibly refer, so there's no risk of confusion and no harm done. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy. The incorrect spacing makes this redirect unnecessary. — Newslinger talk 02:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of racist attack on Africans in India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 7#List of racist attack on Africans in India

سكس[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook examples of redirects that shouldn't be created per WP:RFOREIGN: a user typing an Arabic phrase meaning "sex videos" will be taken to our relevant article and hence that user might assume that they can search in a similar way for other topics. All of these redirects appear to have been created because they were popular as search queries (and hence appeared in Wikipedia:Most-missed articles and the like). – Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input as even though the five-year-old discussion ended as no consensus, a number of these still have significant viewership (as might be expected given their prurient nature) and the closer explicitly mentioned an exception to WP:FORRED. I'd like a bit more discussion on those topics before proceeding to overturn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. No reason for anyone to be searching for those terms in Arabic on English Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN and per the translations provided at the previous discussion. It seems obvious to me that someone using these search terms is wanting actual pornography, not just an encyclopedia article on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some of them are poor targets anyway! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:DELREASON[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 Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion and keep, respectively. Those wanting to preserve the status quo aren't wrong, inasmuch as we can have situations like this just based on how different redirects were developed, but a majority of editors here made a persuasive argument why that shouldn't be the case here. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two projectspace shortcuts are only subtly different. Having them point to two different targets is apt to cause confusion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, retarget Wikipedia:DELREASON to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion has 5 shortcuts already. Sam Sailor 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't retarget either. We should be very careful about retargeting shortcuts, as doing so changes the meaning of comments and !votes that refer to them. To pick an example at random: MichaelQSchmidt's comment "See WP:DELREASON" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vellakkuppayam takes on a wholly different meaning if the shortcut's target is changed. It's important that old deletion discussions (and any other discussions these might have been used in) are left intact for the benefit of any future readers who might be interested in revisiting the article, nominating it for deletion again or for deletion review, etc. The potential confusion between the two similar shortcuts is better resolved with hatnotes than by retargeting either. (If there is a consensus that these ought to point to the same target though, it should be WP:DELREASON that's changed, as it's much less widely used than WP:DEL-REASON.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't retarget either – as per the rationale above by Arms & Hearts. No need to create ambiguity in past discussions. North America1000 21:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arms & Hearts and Northamerica1000: WP:DELREASON only has ~25 internal links, which could easily be replaced with "Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Reasons" (possibly with piping) to keep old discussions intact. WP:DEL-REASON has ~1500 internal links. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is why I included the comment in parentheses at the end of my !vote. You're right that it would be a straightforward solution, but I'm of the opinion that using hatnotes to distinguish the two shortcuts is an even more elegant solution that doesn't require us to make any changes to anyone else's comments. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors may not immediately follow the links to reach the hatnotes but inaccurately assume they go to the same place after becoming familiar with one or the other, eventually likely culminating in a WP:SURPRISE or not and leaving them in a state of unknowing. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget WP:DELREASON as per Sam Sailor. Having two subtly different shortcuts targeting different things, and can easily lead to people linking the wrong thing; indeed looking at the 25 links to WP:DELREASON I think most are actually meant to target the policy, not the essay, so this retargeting would indeed fix more links then it breaks (the ambiguity in past discussions already exists). Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - It's rare to link to overzealous in this fashion, so I think the retarget does make sense. Obviously a hatnote would need to be added, preferably above the section, not the page. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provided the prior usage is relinked as suggested above. Per WP:CREEP, we should be trying to roll back such confusion so that the similar shortcuts go to the same place. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't retarget either per Arms & Hearts. We should always be extremely wary of retargetting shortcuts that have been used, and while Andrew D's desire to roll back confusion is admirable, attempting that in this case would just lead to different confusion negating any benefits there might be. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget WP:DELREASON to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, which lists the actual reasons for deletion per the deletion policy, rather than an essay on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion I'm sympathetic to the argument about rewriting historical, but it's surprising at best and confusing at worst to have these two go to different places. Better to send them to an established policy rather than an essay. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mota Varachha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 7#Mota Varachha

