Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2017.

Queen Elizabeth of England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 19#Queen Elizabeth of England

Impactw[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) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an unlikely and unneeded search term. Delete. — Gorthian (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (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.

P Day[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. The discussion below has established multiple items that pass WP:DABMENTION, so disambiguation is the most plausible solution. Deryck C. 12:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Well done Eubot, er, I don't know what to say about this except WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The English spelling of Pi (letter) is, er, "pi". We already have Π day and so on. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Eubot said it is a {{R from title without diacritics}}, which patently it is not. Si Trew (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I aint got any problem with that, as Thry says, retarget there unless something better comes along. It could be targeted at the DAB at Peter Day, but I donno that's wise. Si Trew (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added P day, which is, FYI on List 8. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per Thryduulf as usage seems to be prominent. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Besides the LDS articles, there are a few usages such as a preservation day to move retirement funds into pensions in South Africa [1] [2] [3] but it's not clear where there's an Wikipedia article to explain that. There's also P-Day for military which goes to: Military designation of days and hours so that should be a hatnote. Some authors goes by P. Day but they aren't notable. It should not go to Pi Day as there aren't any news articles or books that shorten Pi to P for this event. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Military designation of days and hours as it's actually mentioned there. Good find, AngusWOOF! -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on prominence in google results I think the LDS usage is primary but the military usage deserves a hatnote or there should be a dab between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose disambiguation per WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per AngusWOOF's findings, there isn't much else to do given that the term can equally well refer to several entities. – Uanfala (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't disambiguate all days that start with the letter "P", that's beyond trivial. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Tavix. I wasn't planning to dab all of them. Actually, I mentioned the links for the inclusion of the planned "P Day" dabpage. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification! -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2017 (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.

Void (Cosmic Entity)[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 consensus is that we shouldn't keep the redirect as is. Closing as delete without prejudice against creating a disambiguation page at Void (cosmic entity). Deryck C. 17:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this redirect. There is no definitive statement at the target article about "void", just vague hints that he came from "void". And it's hard to tell whether or not he is a "cosmic entity". Obviously, I'm not familiar with this universe, so I need guidance from experts here. — Gorthian (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi, I made that redirect. I would also prefer lower cases in the redirect. Void is a Cosmic Entity appearing in the cosmic triology (ME1,ME2,ME3) of the RPG called Marvel Super Heroes. It has nothing to do with that Sentry character. Amatsu-Mikaboshi is more then a god as seen in the miniseries called Ares, he also embodies the void (before there was an universe) in the Marvel Comic Universe, that's why I made a redirect. But a redirect to Void would be also okay. Greetings - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 08:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Void (Cosmic Entity) should have been a redirect to the concept of Chaos King, but because that is also already a redirect, Void links to that redirected place. (The Chaos King is also an Cosmic Entity and is listed in Category:Marvel Comics abstract concepts and List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. As for the picture in the Amatsu-Mikaboshi article, its in fact depicting the Chaos King.) For further reading I recommend the mini-series Chaos War and the one-shot Chaos War - Chaos King. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 13:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weapon X so is he named Void or not? And should he be added to the Cosmic entity lists? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the character in the Marvel Super Heroes RPG is called Void and should be included in List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. But he is not a mainstream Marvel character as far as I know. The mainstream Marvel character with the same cosmic function is called Chaos King (but Chaos King could also be just another aspect of Oblivion/Death). I think they picked up the concept of the character Void (from 1988) and transferred it to the new story of 2006. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Void (astronomy), which is currently the target of Cosmic void. The void (astronomy) article is clearly the primary topic, and it begins by explaining that "Cosmic voids are vast spaces between filaments (the largest-scale structures in the Universe), which contain very few or no galaxies." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague, unlikely search term, retrieving few hits. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 hits a day is above the viability threshold for a dab page, assuming the traffic doesn't all come from the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Two a day? I'm seeing five a month, based on the "stats" link above. What are you looking at? There's closer numbers to what you're saying in the last 10 days, but RfDs logically drive interest. There's a reason the stats link automatically uses a span going up to a day before the nomination. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at the stats from last year. Pageviews appear to have oddly slumped after October. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, though I think that trend is important. It's hard to say for sure, but what I suspect is that someone linked to this title in an article, and that got fixed around October. That is, the number of people finding this term in the search box has actually been consistent, but there used to be a factor of live links via the redirect. My theory is going to be very hard to prove, though, and is probably impossible to disprove. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm in agreement with BDD. From reading this discussion, there are too many things this can kind of be if you squint hard enough and there's not a definitive 'best' target for it. Therefore, I believe deletion is the best outcome here. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the vagueness and a lot of potential confusion, I'd rather that we just get rid of this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2017 (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:LAWYERS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 18#Wikipedia:LAWYERS

"making televsion"/Making televsion[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 move/retarget to Television program#Production and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an implausible misspelling. The other is the low-caps quotation-marked equally misspelled clone of it. (It's not a quote, not used (3 views in 90 days), not linked, definitely not plausible). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (&Merge discussions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2017 (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.

"like twenty impossibles"[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) 21:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Between no caps and needless quotes, this redirect is implausible. Not actually a quote, just the decapitalized name of the film in quotes. While r-from-move, the article was at this title for only a few hours back in 2013 before being moved (first to Like twenty impossibles, from where it was then moved to Like Twenty Impossibles about a year later). Receives essentially no hits (3 in 90 days), neither is nor should be wikilinked and its use (be it through search engines or on-wiki search) is fully covered by respectively the article title and the redirect Like twenty impossibles (Google etc. nor on-wiki search have any difficulty finding an otherwise-identical title when the sole differences are absent-initial-capital and present-quotes). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2017 (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.

