Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2018.

Illusion (Faith Hill album)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#Illusion (Faith Hill album)

29 redirects fully enclosed in quotation marks[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 all redirects not singled out to be kept. I find no consensus on the other ones, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 29 redirects
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There are a few hundred redirects following the pattern "xyz" → xyz. I am of the opinion that they should all be deleted unless quotes are used in the original (e.g. "300") or the phrase frequently appears within quotes (e.g. "Betray Us"—although on these redirects my !vote would probably only be "weak keep"). Here are the first 29 redirects that do not fit those criteria, going through the alphabet through C. I propose that we delete them.

To avoid a total trainwreck here, I suggest the following: If you are generally in favor of deleting these redirects, but believe that a handful (five or fewer, let's say) should be kept, I hereby give you permission to unilaterally strike those redirects from the list (using <s>...</s>), provided that you explain your reasoning in your edit summary and/or a comment. If I disagree with your reasoning for striking them, I'll nominate them individually at a later date.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Comment. @PinkAmpersand: Your RfD nomination looks quite familiar to me. Might as well have nominated the whole lot of them so we don't have to have another discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out my "delete all" since some of these redirects could be songs, and I don't have time to look at all of them at this moment. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just looked at some of these, and at least with "Bob" and "Can't Get Enough", there are articles that represent songs on Wikipedia by these names. I bring this up since there's apparently a Wikipedia standard/guideline to put the songs in quotes in the lead of their respective articles and with their appearance on respective disambiguation pages with link piping, but the articles' titles themselves do not contain the quotes. In other words, deleting such redirects could impair readers who are not familiar with "WikiSpeak" and look up these song titles by quotes. (Unfortunately, I may be making the dreaded WP:TRAINWRECK vote soon, but I have to look at more of these redirects before I even cast my opinion; if I don't voice my opinion about specific redirects at any point past this comment, consider me "neutral" in this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: The following articles put the title in quotation marks within the body: "Caliban's Dream", "All About That Bass", "A Little Boy Lost", and "(It) Feels So Good". The following go to articles with italicized titles: "Cardinal Burns", "Cage on the Sea", "Boots with Brass", "Blues from the Apple", "Agnes Escapes from the Nursing Home", "A feather on the breath of God", "A Night in Malnéant", and "...explosante-fixe...". The following go to DAB pages where some entries are in quotation marks or italicized: "Can't Get Enough", "Bob", and "All My Friends". — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PinkAmpersand: Thanks for breaking down the nominations. By the way, I had to fix the target of "A Night in Malnéant" as it seems its target article contained the title in italics in error. Anyways, per the information presented, weak keep "Caliban's Dream", "All About That Bass", "A Little Boy Lost", "(It) Feels So Good", "A Night in Malnéant", "Can't Get Enough", "Bob", and "All My Friends". Delete the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:28, 14 January 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.

955 timer IC[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No “955” is mentioned in the article; this is either a typo, a non-notable related product, or maybe even a hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I always think of 555 timer IC whenever I see "555" written somewhere, but have never heard of a 955. Google tells me there is such a thing but WP:NOTDIRECTORY means Wikipedia has no need to list every IC ever made and there is no information at the target about a 955. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 15 January 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.

Template:Wilmington Hammerheads squad[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 close. Will be deleted anyway per WP:CSD#G8 if the target was deleted. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect for a defunct team. Unnecessary to maintain redirect for semi-pro sides. I've nominated the template for deletion as well. Jay eyem (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. The redirects will be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G8 if the templates are deleted. Otherwise, the redirects target where they are supposed to and are clearly helpful in their current state. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 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.

Smart pill[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. Killiondude (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "smart pill" is not mentioned at the target page and it is certainly not specific to Adderall. The term could be used for other ADHD medications and other kinds of drugs as well such as nootropics. Peacock (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparently the connection is at Adderall#Cognitive performance (or nootropic as noted in the nom). However, Google shows there are lots of spurious claims about herbal and other pills so people can make do with less study, and the redirect has no useful information for the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are other potential meanings like the one below this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The general concept of some medication that increases one's intelligence... this is the sort of thing that applies not just to a variety of real-life drugs but also a wide collection of fictional substances as well, all of which could be called 'smart pills'. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:32, 19 January 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.

