Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2018.

Levels/stages, items, concepts, and characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time[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) 04:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are levels/stages, items, concepts, and characters that are not listed or mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all As WP:GAMEGUIDE fancrufty redirects. This kind of stuff belongs in Zelda Wikia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Db-internet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 5#Template:Db-internet

History Of Arabcs[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) 15:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Delete.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

History Of Arabc[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) 15:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Weak retarget to Arabic § History, second choice delete. Another potential target would be History of the Arabs, where the correctly-spelled History of Arabs points.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible: in such a context c is not a plausible typo for s (so the current target won't do) and the omission of the i is no more plausible than the omission of any other letter in the phrase (and so the proposed new target is not any better). – Uanfala (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

History of the Arab Peoples[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 5#History of the Arab Peoples

The Pillar[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) 04:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillar, "one of the longest-lasting continuously-published gay publications in Utah", has never been mentioned on the target page, a list of LGBT periodicals. What's the point of a rarely used redirect if it points someplace that leaves the reader scratching her or his head? (I found the redirect when I looked to see if Wikipedia had an article about the student newspaper at Fairleigh Dickinson University, also titled The Pillar.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the statutory pings to participants in the AfD discussion: TParis, Callanecc, Northamerica1000, Cirt, Gongshow. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article should have been deleted in the AFD. The keep & redirect comments were not policy compliant then and they aren't anymore now, either. Passing mention and articles about other subjects do not nobility make.--v/r - TP 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Most publications in the world, by and large, don't become that notable and wouldn't deserve significant mention on one of our pages. I'm also frustrated by the confusion generated since "The Pillar" is rather generic and has been used by multiple entities, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Homeless veterans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