George W. Bush (disambiguation)[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, default to keep. There is a general consensus that we shouldn't have a separate disambiguation page at this title, though opinion is split as to whether this redirect is useful or costly. Deryck C. 11:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Nevé–selbert 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No major dabs at this point besides primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several sources about George Washington Bush use this construction. As long as there are two or more people on the George Bush dab page that might be called "George W. Bush", this redirect is entirely appropriate. — Gorthian (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How does WP:REDLINK apply here? We don't want an article called "George W. Bush (disambiguation)". — Gorthian (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someday Gorthian, someone might take the time to make an actual dab for George W. Bush. Until such time, the link should stay red to encourage its creation.--Nevé–selbert 23:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somehow, I don't see that becoming long enough to break off into a page separate from George Bush. Plus, we don't want to encourage it now, since it would only be WP:TWODABS. — Gorthian (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian and tag as {{R to disambiguation page}}. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: That hardly makes sense. There are 0 incoming links from articles and per WP:2DABS such a dab page is superfluous.--Nevé–selbert 00:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • A separate disambiguation page just for "George W. Bush" would indeed be superfluous but that is not what we have here, we have a disambiguation page at George Bush that disambiguates multiple related ambiguous terms - there are hundreds (at least) of other examples of exactly this situation. The lack of article links doesn't matter, as people do search directly for disambiguation pages, e.g. when they know or think the topic they want is not the primary topic but don't know what the article title uses as a disambiguator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Only 4 hits in the last 90 days.
        2. Searching George W. Bush (disambiguation) renders George Bush presently as the second top result.
        3. Anyone living under a rock for the past number of decades searching for George W. Bush to get to George Washington Bush would be greeted with the hatnote mentioning the latter at the #top of the former's page. The idiom is imperative in this context since I doubt only a handful of people on the entire planet would be expecting to land on a dab after searching "George W. Bush".
        • I strongly believe this redirect is WP:COSTLY. How it has any value is beyond me.--Nevé–selbert 01:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          1. That's four times people would be unnecessarily inconvenienced without any benefit to the encyclopaedia.
          2. Search results are not guaranteed and are not always shown (it depends on exactly what method you use to navigate).
          3. Nobody is likely to expect to land on a dab page after searching "George W. Bush" (and they wont, regardless of what we do with this redirect) which is why they are searching for "George W. Bush (disambiguation)" - they are explicitly seeking a disambiguation page. One likely scenario is that someone is reading a source that is referring to "George W. Bush" that was written before George Walker Bush became prominently known by that name (a period of around 170-200 years) and so they are trying to find out who it is referring to. They expect "George W. Bush" to take them to the article about the 43rd president of the USA, know that is not the article they are looking for and so head straight for the disambiguation page which will list the articles of everybody by this name.
          4. You are entitled to you opinion that this is costly, but you need to present some evidence to back that up if you want your opinion to count for anything. So far you have failed to do that. Please see comments above for just one scenario where this is useful, and I make no claim that it is the only one (see also WP:RFD#KEEP point 5). Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are seriously grabbing at straws here. First off, I must emphasise that hardly anyone is using the redirect and practically nobody will be disaffected by its deletion; to suggest times people would be unnecessarily inconvenienced is silly hyperbole. With regard to your second counterpoint, are you sure about that? John B. Smith (disambiguation) and Adam A. Smith (disambiguation) both give me John Smith and Adam Smith (disambiguation) as the top result, I very much doubt the same wouldn't happen with this redirect. Thirdly, most readers aren't technical like us and the word "disambiguation" would appear to them as nothing but technobabble. Per WP:2DABS your third argument reveals a noticeable discrepancy. Readers will certainly find George Washington Bush in the event that they can't remember his middle name, I assure you. Your third point would make a brilliant short story, but in the real world it is most likely far-fetched. The long-term significance of the 43rd president as opposed to the pioneer is more than crystal clear. And in response to your fourth point, per WP:RDAB there's no need to redirect from "topics that can easily be found with a search" and that (in turn) brings me back to my second point. All in all, this redirect is pointless. If someone named George William Bush gets a Wikipedia article, I'd probably advocate your position. But there's only one other George W. Bush on Wikipedia, and readers will be best served through the hatnote at George W. Bush#top per 2DABS and through the search engine per RDAB. Besides, per WP:REDLINK a fully-fledged dab for any other George W. Bushes would be more likely created in those circumstances.--Nevé–selbert 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Hardly anybody" is a very subjective assessment and not "nobody", and no matter how many there are you want to inconvenience them for no benefit to the encyclopaedia. You've completely missed the point about search results not being reliable - it is not possible to guarantee that search results shown to you today will be the same as the search results shown to somebody else tomorrow or next week - and you have completely ignored the point about search results not being shown to everybody. Your "technobable" point is insulting to readers and completely ignores that almost all editors are also readers and that many readers who are not editors become familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions. As several people have now pointed out, we don't want to encourage the creation of a disambiguation page at this title (which is what a redlink does), suggesting you might not be actually understanding the opposing arguments. The lack of need to create redirects from topics that can be easily found with a search is not the same thing as delete redirects that have been created, and are being used, because I don't like that it was created. Long term significance is completely irrelevant - we are not debating who is the primary topic here, we're assisting people who want to find people who are not the primary topic, and we shouldn't force people to load a page they know they don't want to read (the president's article, an unknown number of search engine result pages, an invitation to create an article, and invitation to search...). Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't intend to "insult" anybody (can we please avoid borderline personal attacks?) Honestly who is really going to search for "George W. Bush (disambiguation)"? Can you name a precedent? Have you any evidence that anyone would really search for this, apart from yourself? You are being overbearingly pedantic with your hypothetical scenarios that you could write a novel. Per WP:2DABS (policy not essay) a disambiguation page is completely superfluous. Do we have Lloyd George (disambiguation)? No sir, we don't because such a dab page is unnecessary and a waste of space given the hatnote at David Lloyd George. You say "it is not possible to guarantee that search results shown to you today will be the same as the search results shown to somebody else tomorrow or next week". Where is the evidence for that claim? With regard to REDLINK, for the record I don't necessarily want to encourage the creation of an actual George W. Bush dab, but I just think it would be wise to leave the link red to avoid the illusion that such a dab page actually exists. And lastly, have you any sources referring to George Washington Bush as George W. Bush? I'd be intrigued.--Nevé–selbert 23:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete note that WP:REDLINK is not applicable here, a hatnote will be enough for there are only two entries, if there are other entities with this exact name, not a PTM, a dab page will be appropriate then. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Champion. (I agree with Champion, but I'm a "full-fledged delete".) Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't see how REDLINK applies here. While the other W is handled with a hatnote now, redirects are cheap, there is no demonstrable harm caused by this redirect, and this is accurately tagged as a redirect to a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No need for a separate dab. There's a clear primary topic for "George W. Bush", the name could logically refer to George Washington Bush, and it's certainly a plausible error that someone might refer to George H.W. Bush this way. This is doing no harm. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2017 (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.

