Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2018.

Japanese Bonus Tracks[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. Content added, per nom ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Japanese" in not mentioned in the target article; thus, readers looking up this term will not find what they are specifically looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator keep Wow, I did this ten years ago and totally forgot about it. I think the target article should make some mention of the common record-industry practice in the 1980s-2000s of including bonus material on Japanese editions of albums, though the article does mention this at current. Chubbles (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless someone makes the change Chubbles suggested. (I'm not remotely qualified on this topic, so I'll leave it to someone else to both assess and implement.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bonus track already exists. No articles currently needing to link to "Japanese bonus track" that "bonus track" wouldn't already be able to handle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that I added additional commentary to the article on the phenomenon of Japanese bonus tracks specifically. Chubbles (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Proper album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "proper" is not mentioned in the target article. Thus, it is unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as "proper" is vague --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proper was likely inserted as a POV, and is uselessly vague. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless Improper album exists then I don't see the logic in its creation here ....... Delete. –Davey2010Talk 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not used as a technical term for a type of album to be described on that page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I expect that this decision will be unanimous. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

English Studio/Spanish Studio albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A reader would expect to find information about English or Spanish studio albums specifically, when this article, and most likely the entire project, contains nothing of the sort. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Readers would expect this to be a worldwide article not just British related. –Davey2010Talk 14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Unless there's an actual band or studio called English Studio or Spanish Studio. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Musical equipment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Musical equipment

Custom built instruments[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. Looks like it started as a PROMO attempt many years ago, and we spent 12 years getting the most out of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not necessarily exclusive to its target. Other subjects listed at Instrument could also be "custom built". Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Something of a WP:SURPRISE, and trying to disambiguate this seems needlessly difficult. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague unless someone's going to write up a history of custom-built instruments as with Custom car, but a lot of things are considered hand-made or custom-made prior to mass production. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Music lover[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 20#Music lover

Music's[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect since the target does not possess ownership, nor is it a business. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st Art[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unavoidable WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Farting Through the Ages[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. Amazing ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know my fart jokes, but this one just seems a bit too unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete good joke but unlikely synonym at best --Lenticel (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good joke but still not really appropriate for here. –Davey2010Talk 14:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no such media title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

S-word[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to delete these. Neither target seems to get readers to where they want to go. (That, and other profane words could also be called a "S word".) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

¡Ay, mierdas![edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this as a viable search term on the English Wikipedia. (I'd say "delete per WP:FORRED, but I don't think the redirect is an exact translation for the target, or vice versa.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boxor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Bionicle toys. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear why this redirect targets where it does. In addition, most search results for this term using third-party search engines return results for a fictional vehicle in Bionicle. (Maybe retarget to List of Bionicle toys? This redirect has history as a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allmende[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. The redirect's target does not have affinity to the German language. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2017 establishment in the Philippines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. I do countless establishment categorizing. and I've only encountered redirects like this for the Philippines. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Lesnar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple wrestlers that have supposedly used this nickname, but none of the ones have any mention in their articles. It was sitting with Lashley since 2013 (and as far back as 2008), but after it was changed from two other names the month before in 2013, and then recently changed to JTG. This really needs discussion as to who has used this name in reliable sources and if multiple people have, then it should be a dab with mentions. Names pointed to include JTG, Bobby Lashley, Big E Langston, Ryback (wrestler). History of the article shows it was a derogatory nickname for Lashley, that was prodded and reverted multiple times. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure this redirect is really worth keeping. Especially, as the destination isn't even clear. It's quite clearly a derogatory name for Lashley, which we really shouldn't be promoting. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only search engine result I found was Urban Dictionary. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

9/9[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. As closer of the previous RfD, I'm not sure whether it's good or bad for me to close this, but here I am. On a procedural note, as noted here and elsewhere, the creation of this was improper and should have gone to WP:DRV. That being said, what's done is done, so let's do this.