In June of 2013, I nominated this redirect for deletion; at the time, it pointed to National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. It was deleted as a result of that discussion. In due time (namely in November of 2014), the redlinking served its intended purpose, and Msf42 created an article at the title. In January of 2015, RightCowLeftCoast moved the page to its current target, and the redirect has existed ever since as an {{r from move}}. Reading the article, I think RightCow was right (heh) to make the move, but I think there's still an article to be had about homeless veterans worldwide. For that reason, I propose that we delete this redirect yet again, for the same reasons (WP:REDLINK) as last time.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - 'Homelessness#Causes' mentions participation in some way with armed conflict in its list, and it would seem to be an appropriate retarget option were the section large enough to explain things in context. However, though, it looks like it badly needs expansion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sorry for the delay in responding I am not as active as I once was, and am primarily uploading media files onto Wikimedia Commons. Looking at the previous RfD all those redirects appeared to be promotional for the one organization, especially when multiple organizations work on the issue of homeless veterans. As for the RfD, IMHO I think at present, unless it can be shown that there are significant in-depth reliable sources about the subject of homeless veterans outside of the United States, that the redirect should be kept. While there maybe in the future the reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, from a cursory search utilizing Google search, there doesn't appear to be enough a time. Most of the content that comes up in the search is about homeless veterans within the United States. Therefore, perhaps the redirect can be given the template Template:R with possibilities.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag {{R with possibilities}}, since it doesn't look like an article is viable (yet). If we're wrong, and an article is in fact viable, it would probably stand a better chance of survival if it were created by someone with a good understanding of Wikipedia processes and the GNG. That counsels against making it easy for new users to create this article, since we'd basically be setting a notability trap for them. --NYKevin 08:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Przypisy[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) 05:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the point of this. The template redirect isn't used. PRehse (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the spirit of WP:FORRED since that seems to be why the redirect was created per its edit history. "Przypisy", I suppose, is a translation for the target template's name in Polish. Steel1943 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It indeed is. Also, the parameter names at plwiki templates are in Polish and differ from the corresponding English names (e.g. group/grupa), so any Przypisy templates from plwiki will not work properly on enwiki. Delete. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This template is used in a few dozen user sandboxes and draft pages by editors translating pages from Polish. Example: Draft:Bokka. I would be OK with having this template automatically replaced with Reflist by a bot when it is detected, but going from the current state, in which it works for editors, to a redlink, is unhelpful and opaque. We have plenty of template redirects like this, and they work well for editors who are translating articles manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jonesey - useful, harmless, and reflist doesn't usually have much parameters so shouldn't be too much of a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 3#Template:Ficha de libro for a similar discussion regarding such redirects. The aforementioned discussion closed as "delete all". Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent set in December. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and somebody go tell the WMF they have to fix the transwiki tool so it repairs these mismatches automatically, since m:Help:Import implies that it does not. The information is (or should be) already in Wikidata, so it's just a matter of making the software smart enough to use it. In the meantime, we should not be papering over the issue with these kinds of redirects. (Yes, I realize that a lot of these templates are used by inexperienced users who copy and paste, and who don't have access to the import tool. Nevertheless, there are nontrivial attribution requirements for copy-and-paste, and it really ought to be done by people who know how the whole process works. Those people should also know enough to fix templates themselves, so that we don't accidentally end up with these redirects in mainspace confusing people.) --NYKevin 09:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Textual differences in the Bible[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 Bible translations. Consider this a weak retarget; I don't want to relist this a third time and drag this out for a full month. The argument from 70.52.11.217 that the Bible refers to more than the New Testament is obviously convincing. It is also appropriately supported by our own Bible. With that in mind, I would suggest everyone interested engage in the merge proposal between Textual variants in the New Testament and List of major textual variants in the New Testament. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any one good target for this redirect, but the present one definitely is not it. There are textual differences between the Dead Sea scrolls, the Masoretic text and the hypothetical Hebrew original of the Septuagint, so "textual differences" definitely is not "a problem for the New Testament and but not the Old Testament", so using "Bible" as a synonym for "New Testament" is nonsense, and the current redirect target is less about the textual differences themselves but an explanation of why particular verses are excluded from certain modern English critical translations (i.e., even if "New Testament" and "Bible" were synonymous, Textual variants in the New Testament would be a better redirect target). Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think redirecting this to Textual variants in the New Testament is probably fine. Redirects aren't exactly precise, it gets close. Eventually there should be a variants of the Old Testament / Hebrew Scriptures article if it doesn't exist already, of course. The redirect should definitely be kept regardless per reason 4 in WP:RFD#KEEP, this is an old title from a page move and there might be unknown links on external sites pointing at it which would be broken. As a side note, I'm not sure moving the KJV-centric article from "Bible" to "New Testament" makes sense - it presumably wants to encompass the entire Bible, even if the current examples are NT only. SnowFire (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support a retarget change over to 'Textual variants in the New Testament'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, looking various pages over, I believe that going to 'Bible translations' makes more sense. That article likely needs significant editing to expand its discussion on textual criticism, but it seems like a pretty appropriate target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Textual variants in the New Testament as recommended, and prepare hatnote for possible Textual variants in the Old Testament article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking this in favor of more general link presented below. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment FWIW, part of the reason I invited participation from WP:BIBLE was that I don't know if there already is a corresponding article for any of the sets of books that various Christian denominations refer to as the "Old Testament" (or the set that Jews refer to as the "Bible"). I'm guessing given the comments by User:AngusWOOF, User:CoffeeWithMarkets and User:SnowFire above that they either don't know of any such article either, or did a more thorough check than I and are pretty convinced that no such article currently exists. Ultimately, I think the current redirect should probably be a disambig page (or redirect to a disambig page), assuming that such an article (or articles) exists at some point in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think equating the Bible to the New Testament is a proper way to do this. Perhaps this should become an index to various X versions of the Bible comparative studies and comparisons articles. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Retarget to Bible translations which covers both Old and New Testament, the original texts and translations, and international translations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Next-generation Portable[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. This will default to keep, but does not preclude disambiguating if a viable one can be created. -- Tavix (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any portable console can be called "next-generation". Far too vague to redirect to any one article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Normally I would agree but Next Generation Portable was the actual codename of the device and was used in an official capicity for for several months until the Vita name was offically announced. In fact Next Generation Portable was the article title from Feb 5th 2011 to June 11th 2011 when Sony announced for Vita name.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 64.229.165.48 feminist (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is PSP primary topic for Portable? There are other products that are Portables. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s certainly true that there are other portables that were part of the next Generation Next Generation Portable was the official codename of this system as well as the title of the Vita article for months. To the best of my knowledge this is not the case for any other portables covered of Wikipedia. I believe the Vita article has more of a claim to this term than anywhere else.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes to Vita, a "redirects here" hatnote should be added to point to the Portable (disambiguation) page or the Compaq Portable series, which certainly has a number of generations of Portables. The Compaq one has a claim to the term "Next-generation Portable" [1] [2] It wouldn't have a claim on NGP though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify/disambiguate per sniff, there being the Compaq option. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NGP is the official codename hence the reason why the article use to be there. I would have to agree with AngusWOOF's suggestion. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if that is necessary since I don't recall anyone referring to the 3DS or any other handheld by that name and the fact the the redirect has been at the Vita article for about 6 and half years without incident strongly implies that people typing this in simply aren't looking for other handhelds from the 2010s.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like anything not referring to the Sony product is using the term as part of a larger term, e.g. next generation portable space heater. Plenty of articles from early 2011 are around and use this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:11, 7 February 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.