2015 Nepal earthquake II[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) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't conform to any standards that I've ever seen. Dawnseeker2000 21:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a name used by news sites for the second quake. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a {{R from move}} that is still getting uses over a year after it was moved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one news article that calls it "part II" [5], but 2015 Nepal second earthquake should redirect to the May one, not the April one. [6] I've boldly redirected that one, and it shows up as a search option when the user types "2015 Nepal earthquake" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:59, 10 January 2017 (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.

Zhudaosheng[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No usage of this romanization in sources, implausible, for it combines two words into one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is (less often) used in reliable sources. Examples: [7],[8], [9],[10]. JimRenge (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (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.

Back Button[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 the disambiguation created at Back button. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the more likely Back button does not exists, and the exact term is not mentioned in the target, thus I suggest retargeting to Web browser#user interface, as that is overwhelmingly the primary usage of this term. Changing vote, to weak delete as there are buttons on CD players and also Wizard (software). I'm also happy with a dabify. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Web browser#user interface is the right redirect; that's by far the most common use of the term in popular culture. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2017 (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.

Ortakoey Mosque[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. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot)

Here's a clue
Don't be blue
The mosque is iTurkish
So this one's a bit fish(y little redirect created by Eubot) Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2017 (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.

Hullu yoe[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. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Germanic umlaut; Finnish. Si Trew (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Per this brief discussion, it appears that in situations that don't allow for the easy input of diacritics, ae is a common way to write ä even in Finnish, and I don't think there's reason to suppose that ö would be an exception. – Uanfala (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems there is a need to clarify how Finnish works when it comes to the letters Ä and Ö. The Finnish orthography article says that The Germanic umlaut or convention of considering digraph ae equivalent to ä, and oe equivalent to ö is inapplicable in Finnish. This seems to have given people the idea that substituting ae for ä and oe for ö is wrong in Finnish... which is perfectly true. You can't do that. But substituting a for ä and o for ö is also wrong in Finnish. If you go to Finnish Wikipedia, you'll have a hard time finding any redirects of either type.
What Finnish speakers do when the letters ä and ö can't be used varies from speaker to speaker and situation to situation; and while substituting ae for ä and oe for ö is not the most common solution, it does happen reasonably often. That's the answer to the wrong question, though, since it's not Finnish speakers who might use this redirect. A more relevant question is: are English speakers likely to spell it like this? A look at what native speakers (of Finnish or any other language) might do if forced to doesn't really help answer that.
For example, the Estonian alphabet (unlike the Finnish alphabet) natively includes the letter Ü; and when ü can't be used and some kind of substitute is needed, a common solution is to replace it with the letter y. Needless to say, this doesn't mean we should scrap all Estonian Ü->Ue redirects and replace them with Ü->Y ones; most users of the English Wikipedia would have no idea that Estonians do that, and very few of them would guess. And Estonian enwiki users will use Ü and won't need the redirect.
(This is not to say that Estonian Ü->Y redirects couldn't sometimes be useful on enwiki; but those would be special cases.) Sideways713 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2017 (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:R from legal name[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Template:R from legal name

Holiday tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 19#Holiday tree

Santo Domingo de Copán[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. I'm also retargetting Santo Domingo de Cobán to Cobán. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of Copán, Honduras, with Cobán, Guatemala. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My bad. It should redirect to the city, though. Britannica 9 and 11 both give this name for the city, not the cathedral. — LlywelynII 08:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Santo Domingo de Cobán to Cobán seems like a no-brainer, since it's the full name of the city (compare to Santiago de Chile). Where does this leave "Santo Domingo de Copán", then? Is it a plausible error for Cobán? There appears to be no association between the saint's name and the archaeological site. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is what we've figured out:
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.

Next Malian parliamentary election[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 after appropriate target articles written. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 has long since gone, but there is no clear target to point these to and no information in National Assembly (Mali), Elections in Mali or List of Presidents of Mali (where President of Mali redirects) about when the elections are next scheduled (2018?) or how likely they are to occur then as both 2013 elections were due to be held earlier. At some other of these articles I've been writing a short section to serve as a target, but there is no obvious place to do that for these nor enough certain information to base it on. I'd prefer retargetting to deletion if possible, but only if someone is able to come up with a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. List_of_Presidents_of_Mali#Next_election All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 10 January 2017 (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.