While this option was discussed and valiantly defended, it was largely dismissed last time around, and I won't pretend most of those same people are participating here. Still, this has had two full weeks at RfD, and while there is still opposition to the September 9 target, the only real argument provided is that it isn't needed; a convincing refutation of its utility hasn't been provided. Were this at DRV I'd overturn, hence, closing this as keep.

Please let's go to DRV next time though, okay? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This one was here a few weeks back, targetting 0.999.... It's now been recreated as a redirect to September 9, which some people thought was okay, but some didn't. Rather than sending it immediately back to the bin, I think a discussion is preferable first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my comments at the previous discussion. September 9 is the only plausible target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These redirects generally exist when there is only one possible target, which in this case there is. Smartyllama (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I said last time 9/9 could mean absolutely anything and so again in my eyes the redirect is useless. (Just to expand: Whilst others exist (IE 4/9, 10/12) these all have 2 articles whereas 9/9 is one date ....., I personally don't see the need to create this all for one page when someone could type "9 September" ..... I see the logic in keeping but personally I still find it a pointless redirect) –Davey2010Talk 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) (expanded 23:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • It should be possible to reach the article from this regardless of whether there is anything else it could refer to. Search doesn't work - results are several unrelated articles with "9" in the title followed by 9 October, which is the wrong month. If it could mean absolutely anything what else could it mean here? Peter James (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well like the first RFC it could mean 0.999..., It could also mean "Zechariah 9" (Google appears to center around this atleast for me and I'm not a Bible/God-person), or it could mean "9,9-Dihexylfluorene" - Point is it could mean absolutely anything. –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that it means any of these things, rather than them just appearing in search results just as October 9 does in Wikipedia search? I think they are there because Google doesn't distinguish accurately between various symbols in search, as replacing "/" with "+" or "-" produces similar (but not identical) results. Disambiguation can improve on this by excluding results that are irrelevant or are only contained in titles; redirects can be used if there is only one relevant topic. Peter James (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate Most of these are disambiguation pages (1/8, 4/9) or redirects (8/8 to 8 August); some (9/8, 2/9) are redirects to other articles but most of these should also be disambiguated. Peter James (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable search term, though I admit I should have ideally went through DRV or similar instead of creating the redirect unilaterally. feminist (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a redirect for every non-notable fraction or possible date. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that there were many more participants in the previous RfD, and that this is serving as a stand-in for a properly-filed DRV, I'd like a bit more conversation before acting again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many possible meanings. Anyone searching this term needs to use more precise search terms. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only know a more precise search term for one meaning (9 September), so I can't find these other meanings. Please mention them here so I can add them to a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Basement culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though the section Basement#Basement culture and finishings exists, this redirect itself seems like a vague combination of two words with no guarantee that the reader is looking for any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What about this article that talks about Wikipedia editing on basements and basement culture? [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To me, at least, basement culture refers to someone living out of a basement and doing naught but play videogames, or something similar. That's not at all what the current target is about and, so far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't have anything like this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This actually makes me think, before anything else, of interior design culture in terms of putting objects around a basement, painting the walls, and so on. I don't see a good reason to keep this, honestly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