SmartPill[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "SmartPill" is not mentioned at the target page. Presumably SmartPill is a brand name for a specific type of capsule used in endoscopy, but since it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article, the redirect is inappropriate (and perhaps promotional). Peacock (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. The term appears to be this although that company appears to now use PillCam for capsule endoscopy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are other potential meanings like the one above this. This could be restored as a trademark redirect if the trademarked thing were mentioned in the article, but this seems unlikely since the branding has been changed to PillCam.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:04, 15 January 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:HIDEREF[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:HIDEREF

Wikipedia:HIDDENREF[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:HIDDENREF

Wikipedia:UNHIDECITATION[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:UNHIDECITATION

Wikipedia:CITE EVERYTHING[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:CITE EVERYTHING

Wikipedia:TOOFEWREFS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:TOOFEWREFS

Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION[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. Killiondude (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems to redirect to where it should, which also seems to be the most helpful target for the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was replaced with a better shortcut name. It is not used in the essay and no editor will use it because it is not a shortcut used in the essay. It was deleted from the essay a long time ago. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". If the redirect was useful it would be in the essay. Adding more shortcuts would be shortcut overkill. What is the benefit for keeping Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION and Wikipedia:CITATION CONFUSION? The only difference is the space in one of the shortcuts. Why keep both? No rationale was given for keeping both. Who is going to use any of these in an article discussion when better shortcut names are used in the essay? Causing "shortcut confusion" is not going to help anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMcCandlish, you are the creator of this shortcut. What you say about it is important. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as matching the section name; redirects are cheap, and they do not have to be "advertised" to be useful, they only have to get someone where they intend to get (e.g. by remembering the section name but not which page it was in). I would instead delete the listed one, WP:CITATIONPLACEMENT, since it's not mnemonic. Either that or rename the section to "Citation placement". I wouldn't do that either, though, since the actual WP:CITE guideline (and WP:MOS) also have information on citation placement. "Citation confusion" really is the unique name for this section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • CITATIONCONFUSION does not match the section name. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, do you remember you told me the following: No essay needs that many shortcuts, especially a new one no one mentions but its author. A shortcut that has no obvious referent, isn't unambiguous, isn't memorable, and/or isn't likely to be used, is known as "polluting the namespace", routinely deleted at RfD. I remember. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which redirect? There are various ones we delete. None of the ones you've nominated in relation to this page have no obvious referent, aren't unamibiguous (within the context), aren't memorable (other than the freaky one that looks like a disambiguated article title), or wouldn't be used (ditto).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted you. You can tell me which redirect or redirects. Close to the same time we were discussing the essay, you deleted a redirect from the essay, but now you want to keep it as a redirect. You created this shortcut, but have you used Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION or plan on using Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION? QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already been over this [1]. I'm just going to repeat "Keep as matching the section name" and move on. This is starting to feel like some kind of personality struggle and finger-pointing game, and I'm not interested. I repeat [2] also: who created which redirect is irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not match the section name. The previous section name was confusing. Changing the section name was easy. I disagree with editors using Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION becuase it could spread confusion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 16 January 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:CITATION CONFUSION[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. Killiondude (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems to redirect to where it should, which also seems to be the most helpful target for the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was replaced with a better shortcut name. It is not used in the essay and no editor will use it because it is not a shortcut used in the essay. It was deleted from the essay a long time ago. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". If the redirect was useful it would be in the essay. This shortcut is the same as the above shortcut except that it has an extra space. We don't need shortcut clutter in the essay. The name "CITATION CONFUSION" was too ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; same rationale as the RfD above this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The is no citation confusion section anymore. No point in keeping it. The shortcut name is confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said in another of these redundant nominations, I don't think renaming the section to "Citation placement" is a good idea, since that overlaps with the scope of WP:CITE. And the fact that section was long called "Citation confusion", a memorable name, is reason enough for the redir to continue to exist, since people will have remembered it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The essay is an interpretation of policy and guidelines. "Citation placement" is a more descriptive name, since that is the focus of that section.
        • There would be no redundant nominations, if there was no redundant or similar shortcut names. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 16 January 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:CITECONFUSE[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. Killiondude (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems to redirect to where it should, which also seems to be the most helpful target for the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was replaced with a better shortcut name. It is not used in the essay and no editor will use it because it is not a shortcut used in the essay. It was deleted from the essay a long time ago. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is too similar to Wikipedia:CITATIONCONFUSION and Wikipedia:CITATION CONFUSION was replaced with another shortcut. Shortcut clutter will not improve the essay if we restored them to the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similarity between redirects to the same place is not and never has been any kind of deletion rationale; many redirects are similar, and this is on purpose so not-perfectly-memorized shortcuts still work. E.g. MOS:WTW and MOS:W2W go to the same place. There is no requirement that every existing shortcut be "advertised" in the page itself; in fact, we don't want that, and semi-recently reduced the preferred max number of alternative listed shortcuts from 5 to 2 per target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; same rationale at the two RfDs above this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The is no citation confusion section anymore. No point in keeping it. The section is not about confusion. It is about citation placement. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 15 January 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:Citationunderkill[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 as a plausible shortcut (non-admin closure)  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems to redirect to where it should, which also seems to be the most helpful target for the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was replaced with a better shortcut name. It is not used in the essay and no editor will use it because it is not a shortcut used in the essay. It was deleted from the essay a long time ago. There are three shortcuts at the top of the essay. More than three at the top of the page is shortcut overkill. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did give a rationale above. We don't need to add more shortcuts to the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as harmless and plausible; anyone who remember the phrase may try this, even if they have no idea it's the actual name of the page rather than a phrase in it that stuck in their mind. Please stop these pointless deletion nominations; they're a waste of our time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:57, 15 January 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:Citation overkill (contrary opinions)[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. Killiondude (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible; no one would ever type such a thing as a "shortcut".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally unhelpful. No need for an editorial in a shortcut. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 16 January 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:EACHMEDCITE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Wikipedia:EACHMEDCITE