Generation Citizens[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. English translation of a french-language political party that redirects to its founder is a bridge too far. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target PRehse (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coalesce this RfD into the one below. They should both have the same outcome. --NYKevin 06:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Génération Citoyens[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. In the target, seems useful ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target PRehse (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article about it at frwiki. It states that the target of this redirect founded this political party in 2015 as a split from Nous Citoyens. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is now: [3]. I wonder what "per RfC" means? I can't find anything about it on the talk page. --NYKevin 06:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sinuosus[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 Mixed.

Good arguments all. I think we're in tricky waters here — something like Musculus is clearly worthy of its own dab, while others, like Sinuosus, are unlikely to have common, clear targets in enWiki — and should dig a little deeper before mass-removal. I would not say this constitutes binding consensus to delete a whole bunch of similarly styled redirects, as 3 out of the 11 here are being kept in one form or another. I'm happy to discuss any future ones should a list appear.

As a reminder, wikispecies is a lovely, albeit unloved, project, and is a great resource for looking in to these (as part of this close, I searched all, and found that each had multiple uses as a species name beyond the targets here).

On a more personal note, this is (one of the reasons) why I never wanted to work with plants. Too many subspecies/cultivars/etc; not as bad as bacteria, but more terminology. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the latter half of a Latin binomial. None of them are used by themselves to refer to a given species, therefore they serve no purpose. Note that this is very much the tip of the iceberg, if there's consensus to get rid of these then I will probably boldly delete many more. There is past precedent for deleting lists of these like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus, but I can't point to any similar redirects being deleted. I'm sure they have been. Xezbeth (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but sappan OK, I've been wrestling with what to say here since these were first listed. I didn't notice until now that @Xezbeth: is an admin and thus has the power to delete these and similar redirects themselves, provided consensus is established to do so. By all means, delete away. There are hundreds if not thousands of species epithet redirects, and they are almost ambiguous for multiple species (and thus shouldn't be point to any single species). For some time, Wikipedia had disambiguation pages for some species epithets. The disambigs were converted to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria). When I've come across ambiguous species epithet redirects myself, I've had them redirect to Wiktionary. I believe deletion (and thus search results) is better than redirecting to Wiktionary, but frankly, mass listing at RfD is a bit of a pain, and it's easier for me just to go the Wiktionary redirect. (Or should I not bother bundling related RfDs? The spate of unbundled video game location, object and powerup RfDs recently suggests not bundling).
There is currently a mix of redirects to Wiktionary, redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, and species epithets languishing ambiguously targeted to random species articles. They should be handled consistently. I favor deletion for those nominated here and allowing admins to delete ambiguous species epithets on sight going forward. However, 59.149.124.29 sugestions of possible targets (including Simon Binnendijk) are sensible if these are kept. Plantdrew (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sam Septiceye[edit]

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) 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently removed from article; not notable without a proper source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Sam Septiceye" / "Septiceye Sam" appears to be the specific name for the green mascot thing that the actual person uses in self-promotion (see here for an odd plush version). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be worth creating Septiceye or Septic eye redirects. No mention of Sam in news articles as mascot, so wait until that happens before adding back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Caught (Jay Sean song)[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) 05:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a song at the target album or the discography. Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dehr[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dehr" is also a name, and therefore a possible search term. Do we capitalize only the first letter of acronyms now? ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gestalt Mode (Final Fantasy XIII)[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 to Gestalt Mode, refine to #Battle system. Call it an IAR Gordian Knot compromise. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is no article or redirect called Gestalt Mode the idea of a disambiguation of it seems unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Genetically Modified Organism Project[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 7# Genetically Modified Organism Project

National Secessionist Forces[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#National Secessionist Forces

Wikipedia:BRR[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:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring. Pardon the pun, but there doesn't seem to be much appetite by the WP for retaining the redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects, for no apparent reason, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Desserts task force. People have, not unreasonably, been using it to refer to #Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring (as the antithesis of WP:BRD)), to which redirection it should be changed.