Next Serbian parliamentary election[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 converted to an article. Thryduulf (talk)

This is a likely search term, so I'm not advocating deletion, but the current target is wrong as the current next election is scheduled for 2020. I'm not sure what the best target is, the 2020 election doesn't have an article yet, Elections in Serbia has a brief description in the lead but no mention of dates; Elections in Serbia#Parliamentary elections is just a table of results from the 2016 election with no associated prose; National Assembly (Serbia)#Elections has the most prose, but again no dates and points back to Elections in Serbia as the main article. I'll ping the Serbia and Elections Wikiprojects about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would be easiest to just turn this into a stub about the next election (along the lines of the contents of Category:Future elections in Europe. If you're ok with that, I'll do it. Cheers, Number 57 08:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: Go ahead. Just note here when you have at least a stub so this discussion can be closed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2017 (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.

Cities in León[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 or no consensus, though the result is the same. The argument for retargeting is valid, but absent agreement to do so, there's support for the status quo anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. By definition of them being municipalities, they are not cities in Léon (or Leon). Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find redirects between "List of cities in X" and "List of municipalities in X" very useful when I'm looking for lists of large settlements in X. It means I do not need to know ahead of time how the local administration is organised in X and what terminology it uses. Spain seems to have municipalities and autonomous cities on the same administrative level and so there is no confusion between the two - the target takes me exactly where I want to go. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Even if they were not at the same level, it would seem likely that all cities are classified as some sort of municipal government, and it would still be helpful to readers to take them to a broader topic. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Castile and León#Present-day population distribution. In principle Thryduulf and Patar Knight are correct that city and municipality are not mutually contradictory terms — although not all municipalities are cities, all cities are municipalities, because a city is a particular type of municipality rather than a separate class of thing. But in this particular instance, the current target only lists the municipalities that are not classed as cities, while we have a separate list of cities in the target that I've proposed. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think the distinction in this case is that "municipality" is the actual legal designation of the non-city municipalities in Spain — so it's excluding cities because they're designated as "City" rather than "Municipality", for the same reason that we distinguish between the legal (actually has the legal status of Capital-T Town) and common (any smallish place that has a name whether it's incorporated or not) senses of "town" when it comes to listing and categorizing towns. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2017 (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.

Next Rotherham by-election[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) 17:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By-elections in the United Kingdom are not regularly scheduled events and occur in a given constituency only if the sitting MP dies or resigns, there is no by-election currently scheduled in Rotherham nor is it likely there will be one soon. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This appears to have been preemptively created before the seat was actually vacated in 2012, on the basis of a WP:CRYSTAL prediction that McShane's resignation looked to be in the offing (though he did indeed resign a few days later) — and I'll grant that while it all occurred late enough in the year that it was briefly possible that the by-election might have not taken place until 2013, it was scheduled and held quite quickly as these things go, so the date was only up in the air for a few days at most and the article was promptly moved to its final title. But the target is now a past event, not a future one, so maintaining a redirect from "next" is no longer appropriate — and since by-elections are not held at fixed or predictable intervals, there's no potential alternative target for a predictive "next" to be repointed to. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no idea when and if there will be a next Rotherham by-election, but the current target is now long past. Warofdreams talk 20:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2017 (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.

Next Parti Québécois leadership election[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) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from these two pointing to different targets, there is currently no leadership election scheduled for the Parti Québécois. Parti Québécois leadership elections contains no information on future elections, and implies that there is no regular schedule for such elections which were held in 1968, 1985, 1988, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2015 and 2016, meaning that there is no suitable place (that I can find) to point them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are both leftovers from page moves, because the articles were first created at a time when it was known that there would be a leadership election but its exact date was not yet formalized — so they were created at "next", and then moved to the current titles once the dates were confirmed. But party leadership elections do not work like general elections in Canada; they are not held at fixed or predictable intervals, but are held whenever the leadership becomes vacant, regardless of whether that's six weeks or sixteen years after the previous leadership race. So there's no basis for them to become a new standalone article at this time — there's literally nothing verifiable to say yet except "one will eventually take place, the end", and even that isn't genuinely verifiable yet because it always remains within the realm of possibility that a political party could dissolve before another leadership race is ever actually held. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2017 (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 articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#List of articles about Alberta CCF/NDP members

Heinz pruefer[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 both. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) There's no point keeping an {{R from title without diacritics}} from a {{R from incorrect capitalization}} (I've just marked Heinz prüfer thus, but Eubot paid no attention to rcats anyway: it was tagged as {{R from other capitalization}} already, which may have been a clue to a more clueful bot.) They're not a common misspellings, and they doesn't help search. WP:RFD#D8, Delete both. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – a miscapitalised version of a transliteration variant is one step too far from the gates of plausibility. – Uanfala (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per WP:DIACRITICS. If the only difference from a normal diacritic-less redirect is capitalization and not say extra spacing, spelling mistakes, then I think it should be kept. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2017 (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.

