Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2019.

Wikipedia is not a barbarian horde[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. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the discussion on What wp is not and similar cross-namespace redirects, but I didn't want to add on to that discussion, which has been running for over a month. The target page is a low-visibility essay with six total edits, so I don't think a cross-namespace redirect would do much here except add possible confusion to readers. The statistics show that the redirect had 149 pageviews over its four-year history. –Sonicwave talk 21:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No basis for having a cross namespace redirect to such an obscure essay. PC78 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant, non-searchable term, also per PC78. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to think that a redirect from mainspace is needed for this, as PC78 said, obscure essay. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2019 (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:Advice for editors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Wikipedia:Advice for editors

Lines (punishment)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 12#Lines (punishment)

Conquer the World[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 World domination. There is not much of a consensus, both overall and whether to target the section, but BDD explains well why it's better not to target the section so I'm going with that. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to World_domination#Social_and_political_ideologies, where the term is mentioned in a meaningful context. Per WP:RFD#DELETE Criteria 10, as the target article (the list) contains virtually no information on the subject (the video game compilation). The year of the release and description of it are both unreferenced (previously referenced to an unreliable website for references), so it's not offering any sourced content for the viewer. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redisambiguate per nom SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SpinnerLaserz: I'm confused what you mean by this comment; the nominator did not suggest disambiguation. Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can use this in order to avoid confusion by disambiguate it. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget, though just to World domination. The proposed section uses the phrase, but doesn't really discuss it in a way that merits a section redirect (cf. WP:UMD). And we should really still hatnote back to the game. Given the capitalization, I would be fine with keeping this as is too. MobyGames may be officially considered an unreliable source for the WikiProject, but consider that the only thing we're trying to verify here is whether such a product existed. Is it possible that this website cooked up a hoax video game compilation from 1997, and that eBay has gotten in on the hoax by selling fake products from the nonexistent compilation? I'm going to say no. There's no reason to think the content at List of MicroProse games is at all wrong. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2019 (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.

Mânza River[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Mânza River

Wikipedia:FOLK[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. MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused with no incoming links, could also refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Folklore. Note that folk is a dab page. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Ambiguity in shortcuts is not a problem, and while it doesn't get many hits its not entirely unsued so unless you're active wanting to use this as a redirect to somewhere else now, then there is no benefit in doing anything other than leaving it as is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was used exactly six times last year. Did those users arrive at the page they expected? Who can say, but for my own part I used it more in hope than expectation. It might be more intuitive though if it targets the WikiProject that at least has "folk" in its title. PC78 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the point about this being ambiguous and while we don't commonly have project DAB pages since, when there are only hatnotes often work better, WP:PT however is one (though if has 6 entries) the fact that it could easily mean either suggests disambiguation is best. I have provided a draft though if there are more entries they can be added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. per nom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (per nom) or disambiguate (per C,S) as ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, and add a hatnote to the folklore project. I'm open to changing it if the folklore project were much larger or more active, or if many editors have been using this wrong, but none of this has been demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of consensus forming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2019 (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.

Mocirlele River (Sugag)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Mocirlele River (Sugag)

Moraru River (Plostina)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Moraru River (Plostina)

Moara Dracului River (Hogea)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Moara Dracului River (Hogea)

Moara Dracului River (Falcau)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Moara Dracului River (Falcau)

Clair Kenamore and Marguerite Martyn[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:X or Y: title refers to two distinct subjects (Clair Kenamore and Marguerite Martyn), causing confusion as to intended target. Note to admins, this may have been an original title, but title and page history appear to been moved accordingly. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2019 (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.

TribalWar[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. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable site, not at all mentioned in the target page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (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.

🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6#🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿

Mozo[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. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fancrufty, "Mozo" is mentioned in the article only in the cast list. An internet search would suggest that the Doraemon character is by no means the most searched-for thing with this name. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have drafted a disambiguation page, though it seems incomplete. Geolodus (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Geolodus. Thanks for the draft! 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I support the disambiguation proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 31 August 2019 (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.