90th Academy Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have singulars for each awards edition. Should this go away? This is different from the redirect for the individual awards which should handle singulars and plurals and attract most of the links anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Directions in foreign languages/symbols[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 Dabify. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Directions do not have affinity to any language. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Dōng instead. --dab (𒁳) 17:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Targets have changed, and a dab drafted, and these need further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Food and drink[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 Category:Food and drink. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY; Drink is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Though I still support deletion as the best option per my nomination statement, if I had to choose between "keep" and "retarget to Category:Food and drink", I'd go with "retarget to Category:Food and drink" since that option removes the WP:XY concern (though I still believe deletion to be more helpful since retargeting to Category:Food and drink would make this redirect a WP:XNR.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as with Food and water AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - XY & all that. –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "food and drink" is a common term, unlike "food with water", and thus is likely to be searched. Page view statistics indicate that this redirect has a substantial amount of usage. The Food article defines food as any substance[1] consumed to provide nutritional support for an organism, thus the redirect is accurate enough. feminist (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Food and drink is a well organized category, perhaps it can be retargeted there if a more suitable mainspace target cannot be found. I am sympathetic to keeping it in some form, especially because this is a redirect from Wikipedia's infancy (2001) and it's a common term. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, keep, or XNR to CAT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget to Category:Food and drink. I don't support deletion, but cannot personally decide between the arguments presented by Feminist and Tavix, respectively. One thing to note for each: at least in my mind, the term drink when used in the phrase 'food and drink' connotes an alcoholic beverage, which has no nutritional value. On the other hand, I don't see a category page helping the large number of regular users who will search this phrase. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan Sarzameen Party[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan and Sarzameen Party are two different political partieis in Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yunna[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives no indication that this spelling is a version (Korean or English) spelling of her name. This redirect should be deleted. Goveganplease (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems to me that this is a spelling that an English-speaker would jump to if they heard this name somewhere and didn't know how it is spelled. The other important piece of information is that Yunna is the forename of a Yunna Morits. I don't personally have an opinion on what to do here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Yuna as there seems to be a number of people and characters that use the Yūna with macron name and that translates to Yuuna. It's not connected to Yuun-Ha unless the H is meant to be silent. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) updated 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indexify for Yunna Morits and Ella Koon (whose full name is Ella Koon Yun-na). Yunna (one U two Ns) is neither the same as Yuuna (two Us one N) nor Yuna; links to those could go in WP:SEEALSO. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A separate Yuuna could be okay too. It can attract the macron ones like Yuuna Sugiyama and titles like Yuuna and the Haunted Hot Springs. Other Yuunas are mostly fictional character redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed the two N version, I've created Yuuna for the two U's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Imagina ser[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. Lordtobi (✉) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Imagine (Game Series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. On the fence with a no consensus, especially given the age, but the correct caps for both exist (one old, one newish), so any utility of keeping these feels watered down. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely in-disambiguation capitalisation. Lordtobi (✉) 12:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One could apply "WP:CHEAP" to literally every redirect below and above, unless there was a guideline clearly against them. These redirects here aid exactly zero people. For one, both redirects have equivalent versions with proper capitalization (Imagine (video game series) and Imagine (game series), respectively) already in place. Thus, a casual reder who searches for these exact terms would find the decapitalized versions, making the capitalized ones invisible to the casual reader (otherwise, vice versa). Secondly, if you are that kind of person who types disambiguations into the browser address line (like me), you also wouldn't artificially capitalize the disambiguation just to find that one redirect, logical thinking already bridges that. In the most extreme case, if one typed in the the capitalised version into the browser address and would find a deleted/non-existent page, Wikipedia would still realize that there is a decapitalized version of the typed-in name, asking the user whether that was the article they were looking for. Unwritten consensus is usually to delete such mal-capitalized-disambiguated redirects based on their uselessness, even if they were cheap. Lordtobi (✉) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of this, and don't cite WP:CHEAP whenever it could in theory apply. Obviously, these redirects serve no purpose whatsoever. Alas, deleting them also accomplishes absolutely naught, because they are, of course, just alternative capitalizations. And because, as that essay explains, deleting a page increases the amount of space it takes up on the Wikipedia servers, deleting redirects that are doing no harm is ultimately, if anything, counterproductive. It would, at least in my humble opinion, be better to just keep them and allow them to forever languish, in their obscurity. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the versions with the proper caps exist, and this would only be distracting to keep the improper caps version. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Planet Manley[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of thousands of unsubstantiated and unrecognized names for exoplanets. — Aldaron • T/C 11:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hebe (album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant article. I propose deletion. (There have been relevant articles, see Hebe Camargo#Discography; but neither of the full title matches Hebe (1964 album) and Hebe (1967 album) is in mainspace. Having looked at the Portuguese articles, I can't say I'm surprised. Narky Blert (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the 1964 and 1967 albums are not titled Hebe? That would probably be good enough to redirect to Hebe Camargo. I don't see any other albums with such a title. Hatnote can be added to Hebe Tien in case searches are looking for any albums she might have recorded, and to Hebe (disambiguation) in case others show up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt that this was a complicated enough case to bring to WP:RFD for discussion. There are no matches of any kind at all in Hebe (disambiguation). The two full title matches have both been moved back to draftspace. A redirect to Hebe Camargo, might be the answer, but I'm unsure. There is also that album To Hebe by someone else altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Someone searching Hebe (album) would expect to find an album, not a biography, and would expect to find an album named Hebe, not To Hebe. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Compassionate727 - No point repeating them however I will add had both albums existed then this could've been a disam ... however neither exists so as per Compassionate727 delete. –Davey2010Talk 14:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Personally I think Peters edits should be reverted at the redirect still deleted - My understanding of disams is that the wikilinks should exist which in this case these don't so to me it seems pointless having a redirect to a disam where the albums don't exist and as such potentially misleading the reader. –Davey2010Talk 14:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah thanks for that, In that case Keep per Peters edits. –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added the albums to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:REDLINK. I mean, we don't have any articles for an album named Hebe. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The ceiling[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 Ceiling. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the redirect's target does not traditionally use the word "the" preceding it (as opposed to "the opera".) Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Ceiling or Ceiling (disambiguation) as retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Doogie Howser GOP[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 Doogie Howser, M.D.#Real life comparisons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any indication that Mr. Krohn was ever known as Doogie Howser, making this redirect inappropriate. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Aaron Schock had the moniker "Doogie Howser wannabe" in 2015 [2] [3] It also referred to the youngest GOP Delegate Evan Draim in 2012 [4] [5] But yes, it could also refer to Krohn back in 2009 as "Doogie Howser GOP" [6] [7] Is that worth a dab, or hatnote, since Draim doesn't have an article/mention? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated vote below. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be weakly associated with a bunch of people. Could get behind disambiguation, but would prefer not to have it at all. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doogie_Howser,_M.D.#Real_life_comparisons, and add entries with references. I don't think this needs to be a dab entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Angus. The appellation is described at that target and it resolves the ambiguity. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:Rail ransport in Fiji[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from somwhat implausible typo, nothing links here Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pokemon Portal[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, but retarget P:P to Portal:Portal. P:P is admittedly vague, and as there's no interest in YAPR (yet another pokemon redirect, half tempted to point WP:YAPR to WP:KAREN) I'm (somewhat) boldly redirecting it to Portal:Portal to match WP:P and get some utility out of it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useful or current links to the redirects except the page they link to. Only circular. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as shortcuts to the portal. Linking isn't the only, nor the most prominent way to use redirects—these may be used as a shorter way to search for the portal in question and there is no benefit to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, P:P is ambiguous, but ambiguity in and of itself shouldn't be the sole reason for the deletion of shortcuts. Perhaps it isn't the most intuitive portal for P:P, but it has been targeting the Pokemon portal for over 11 years now without evidence of confusion. Perhaps if it is desirable to match WP:P, then Portal:Portal may be a fun target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete P:P as ambiguous: any number of portals beginning with the letter P could be the target. Keep all others per Tavix and WP:CHEAP. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep P:POKEMON as P is a shortcut to the portal, Delete the rest - P:P could mean Portal:Pony for instance, P:Poke is pointless - Adding "mon" to the end isn't that hard.... –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal:PKMN[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. Clear, no likelihood of confusion ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero pages link to this redirect. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a logical shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and WP:CHEAP. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect has only been used 5 times in the 3 years of it being here .... that would indicate "PKMN" isn't a well known or well used term, REDIRECTSARECHEAP however IMHO that's no justification for keeping heavily-underused (verging on useless) redirects. –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Davey2010. This abbreviation isn't very much used and there really isn't a universally accepted shortened word for Pokemon anyways. Goveganplease (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aspiration (long-term hope)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Aspiration" is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term. Search would be better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a dab for some Free Dictionary entries. [8] If you type "aspiration (" you get (long-term hope), (medicine), and (phonetics) as matches. Doesn't apply here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_10&oldid=1036305563"