Wo die gruenen Ameisen traeumen[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) – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) test case. The gruenen don't traeumen. Created from Wo die grünen Ameisen träumen, which is or will be shortly an {{R from other language|de|en}}. There's no point taking a German redirect to an English title, stripping its diacritics and calling it an {{R from title without diacritics}} when the target doesn't have diacritics. That's just WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. There's no point (well, it's OK in German, but in general) marking it as {{R from other language}} whenn the diacritics would be absolutely necessary in that language. We don't have {{R from other language without diacritics}}, so it ends up being just nonsense, really. Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The transliteration is fine - but anyone looking for this from German has already typed in "Wo die grünen Ameisen träumen". These expansions from headline German are just silly.
Es irrt der Mensch, solang er strebt - Johann Wolfgang von Göthe (if that looks stupid, it's because it is). Narky Blert (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:DIACRITICS. Just because they will get the correct page in search results doesn't help when say someone is trying to link to the target article while editing the source of an article. Since this is the direct translation of the term in the original language, but without diacritics, and not anything more tenuously connected, this should be fine to keep. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar Knight. Not everybody uses the internal search engine to find articles so do not get the benefit of suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't matter whether the target title has diacritics in it or not — a redirect from a foreign-language title to an English-language one should still have a diacritic-lacking duplication in place, because some people might know and search for or link to the target by its original title but not know how to type or where to place the diacritics. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (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 municipalities of Queretaro by population[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) THe whole thing is a list to start with. No idea why we need a list of municipalities to some other place that is not Querétaro, oh I forgot, diacritical marks are like fairy dust, they don't mean anything. WP:RFD#D5, this is not a list of municipalities of Querataro, it's a list.. of Querétaro. Si Trew (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Queretaro redirects to Querétaro so that part is fine, and at the target article the reader will find a list of municipalities in the place they are looking for that can be sorted by population. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator's snarky implication that "Queretaro" would inherently represent a different place than "Querétaro" does simply does not wash. Again, Wikipedia does have an established consensus in place to keep redirects from unmarked forms in place when the target has a diacritic in it, because users may not know how to type or where to place the diacritics — even I have trouble actually keeping straight on whether it's "Querétaro" or "Quéretaro" or "Quérétaro", because my French (in which the latter two spellings would be more intuitively plausible) interferes with my limited Spanish skills. And that consensus does not only apply to cases where the redirect title and the target title are identically worded but for the diacritic; any potential title being redirected to the main article should always have both the Querétaro and Queretaro forms both in place. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many readers will enter an "e" instead of an accented "é" but they are still certainly searching for Querétaro. FYI, List of municipalities of Queretaro by HDI also directs readers to Municipalities of Querétaro. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2017 (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.

Brezany, Presov District[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) another redirect from a redirect that, as I said below, are made only for the purpose that is said explicitly at {{R from geo}}. Since the whole point of these redirects is to give geometric precision, it is worse than useless to add variants to them: on many, the only results I get are from mapping software pickng up the names here from WP. What we do here does have an influence on the rest of the world, but apparently no editor wants to take responsibilty, only credit. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Brezany is not the same settlement as Brežany and so the district name acts as a natural disambiguator for those people who don't know how to or are unable to type the diacritic (which most English speakers will never have occasion to learn how. I'm also about to create Brezany (disambiguation) as there are several similarly named settlements in Slovakia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Users do not necessarily know how to type a Czech ž — for example, I copied and pasted that just there, as even I don't know how to produce it on my keyboard — so if I were looking for this the "Presov District" is how I would actually be able to distinguish whether I was about to end up at the Czech Brežany or the Slovak Brezany. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (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 Governors of the Department of Atlantico[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Very weak delete. The target is, essentially, a list of the Governers of the etc., so it's essentially a list article to start with. They're not the Governers of the Department of Atlantico, though: they're the Governers of the Department of Atlántico. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target contains a list of governors of the only department that could be referred to as "Atlantico". Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that since the target article is a list, we therefore don't need a redirect from a title that has the word "list" in it, makes no sense whatsoever — and as noted many times in recent discussions, Wikipedia does have a consensus to maintain redirects from the undiacriticed forms if there's a diacritic in the title, because not all potential users of Wikipedia know how to type (or where to actually place) the diacritics. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2017 (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.

English Wikipedia Quality Survey[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) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Another useless soft redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've added the two redirects to this redirect to the nomination for completeness. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 347 page views this year and the previous RfD which was closed as keep. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Maybe not necessarily "useless", but since the survey was just one man's work from over 10 years ago, I'm concerned that its findings are quite out of date. The redirect terms suggest something more official and comprehensive, IMO. I don't know if the users searching these terms have something specific in mind or are just noticing them in the search box, but I'd be surprised if many of them were satisfied with the results. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Since the survey happened 13 years ago and had not been updated, nor is there evidence of sufficient notability to write an article about it, we should relegate this to the same status as any other WikiProject: no link from mainspace. Deryck C. 11:17, 18 January 2017 (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.

Kill vehicle[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 convert to set index. Deryck C. 11:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Wiktionary redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not an arbitrary phrase, it has a coherent definition (which you deleted). The definitions ought to be mutually-incompatible and distinct, otherwise they're merge candidates. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. Unless the topic of the previous revision is proven independently notable, let's safely convert the page to dabpage. So far, I don't see much proof at Google Books and News for exactly "Kill weapon" without partial matches. George Ho (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, convert to set index or dabpage. If no work is done, then delete. George Ho (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like jargon with only WP:PTMs. Not necessarily against a set index if someone cares to draft one. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2017 (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.

Saturation (telecommunications)[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. With no mention of telecommunications at the page cited by Si Trew, I'm treating this like a G8 for now. I'm not suggesting he's wrong. This is not at all in my area of expertise, but with the present situation, retargeting there would only be useful for those who are experts in the field, if anyone. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken interwiki soft redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2017 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I know, WP:NWFCTM, but I think OnePlus is the WP:PTOPIC instead of an album reissue. SSTflyer 02:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to 'OnePlus' and we can possibly have hat-notes added if needed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CoffeeWithMarkets as primary topic. Hatnote can be provided for the Beatles album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add a hatnote to the other topic, as well as +1. This is a case where I believe WP:SMALLDETAILS matter, as the Beatles album is known as "+1" and the smartphone manufacturer is more likely seen spelled out. -- Tavix (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that OnePlus the smartphone company uses "1+" in their logo and branding, albeit with the + superscripted. The company was founded in 2013, preceding the Beatles deluxe album released in 2015. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2017 (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.