Bumper (transformers)[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 Cliffjumper#Toys, and restore the previously deleted variant. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion as it's meant as a redirect to Bumper (Transformers), a redirect to the same page that was cut. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that the redirect should not be deleted but should it be kept as-is or retargeted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:17, 22 August 2019 (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.

Trangst[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. 14:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "trangst" is an uncommon and non-notable neologism/portmanteau word, apparently meaning angst experienced by a transgender or transsexual person. There's no mention of it at the target article, no wiktionary entry, and no coverage in reliable sources. Cheers, gnu57 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 22 August 2019 (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.

Kangaroo (2014 film)[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. MBisanz talk 18:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film did not release in 2014. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no evidence of release prior to 2015. PC78 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2019 (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.

=rand()[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. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a pangram be the result of the "rand()" function in Excel or elsewhere? We expect the result to be a random number, not a sentence. The redirect should be retargeted to Pseudorandom number generator to match the redirect rand(). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Actually, I expect a WP:SNOW close if this receives significant discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget – the target page has the following sentence: "Microsoft Word has a command to auto-type the sentence, in versions up to Word 2003, using the command =rand(), and in Microsoft Office Word 2007 and later using the command =rand.old().". The "=" doesn't seem like it would it be added in by accident for someone intending to search "rand()"; however given that this is no longer the behavior in newer versions of Word, it should probably be retargeted. –Sonicwave talk 06:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. That would be the most intuitive target, especially when one considers the widespread use of this type of function. ComplexRational (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Assuming we shouldn't add an article for a non-notable feature of older software. It would be confusing to redirect a specific name for one thing to a different thing. That removing the "=" makes "=rand()" a different thing and "=rand()" can't have it's own article, doesn't mean we get to make "=rand()" synonymous with "rand()"; which, is not what it means. Not every combination of characters needs what we think is the best target. - NewageEd (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2019 (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.

C16H19N2O9S2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#C16H19N2O9S2

Parque de María Luisa (park)[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. MBisanz talk 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now superfluous redirect with awkward lemma. Hildeoc (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP item four. This is the result of page move from yesterday, at the nominator's request. It's too soon to consider deleting it. - Eureka Lott 13:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EurekaLott: Please note that there are no existing mainspace backlinks to this awkward redirect.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2019 (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.

Admiral Watkins[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fictional character that isn't mentioned in Wikipedia. It was supposed to be merged via an AfD back in 2009 but no content ever made it to the list. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I've drafted it below the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2019 (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.

Mr. Donald John Trump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 3#Mr. Donald John Trump

Forms of Digivolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Forms of Digivolution

The digimon[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. MBisanz talk 18:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:THE and WP:PANDORA. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unambiguously takes readers where they are wanting to go. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It violates WP:THE by cluttering up the search box. Since it does not have "the" as part of its name, it is in contravention of naming guidelines.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming guidelines are irrelevant to redirects because they are not article titles. If this were an WP:RM and you were wanting the article changed from The digimon to Digimon, then you'd have a point. To resolve the "search box clutter", tag it with {{R unprintworthy}} or an RCAT that categorizes it likewise. -- Tavix (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2019 (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:RE[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. Give it some time before renominating, of course, but suggesting a specific target may help focus discussion. In the meantime, there's no consensus for any sort of change. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDR, WP:R and WP:REDIR all redirect to WP:Redirect. This is the same case as WP:RVAN when it got redirected to AIV. This page should retarget to WP:Redirect, WP:Reverting, WP:Race and ethnicity or WP:Reliable sources. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - generally speaking for shortcuts, whichever project claims them first is respected, unless there are good reasons to change it to something else. Per the nom's own statement there is no obvious single better target, so it should just stay the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well on that basis it was initially targeted to Wikipedia:Redirect, albeit for just two days: [4] I'm somewhat sympathetic to the notion of retargeting but agree that the nomination is rather muddled. Surely WP:R offers greater ambiguity if that's the concern? PC78 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, comparable to what's been done at WP:CU. This discussion clearly demonstrates that there are lots of possible meanings for "Wikipedia:RE". Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2019 (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.

Angela Allen (paedophile)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6#Angela Allen (paedophile)

Rukoru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Rukoru

Selypa[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 Dragon Ball Z: Bardock – The Father of Goku#Characters. MBisanz talk 18:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fictional character that has no mention in Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2019 (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.