Tropical Storm Israel[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 Hurricane Ismael#Aftermath. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such thing as a storm named "Israel". The name was supposed to be included in the naming list of the 2001 Pacific hurricane season as a replacement for "Ismael", but was never used and was replaced with "Ivo" instead. CycloneYoris (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Retarget I can see the redirect being useful for someone trying to figure out why Israel wasn't used that season. It is briefly mentioned at 2001 Pacific hurricane season#Storm names along with Hurricane Adolph. More details about both names can certainly be added to that section. Currently, the most information I can find is at Hurricane Ismael#Aftermath. If, for whatever reason, that's too much information to copy over, then retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't notice that there is also another redirect named Hurricane Israel. Which is in my opinion, less useful than the aforementioned one. Would it be suitable to retarget both of them into the same section? Or would it be better to delete only one of them and retarget the other? CycloneYoris (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:33, 13 January 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.

Gembaku[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 both to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -- Tavix (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly redirected Genbaku to the most sensible target, which appears to be Hiroshima Peace Memorial. Gembaku is not a plausible misspelling considering that most languages differentiate between m and n, including both English and Japanese. We do not, for example, have Hiroshina → Hiroshima. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is an extremely plausible variant spelling, and gets thousands of hits in Google Books. The "m" here is not the same as the m in "Hiroshima"; it is the moraic nasal, which is pronounced "n" before some consonants and "m" before others (including "b"), and is thus sometimes spelled "m" in romanisation (c.f. Asahi Shimbun).
    However, I am not sure what the best target for either genbaku or gembaku is, since it is only a WP:PTM for Gembaku Dome, and the term is not exclusive to the bombing of Hiroshima. I could see the case for deleting both, or retargeting both, but not keeping one & deleting the other. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I'm seeing media that use Gembaku as a spelling variant for Genbaku. The term might have a dictionary definition for atomic bombs in general but media refer mainly to one or both of the two bombings. The term is otherwise a PTM for related media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:32, 13 January 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.

Threadripper[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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would Seam ripper be a better target? (This is not a WP:G7 request.) feminist (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is a legitimate nickname for a certain Ryzen chip used in reliable sources. If there is confusion, which I doubt, a hatnote could solve it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote the target. Seems to be much more common as a production name for the AMD processor than as a synonym for the stitching tool, but I can see confusion being possible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A hatnote directing to Seam ripper has been present in the Ryzen article since September 2017. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:04, 13 January 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.

Sam Septiceye[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#Sam Septiceye

DID 5[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 24#DID 5

Premier British Wrestling[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 Global Force Wrestling. The question at hand seems to have been solved by the RM because there is no longer a disambiguation page at Global Force Wrestling, indicating a clear primary topic for these redirects. This is without prejudice against a nomination of one or a few of these for a different reason. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should these redirect to Impact Wrestling, Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017), or the disambiguation page Global Force Wrestling? The retargeting of the third target to the first target following the move back to the second target has confused AvicBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 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_January_13&oldid=1037876067"