Leabharlann Naisiunta na hEireann[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) this is the kind of thing of Eubot's that gets my goat. It's a perfectly sensible redirect, but it's not a bloody {{R from title without diacritics}}, and it's not an {{R from other language|ga|en}}, it is an {{R from other language without diacritics|ga|en}}. I;ve been rcatting them into both, which is not ideal. Sure, I could campaign for a new category, what fucking support am I likely to get for that, fuck all. Now, it is not beyond my wit to suggest that we create that category, but since only the Eubot ones fall into it, I doubt I shall have any support to suggest doing so. And I doubt I shall have any support when I say WP:RFD#D8 as WP:FORRED, anglicised but not particularly English. So it will fall between two stools, and User:Thryduulf can add it to his set of perpetual maintenance rather than just delete it. Thryduulf, you asked for opinions at WT:RFD, so the muckrakers who actually shovel the crap can actually give you examples. I'll just keep digging up the crap, and RfD will have to deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2017 (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.

Ernst zu Muenster[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) have cans will open. See Windischgraetz (a nomination of mine at RfD of 23 Dec 2009); with extreme prejudice mixing German "zu" with English were deleted, and as far as I can tell that consensus still stands, so we don't mix German "zu" with an English transliteration. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I am seeing a handful of uses they all seem to be in German language contexts so this is not a useful redirect on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since he's German, "Ernst zu Muenster" is the proper way to transliterate "Ernst zu Münster" (don't confuse transliterate with translate). -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2017 (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.

Giscard d'Estaing, Valery[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) In the absence of any other notable Giscard d'Estaing, the redirect to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing should be marked as {{R from surname}} (and would probably be the primary redirect even if there were). It means that Giscard d'Estaing, Valéry is a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. I shall thus tag them. For this then to be an unnecesasry disambiguation without diacritics, when there are no diacritics in Giscard d'Estaing, and the Valery is serving as an unnecessary disambiguator, makes it WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Delete. Si Trew (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar Knight. If the target page is moved for any reason then a bot should fix any resultant double redirects anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2017 (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.

Riolobos, Caceres[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) The target doesn't have any diacritics in it, only (Cáceres) does, so to create it as {{R from title without diacritics}} is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, Delete. Disambiguators are there to give hints between similarly-named articles on different subjects, and no more than that; Riolobos, Cáceres manages to do that without needing this, which just reambiguates the (unnecessary, for now) disambiguation. Si Trew (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2017 (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.

Peäccam[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. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT Eubot). See the discussion below. This should probably follow whatever we decide to do with that one. Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2017 (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.

Peaccam[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. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Not sure. Created from Peäccam. After a series of page moves, that has ended up at having an definition only given at Pechenga (urban-type settlement), Murmansk Oblast, which is on the DAB at Pechenga (inhabited locality), which is on the DAB at Pechenga, which is where this one has stayed, lonelily pointing at a DAB that doesn't mention any term near anything like it to an English-speaking audience. I don't know what to do about this. Considering that both DABs only have three entries each, it would make sense to combine them at Pechenga, but this should probably be retargeted to Pechenga (urban-type settlement), Murmansk Oblast, where it is mentioned. That being said, the disambiguation terms are hardly illuminating: I imagine literal translations from Russian (what is an "urban-type settlement"? What is an "inhabited locality"?) so we could perhaps just Delete this redirect as extremely WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and forget about it. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not to be confused with Pechanga, which I did when writing the above. That might deserve a hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2017 (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.

Equipo Argentino de Antropologia Forense[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. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Created from Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense, which was tagged as {{R from title with diacritics}}. (I've changed that, to {{R from other language|es|en}}.) For a bot then to create an {{R from title without diacritics}} from an {{R from title with diacritics}} to a target without diacritics is just absurd. No need for it, delete it.

<rant>I presume this was created on the false premiss (I assume) that the bot would serve to prevent creating duplicate articles (since that was the premiss given at some previous Eubot approval), as a kinda layman's WP:SALT. That is a bad premiss to start with, because we don't salt things until an actual problem arises, not a potential one; but even so, it would not make any sense for creating redirects from redirects, literally because redirects are not articles, but extended because redirects are created for to get people to where they are likely to want to go, and if you add more redirects to the pile, that makes searching harder, not easier: that's giving someone a choice they didn't need to make. In short, the bot rules were far too loose because as far as I can tell it was never discussed or got approval, and a simple rule like "don't create redirects from redirects" would have cut out probably 90% of the Eubot redirects I and others bring here rather than the vast majority that are quietly kept; probably 90% of the remaining 10% could have been avoided by "don't create a redirect from one that has been categorised". That would leave some potential redirects uncreated (not all categories are for misspellings and so on), but better than this mess.</rant> Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a redirect from the native name without diacritics, and thus a very likely search term for someone who sees that name but can't (or doesn't know how to) enter diacritics in the current environment on their current device. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2017 (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.

S-21, la machine de mort Khmere rouge[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 all. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Three more entirely unnecessary redirects created from three marginally useful redirects to an article title we have with an English name. Let's parler francais. Delete all, WP:RFD#D8. When something has an English title and a French title, it's not really necessary to franglaicise the French title: surely the three existing redirects were enough for a search? As ranted above, 90% of the Eubots I (and others) list here are redirects created from redirects: most I keep perfectly happily, and silently, so if you think I just am on some kind of delete-crusade you are mistaken, because the ratio is about 50 kept to 1 brought to RfD, at the moment. That is to say, in defence of Eubot, it did quite a good job, but because it hadn't approval or even discussion nobody had considered the edge cases, and "don't create redirects from redirects" is a bloody obvious one. And since it created 130,000 redirects on this run, there are a lot of edge cases, even if it's only 2% of that. (In practice it's higher because the redirects from redirects tend to unveil other problems). Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a success with taking some Eubot ones that vary only in one letter in a conjunction or preposition (and have no diacritics) to CSD as housekeeping under G6. "in" and "and" were the ones I got through, on a target that had several Eubot redirects created from redirects from page moves that only varied in these minor details, but I imagine the variations on "La", if not on "Machine", can go by the same route. I don't want to abuse G6, though, hence listing here, but it shows at least it's possible. (I didn't mention Neelix, I just took G6 housekeeping on a target that had plenty of other redirects that varied only in very minor details.) Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The first one is the title in the work's native French and so an automatic keep. The second is just using the capitalisation an English speaker with some knowledge of French would expect so very likely to be useful and the third similarly so but for someone who is slightly less familiar with French and who doesn't remember the - hyphen, again far from implausible. The redirects are additionally completely harmless so there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2017 (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.