2009 Capitala World Tennis Championship – Singles[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) ComplexRational (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the results into the 2009 Capitala World Tennis Championship page as we don't really need another page for essentially the same thing. HawkAussie (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this has a decent amount of edit history and has been an article for 10 years, so there might be some incoming links from other websites. –Sonicwave talk 03:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2019 (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.

Alexander-the-great[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. MBisanz talk 18:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a punctuation in use. A Pandora's Box. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as utterly harmless. How is this a "Pandora's Box"? Can you point to examples where this redirect encouraged the creation of several Example-the-foo type redirects? -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a Pandora's Box because it has already led to the creation of other redirects (which would not exactly be a useful concern), but because it could be used to justify the creation of more. See my lengthier response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 14 § J.R.R. Tolkien's above. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been over ten years since this redirect has been created and that clearly hasn't happened. And if, for some reason, this redirect led to the creation of other redirects, so what? If it helps people find what they are unambiguously looking for, then that's a good thing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. It has not caused problems in the very nearly 11 years it has existed, so arguments that it might somehow cause the creation of other redirects that might somehow be problematic are extremely weak and irrelevant to whether this is a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as grammatically incorrect to hyphenate proper nouns. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an utterly pointless misspelling. One view/day looks like background noise, not anything which someone is searching for. Narky Blert (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible misspelling......... PKT(alk) 18:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Longstanding redirect that unambiguously points to the correct page. Gets a good deal of usage two, at around one hit a day, [5] so it's clearly helping people get to where they want to be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt in an effort to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2019 (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.

Gasu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6#Gasu

Prop (stage, screen)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 3#Prop (stage, screen)

Bishops of Kentish[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. MBisanz talk 18:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem plausible. I understand Bishops of Kent and Bishop of the Kentish, but not this formulation.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  12:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it's a reasonably plausible typo, and is doing no harm. DBD 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (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.

Mr. Muggs[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. There was no further discussion regarding retargeting this redirect, so feel free to WP:BOLD-ly make the retarget or renominate this with a precise suggested target if need be. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No scholarly articles/WP:V sources linking "Mr. Muggs" to Jim Jones. Google search produces blog posts that state Jones had a pet monkey named "Mr. Muggs". Monkey/pet/"Mr. Muggs" not referenced within wiki article. AldezD (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there are numerous works about Peoples Temple and Jonestown that mention Mr. Muggs (such as Raven), as a cursory search on Google Books would show. He was named after J. Fred Muggs, who as far as I know was never himself referred to as "Mr. Muggs," so Mr. Muggs can only refer to the monkey associated with the Temple. I think it would make more sense for the article to redirect to Peoples Temple or Jonestown, since it was as an unofficial mascot that Muggs was notable in any way, not the fact Jones had him as a pet. --Ismail (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AldezD obviously needs a new Google. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (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.

Neurotypical syndrome[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 and salt. I hesitated to salt since "delete and salt" can feel like "super delete", which would not be warranted here. But the evidence is fairly clear that 1) this is not a legitimate topic and 2) people are inclined to create it nonetheless. Given those, salting seems like an appropriate remedy. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in it's targeted article. Note that the article by this name was already deleted as a speedy delete hoax at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurotypical syndrome. Of course view stats also suggest this as implausible redirect [6]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the decision at the AfD was a strong Delete - with no suggestion for redirect - can we speedy this per WP:G4? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because a redirect is not an article and the deletion discussion did discuss a redirect there has never been a consensus to delete a redirect at this title. Even if there had been a prior discussion it would only qualify for G4 if that discussion had considered the current target or one very similar to it. Anything else is not substantially identical. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right; this is not "substantially identical" to the deleted article; this is no content, not a recreation of a deleted article, just a way of trying to reclaim the title. But as for the other points, 1) I don't see anything at that deletion discussion that mentions a possible redirect; enlighten me. 2) The original article was literally described as a joke (hoax) by the author at the time of its creation. 3) The term does not appear at the target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the AfD result and WP:SALT to prevent recreation by pranksters permanently.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Zxcvbnm, there is no such syndrome, being neurotypical is the absence of any neurological syndromes or conditions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a helpful redirect in any way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. Speaking as someone on the spectrum (professionally diagnosed) myself: The phrase is used enough that people will be searching for it, whether any particular redirect exists or not -- if only because it's an "inside joke" for a group that's notoriously bad at getting the joke. When people do search for it, neurotypical is probably the most useful target. Meanwhile, there's enough autisphobia on places like 4chan that the redirect will likely be vandalized if not protected. NeonMerlin 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag, and protect. According to this tool, this redirect got about 5 monthly page views in the last year. The AFD discussion was 10 years ago, and Redirects are cheap. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (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.