Cinnamon stix[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. Not seeing any general agreement or consensus on an outcome. Between keep and disambiguation maybe this leans toward "having content," but there's no real agreement. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a useless redirect. Some of you are experts on the subject matter--please have a look at the user's other creations, including Taking a poop. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as recently created. There are multiple products that use the "Stix" name, but do not refer to the Cinnamon sticks themselves. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) updated 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking above vote for disambiguation AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so... delete this, or make it a disambiguation page with the song and and the alternate spelling of "cinnamon sticks"? Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a disambiguation page, but I do oppose deletion as that wont help anybody (indeed it will hinder them). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is fine. I've put in the entries for the stick, the breadstick, and the song. My guess is that they used Stix to distinguish the bread stick from the actual stick AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a bit shaky. The breadsticks entry fails MOS:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the article: "In many North American restaurants, breadsticks are frequently topped with butter, garlic, and cheese when served as appetizers; as a dessert item, they can be topped with cinnamon sugar and icing" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some good arguments but I'm not convinced by any of them or see a general consensus yet. Let's give another relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How much longer is this discussion gonna take? It's been going on for like 3 weeks now. I don't think I've ever seen a redirect discussion that goes for this long before... Colgatepony234 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's happened! There have certainly been discussions relisted thrice. Some probably more, though that's the point where I'm likely to just call it no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, Home Lander, Arms & Hearts is dab okay now or would still prefer keep/delete? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a source for the breadsticks entry, and I think that WP:DABMENTION should probably read as requiring the phrase be mentioned somewhere in the article, rather than just a description of something with no indication that it's known by this name (which is what Breadstick currently contains). I'd prefer a disambiguation page to deletion, but at present I still think keeping it at the current target (with a hatnote for the song, I suppose) is preferable to either of those options. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like [1] [2] [3] Auntie Anne's Cinnamon Sugar Stix (bread stick with cinnamon coat) [4] Cinnabon Stix [5]? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, then redirects here is in order, and hatnotes need to go to breadsticks and to the song. Most use of "stix" in general search refer to the breadstick brands rather than the stick itself. Same in book searches. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those links seem to refer to breadsticks, though none of the first six links use the word "bread" in relation to the product in question, and others confuse things almost as much as they clarify: 1,000 Low-Calorie Recipes contains a dish called "Cinnamon Stix with Maple Crème" that it describes as a version of French toast, while Brand Eating has a photo that looks more like cheese straws or some sort of doughnut product (cf. File:Yumyums-Plate.png) than breadsticks. It seems that the phrase refers to a few different bread-based products in a stick shape, including but not limited to breadsticks in the sense defined in our article on the subject. So, all in all I'm still unconvinced – there's a relation, but it's a tenuous one and not obviously much stronger than the relation to other notable foodstuffs; in combination with the fact that the phrase isn't mentioned in the breadstick article I'm still inclined to favour keeping this pointing to the current target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see creating a disambiguation page, but the core thing here is that the redirect appears valid. 'Cinnamon Sticks' are a valid food product, and this wording is simple a different phonetic way of saying that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no point continuing with the discussion since there's literally no consensus. This discussion has gone on for over a month. Colgatepony234 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sackful[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 Sack (unit). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy for this since the Wiktionary redirect template has a purpose. This is a very unlikely title to search for on Wikipedia, however, therefore nominating for deletion. Tóraí (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sack (unit) as a unit of measure. Otherwise Sack (disambiguation) may apply. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that someone's seen fit to create this is for me sufficient evidence that it's a plausible search term. The Wiktionary entry defines the word, which no Wikipedia article does, and so provides the reader with what we can assume they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

This Week (BBC News TV series)[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect targets Reporters (TV series), but that article makes no mention of "This Week" being an alternate title for this TV program. In addition, This Week (BBC TV series) also exists, and that would seem to be the "correct" target for this redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the above has shown, no matter where this goes there may be confusion of some form. Because this is not a useful redirect for searching due to its disambiguator, deletion is the best option. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Denim (color)[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 List of colors: A-F#D. There is a clear consensus to retarget this, but where to is less clear. There were objections to everything other than the list, and the mention there appears to have been added after some commenters expressed their views and meets at least most of the things they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be redirected to List of Crayola crayon colors after information about the color was removed from the Indigo article Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentDenim is not a color, it's a textile, however in the List of Crayola crayon colors there are a couple of sources that Denim color is a Crayola thing. On the other hand, to support that claim both references (this and this) are deadlinks. Are there better sources that can still support it? --1l2l3k (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Those searching or linking to this exact title want a colour. Give them a colour. But this is "weak" because the target article doesn't mention "denim". Deryck C. 13:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree with taking this to 'List of colors: A–F' given that denim as a color exists conceptually outside of crayons. At any rate, besides, I want to make it clear that we absolutely should keep this redirect and bring it somewhere. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Studies in the Psychology of Sex Vol. 1[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 Havelock Ellis#Works. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page dealt with the matter in Volume 2. having a redirect is not helpful. Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Havelock Ellis. The article was at this location for 15 months until yesterday, so deleting the redirect left by the move is likely to cause confusion. The Ellis article contains just about enough relevant information to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ellis's article for now and clean up the other Volumes so they are clear what they cover. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of most populous nations by 2025[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. Deryck C. 09:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect has been listed for deletion before, closed with no consensus. Now the redirect goal is gone, unlikely to come back, and there is no obvious good replacement; note that List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant) does not even contain a prediction for the year 2025. In seven years, this redirect will be obsolete anyway. Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_August_27&oldid=1184556167"