Gioebia[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot). Not Germanic. Piedmontese language. WP:RFD#D8, Delete. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2017 (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.

Makedhonia[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, default to keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) WP:RFD#D8, novel or obscure. Back-formed from Makedhonía. I imagine the target has plenty of redirects and I am not sure I want to open that can of worms; I suppose we could retarget it to the DAB at Macedonia, which I am sure was well fought over. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. The redirect gets consistent views and there are plenty of non-Wikipedia-derived uses to see why, however the uses seem roughly evenly split between the region of Greece and the independent country with a few referring to Bulgaria too. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Retarget then. I must admit I didn't check externally on this one, as when it's something as contentious as this subject it's hard to see the meat for the potatoes. It's probably the most neutral thing we can do with it, though, and I know redirects don't have to be neutral, but they don't have to be needlessly contentious either. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: do you want me to add Makedhonía to the nom? (Or I don't mind if you do on my behalf.) Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the primary target for Makedhonía with a diacritic is the Greek region, a hatnote is the most warranted for that title. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a {{R without diacritics}} for "Makedhonía" which is the Greek word for Macedonia. As it's Greek, it'd have the most affinity for the Greek region, so the current target is the best one. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Greek region is the most likely one to be spelt like that (and most of the few google hits I had a look at were about that). The current article also has a hatnote pointing to the dab, so users looking for the other regions aren't going to get lost. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2017 (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.

Riom-Parsonz (Graubuenden)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Delete. Riom-Parsonz (Graubünden) is an {{R to Swiss municipality (canton)}} (very Swiss, the naming of these Swiss categories); it should also be an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (as many redirects in that category probably are.) So there's no point having two more unnecessary disambiguations created by a bot (without any approval that I can find), and tagged as {{R from title without diacritics}} when the target page doesn't have any diacritics, only the redirect the bot made them from does. It is not as if a real person actually used some sense to create these, and deleting them will not affect people's ability to search or link. One justification for a previous run of Eubot was to prevent accidental creation of multiple articles on the same subject (i.e. using redirects as kind of WP:SALT), but it seems really unlikely to me that someone would do so for these without first bothering to see if Riom-Parsonz existed. Si Trew (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep both as plausible search terms without diacritics. I don't understand why you think the presence of other redirects has any impact on how likely these are to be used as search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (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.

Hispânico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 18#Hispânico

Dr. Geroe Cup[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) – Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Weak delete. The cup was named in honour of Dr. Josef Gerö, as the article states. He's Austrian so I suppose it's OK to mangle his name like this, but we don't have an article on him (as you see: and the article redlinks it), so it's a bit weird then to have a redirect to essentially an unperson, i.e. nobody will find out about a "Dr. Geroe" unless they also happen to guess that he is in fact Dr. "Gerö", and if they can guess that "oe" has been back-formed from "ö" they can probably guess to type plain Dr. Gero Cup in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep There are three uses (two independent) that I can find for this, normally that wouldn't be a reason to keep but as they are North American newspaper articles from 1959 and 1960 (e.g. [13]) it would not surprise me if there are more uses of this from the same era which have not been digitised but which someone would plausibly look up if they came across it. The context is clearly a sports competition so people for this will be looking for information about the cup not the person it is named for, so I don't see the redlink as an issue for this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2017 (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.

Country Labor[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I take your point about no mention in the target article – there should be one. I created the redirects as some electoral commissions specifically list Country Labor as a separate party in election results, so I considered it a very likely search term and one likely to be linked to from other articles or lists (although AUSPOL editors have tended to just list and link the Australian Labor Party directly. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Canley: Yeah I see your point but I notice it is mentioned in several local city council articles and electorate articles such as City of Lismore and also articles such as Mick Murray (politician) so I think its better to have an actual article on it. Oddly, though, I'm finding it difficult to find references in RS, though I did use the archive option in Google News [17] and found a few references, because I obviously didn't look for local area sources. Maybe that's why, I have never heard of this until now, although I've heard of "Country Liberal" before. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Country Labor Party" is a ballot line used by the Labor Party in regional areas, especially in New South Wales, so it's an obvious redirect. It probably warrants a brief mention in the article but it's hardly the most important thing. It is not an actual separate party (as the Country Liberal Party is), so it makes no sense to have it as a separate article. It barely warrants more than a sentence in the main article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2017 (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.

Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, it is unclear what "next" is supposed to refer to. Also per WP:CRYSTAL. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought these redirects was the result of a page move of an article before the details were known, but it appears that Timjones86 (talk · contribs) created some kind of placeholder articles/templates in June 2016 for some as yet unannounced leadership votes. These are pointless blank articles, any information one could include occur would be crystal-balling, and even the redirects are unlikely to ever be searched for or linked to. --Canley (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These make no sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Next..." redirects only make sense for events that are scheduled or can reasonably be expected to occur, e.g. Next German federal election, but not things like party leadership elections that happen on an unscheduled and unpredictable basis. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Australian leadership spills are not held at fixed or predictable intervals, but occur whenever a party leader calls one because their leadership is being challenged. As insanely common as they've become of late, there's not much reason to maintain articles about, or redirects to somewhere else from, preemptive titles about the next one. When one is called, by definition the exact date will already be known and the vote will take place within a few days at most, so it won't even be useful as a redirect to that article. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2017 (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.