Brazil 2016[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 3#Brazil 2016

China 2008[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 3#China 2008

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD[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. MBisanz talk 18:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator - appears to be an old Internet meme. –Sonicwave talk 06:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe this is an actual quote, as was the meme. Since the phrase isn't mentioned, it's not as useful a search term as just plain Hypnotoad, which gets the job done. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something about it feels right in all caps to me. See the Futurama Wikia page. Maybe that's more from its life as an internet meme than its appearances on the show. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From my knowledge of Futurama this quote isn't so common that it is worth keeping a redirect for it. Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  08:35, 28 August 2019 (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:R opt[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. Not a particularly strong consensus, but it's what we have after several weeks. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused template redirect that really doesn't make sense –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - created by the author of template redirects like {{R ab}}, but this one doesn't make any sense and is not in use. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: no sense, I read it as "R with options". Daß Wölf 05:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I guess. Still, there are no links to it from anywhere not related to this discussion, so it doesn't seem to be useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The editor who created this and many other abbreviated shortcuts stopped editing in early 2014, and his index page remains unfinished, so gives us little clue. My guess is R opt = Redirect (from) other possible title or something similar. Some of his other shortcuts have already been deleted. I stopped using most shortcuts to rcats several years ago, because newly registered editors who wanted to work on redirect categorization had a problem with them. Rcat shortcuts are not always easy to discern, as in this case. No opinion as to keep or delete on this one, so do as you will. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  13:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, one thing that made categorizing redirects and other editing easier for me was the uncannily awesome m:TemplateScript. Who needs shortcuts when you can add a fully-named rcat to a redirect with one quick click? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  20:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (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.

Grado Empire(Fire Emblem)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Grado Empire(Fire Emblem)

Affinity (Fire Emblem)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Affinity (Fire Emblem)

Force of law[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. Various retargeting options have been suggested, but none have gained any traction. I note that all of these suggested targets either do not exist or do not use the phrase. Others have commented that it'd be nice to have an article on this phrase (or at the very least, a section somewhere this could redirect to), so WP:REDLINKing the phrase should hopefully encourage that to develop in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "force of law" means something quite different from force (law): see search results for the phrase, which mostly use the phrase to mean something like the status of being legally binding or obligatory. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to criminal justice (or maybe just law). The phrase is used, as you point out. The context I most associate with the phrase is "the full force of the law", meaning the maximum punitive action of the law. Law enforcement is also a possible retarget, but I think the meaning tends to be about the action of the courts. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer law to criminal justice, as I think the phrase is used in civil law or private law contexts as well: contracts can be said to have force of law, I think (though IANAL and my grasp of almost all these terms is tenuous). I'm inclined to think that deletion would be preferable to retargeting though, unless an article that explains the phrase can be found or an explanation can be added to an existing article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definition of law' which would be a good target is a redirect to Philosophy of law#What is law? a no-longer extant section. I think this would potentially be an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous, and trying to guess what a searcher may have meant is likely to lead to confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a well used phrase that isn't ambiguous at all in practice, but which we don't really have a single good target for. Maybe it would be best to have it as an entry on Wiktionary as a set phrase but that doesn't exist currently so doesn't really help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget somewhere, probably wiktionary: "force of law", most properly used in constructions like "having the force of law" or "carrying the force of law" or "with the force of law" or "lacking the force of law", has a meaning pretty much equivalent to "effect of law". So an administrative decision may be said to have "force of law" if it's legally binding in the same way as a statute or judicial decision—the phrase is used a lot in US administrative law decisions involving the effect of agency interpretations of statutes and regulations. I'm not sure where it should be retargeted though. Interestingly Black's Law Dictionary doesn't define the phrase. In some other cases, though, it seems to get used in the same sense as "full extent of the law", which is much closer to the common understanding of "force" as in "forcible", which is the current target. But that is plainly incorrect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget somewhere. It's a commonly used phrase. Creating a Wiktionary entry may be best if we can't agree on a suitable Wikipedia target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For reference, Wiktionary:force of law and any capitalization variants currently do not exist. If a Wiktionary retarget is the way to go, a precise target may need to be suggested and/or created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we might also wish to bear in mind WT:SOP, the Wiktionary inclusion criterion dealing with phrases that may be non-idiomatic. In other words, if "force of law" is a phrase that one can understand if one knows what each component word means, then it isn't likely to be suitable for a dictionary definition, but if it means more than the sum of its parts (like for example "red herring") then a dictionary definition is appropriate. I think it's probably the former, but it's hard to say for sure. Either way it would be unfortunate if we pointed this to an entry that the Wiktionarians later deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Search results can be unsatisfying, but a wrong guess on our part could make it harder for readers. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The present target is misleading; other targets would also be misleading. We don't need an article or redirect for every common phrase; which, may have multiple meanings. - NewageEd (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2019 (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.