Vileyka Voblasts[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. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT Eubot). Delete. There aren't several Vileyka Voblasts and it's unlikely someone would search this way. Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely and unused (4 hits this year, which is the exact number many seemingly completely implausible redirects get, so I'm starting to wonder if there is something non-human about them but more investigation is needed before I can even say my suspicion is probably correct). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Voblasts in this case is not a plural but a different Belarusian romanization of Oblast/Voblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ymblanter – the ts is a common way of transliterating ц in Slavonic languages (and it is ц that is at the end of the Belarusian word rather than т). – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If this were a valid alternative transcription, I'd probably find usage in sources, but it does not seem plausible from what I can gather, could not find usage in sources. I don't know anything about Belorussian romanization, BTW. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:09, 9 January 2017 (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:NOTBIGENOUGH[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:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nailed down the exact edit, but as far as I can tell there has been no section by this title at WP:ATA since sometime in 2008, well over 1,000 edits back in its history. And yet, some users are still using it as a shortcut for actually explaining themselves in deletion discussions, apparently unaware that it (for whatever reason) lands you at the section on article age instead. So, not helpful and being misused, if only once in a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clrify, since it doesn't show up in the auto-generated part of the nom (which I must admit I didn't noticeuntil just now) the current target is a section called "this number is big". It's a long essay, and I was looking for a section by that title and not finding it. Whoever re-organized it in 2009 is the one who should have fixed it if that's the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why section redirects don't display thus, but I try to add them when I come across them, and I've done so here now. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox and BDD: Twinkle doesn't include the section redirect when listing an entry on RFD, and to my knowledge, it never has. I think I may have brought this up in the past at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, but neither can I remember for certain, nor do I remember the resolution/answer if there was one. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (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.

Litohoron, Greece[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. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Pumpie). Delete all. The target doesn't have a diacritical mark, at least in English, so it's pointless if not misleading to have the ones with diacritics (and none is marked as {{R from title with diacritics}}, or {{R from name and country}}). We just don't need every possible variation of a Greek place name. The one R Eubot did make is the one that actually does make sense, Litochoro, Greece. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Litochoron and Litohoro which got 92 and 75 hits this year.
  • Weak keep Litochoron, Greece and Litohoro, Greece (8 and 11 hits respectively) as the versions without the country are very clearly humanly used these do not seem implausible.
  • neutral Litóchoron, Greece (7 hits), Litóchoro, Greece (8) and Litohoron (8) as they seem to be getting possibly human uses, although as every single one of these redirects was visited on the 23rd of December I suspect that to be someone looking though a list of them.
  • Delete the others as they all have 6 or fewer hits, including the visit on the 23rd of this month, which combined with my observations noted at the two preceding nominations is starting to suggest 4 hits per year can be discounted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all as correct alternative transcriptions of either the Demotic or Katharevousa names of the town. Deryck C. 12:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As these stand, they all look like plausible Romanisations of the two Greek forms of the name of the town, and probably should be kept. However, that's a lot of redirects and I don't think all of the maintenance burden they pose is worth it. And I don't think there's anything special about this particular town, most places in Greece could have (or be reasonably expected to have) a similar number of redirects. I think there's a need for a general solution to apply across the board, maybe a discussion to come up with guidelines on which romanisations of Greek are plausible? In something like this happens, then the stats given by Thryduulf could be a factor in judging the limits of plausibility. Until that happens, I'd rather these were kept by no consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (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.

Hello! Canada[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 ¡Hola! --BDD (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere, but should really point to Hello! (magazine) if anywhere, but they would only be barely helped if it pointed there, still suggest deletion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Hello! (magazine) indicates that it is a publication local to the UK with no connection to Canada, so I strongly oppose the suggestion to retarget it there. ¡Hola! is the article about the parent magazine, which indicates that there is a Canadian edition but gives no detail - not even a title, so that wouldn't be useful either. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have a Canadian version, in fact. Might be worth expanding the article. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spanish magazine has a British version. The Spanish magazine also has a Canadian version, according to the article, but it doesn't even tell us what the name of the Canadian version so, unless someone expands the Spanish magazine article, the British magazine article or writes an article about the Canadian magazine there is no useful information to be found anywhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hello! (magazine) as the search for the term immediately pops up the Canadian version of the magazine [18] and has a link at the bottom to the US version [19] which has a link at its bottom to the UK/Canadian magazine subscriptions. [20] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you (or someone) needs to add some content about the Canadian (and any other) magazines to the article which is presently exclusively about the UK magazine. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added some stuff to the history section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ¡Hola!, the parent magazine. I've added and sourced a tidbit about it in the lead of the ¡Hola! article. Daß Wölf 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2017 (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.

((SHARIPOV)), RUKNIDDIN FAYZIDDINOVICH[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these are helpful given the redundancy of the use of the brackets, this exact stylization is not mentioned in the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (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.

South Koreans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#South Koreans

Bush did Harambe[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable redirect — Chevvin 00:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a meme with that exact name that is mentioned in the article, so that should probably indicate the redirect could be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the cited mention within the article --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, not at all implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The redirect in question points to a direct mention in the target article of a meme directly associated with the subject, a meme which is also widespread and notable enough to be written about by a cited reliable source. No sign of implausibility whatsoever. Blurp92 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (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/2017_January_9&oldid=1138581614"