Sigma personality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 31#Sigma personality

Resident evil movies, games, and books[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 for deletion, but defaulting to retargeting to List of Resident Evil media since all participants did not support the current situation with this redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect due to being written like a sentence rather than a title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is likely to be using this search term, period. If someone wants to see all three things, they would just type in Resident Evil.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try since at the least, there seems to currently be consensus against the current situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2019 (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.

Mrs. Momomiya[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 deleted by Anthony Bradbury. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very unlikely search term that should be deleted, as the character in question is not married, and has never been referred to as "Mrs. Momiya". Redirect was created by a user whose sole purpose appears to be to vandalize Wikipedia by creating a multitude of inappropriate redirects. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2019 (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.

Fernando Zor????[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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect with the name "Fernando Zor" followed by four nonprinting characters; I am guessing that it was created as vandalism and turned into a redirect rather than being deleted. I found the page by accident while doing an automated search. It shows up on the What Links Here list for the target page (Fernando & Sorocaba)--you can see "Fernando Zor" twice: one real one and the one bogus one. However, all the links go to the real one, so I can't navigate there to follow the official RfD process. Matchups 01:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate redirect?
  • Weird. I assume we're talking about the first of these (see image to the right)? The top one is appended by four non-visible word joiners (U+2060) but clicking on it just takes me to the good redirect Fernando Zor. I suspect this is above and beyond the scope of WP:RfD. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical comment The two redirects involved can certainly be linked to, as done below. But once you reach the page, there's no way to tell whether you're looking at the good one or the bad one.
To verify that the second one is indeed the bad one, check the source code of this comment. In the second link, b/w the "r" and "}", you'll find 4 non-visible characters which can be detected by the keyboard navigation keys. SD0001 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one with nonprinting characters. Barring redirects from those characters themselves (for example, [7] and [8]), I can't think of a situation in which they ever would belong in a page title. You'll never have reason to type the title with these characters included, especially since you can't even notice them without inspecting things carefully. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Firefox (68.0.2 on Linux), the links here go to the correct page and the URL in the address bar displays "%E2%81%A0%E2%81%A0%E2%81%A0%E2%81%A0", but hovering over the link "displays" the non-printing characters making it difficult to verify the target. In Chromium (76.0.3809.100 on Linux), the links also go to the correct page but both hovering and the URL bar "display" the non-printing characters. I get the same behavior from both the desktop and mobile sites. @Matchups and PC78:, it seems likely to be something in your environments (e.g. your browser) that is stripping the characters from the URL. Anomie⚔ 11:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per arguments of LaundryPizza03, Sonicwave32, and Nyttend. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as implausible and redundant, and I've boldly tagged it as such. Home Lander (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2019 (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/2019_August_22&oldid=1145912918"