{{User Brr1}} & {{User Brr2}} will need to be updated if this change is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly updated the templates anyway; no need to hard-code a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed if and only if the WikiProject consents to giving up the redirect, which is quite old and which some people might still be using. In the event this is retargeted, hatnote it. --NYKevin 19:37, 4 February 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.

Dollarydoo[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. I have alleviated the concern that the term isn't mentioned at the target by adding a brief discussion from Galobtter's link at the article. Feel free to add on. -- Tavix (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target (please see the associated talk page - was nonsense at best. PRehse (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article– article was replaced with a redirect around six months ago, with no consensus to do so Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Restore article This was copied directly from the Australian dollar article with the name changed to dollarydoo in anticipation of petitions to change the official name to the name shown in The Simpsons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmentioned trivia, except that the redirect currently has {{R with history}}. Closing admin: Please evaluate whether that history is actually required for attribution purposes, and if it is, do a history merge if feasible or otherwise blank and move the redirect to some less offensive location such as a Talk: subpage so that we can preserve the history without polluting mainspace. --NYKevin 19:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: Incidentally, I find it rather interesting that you're voting to keep this one, but nominating various Zelda-related things for deletion at the same time. Are there different standards for video games than animated TV shows (asking out of genuine curiosity about deletion policy, not sarcasm)? --NYKevin 23:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there's potential for it to be added with sourcing, whereas most of the video game ones are WP:GAMECRUFT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meh, it's got history, and is where the term came from. It may not be mentioned, but I'd be surprised if it stays that way. The petition got coverage, so we might as well help out anyone who got curious. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 7 February 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.

Miscellaneous redirects to List of Doctor Who episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There's too much here. We need a more manageable list as several users have stated. Also, please have each tagged with a link and redirect creators notified. You can ask someone with AWB or a bot to do it if you need. Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion the multitude of unnecessary redirects to the Doctor Who episodes article; most of these were created almost ten years ago, and have never been used. Listing these after List of Doctor Who serials was split into two separate articles, List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and the serials page was redirected to the episodes page. Many of these links are also old story arc articles that were deleted and redirected. -- AlexTW 09:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  1. DW episodes
  2. Doc who episodes
  3. Doctor Who Episode List
  4. Doctor Who Serials
  5. Doctor Who episodes
  6. Doctor Who eps
  7. Doctor Who serials
  8. Doctor who 1963-2008
  9. Doctor who episode guide
  10. Doctor who episodes
  11. Doctor who serials
  12. Doctor who serials list
  13. Dr Who Episodes
  14. Dr Who serials
  15. Dr who guide
  16. Dr. Who Episode Guide
  17. Dr. Who Episodes
  18. Dro who episodes
  19. Eleventh doctor episodes
  20. Episodes of Doctor Who
  21. List of Doctor Who (2005) episodes
  22. List of Doctor Who Serials
  23. List of Doctor Who adventures
  24. List of Doctor Who episodes (disambiguation)
  25. List of Doctor Who seasons
  26. List of Doctor Who series
  27. List of Doctor Who stories
  28. List of Doctor Who story arcs
  29. List of Doctor Who television serials
  30. List of Doctor who serials
  31. List of Dr Who
  32. List of Dr Who episodes
  33. List of Dr. Who Episodes
  34. List of Episodes of Doctor Who
  35. List of Titled Doctor Who Episodes
  36. List of doctor who episodes
  37. List of doctor who serials
  38. List of dr who episodes
  39. List of serials of Doctor Who
  40. List of titled Doctor Who episodes
  41. Recurring references in Doctor Who continuity
  42. Recurring themes in Doctor Who
  43. Recurring themes in Doctor Who continuity
  44. Story Arcs in Dr. Who
  45. Story arcs in Doctor Who continuity
  46. Who episodes
  • This bears a high risk of becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK, and I'd encourage the nominator to put more care into the compiling of a list like this in the future. (Surely you didn't mean to nominate List of Doctor Who episodes (disambiguation), for instance? It's a standard {{R from disambiguation}}.) But I'll make do with what's available and take my best stab at keeping the train on the tracks. Let's see... Delete #s 1, 2, 6, 8, 18, 31, & 41-46; weak delete #s 15-16; weak keep #s 28 & 40; keep the rest. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @AlexTheWhovian: You didn't tag any of these redirects for deletion, which is required by policy, nor did you notify any of their creators, which is encouraged. Could you please do that? The fastest way would probably be to do them all with Twinkle. That would annoyingly cause the script to create redundant entries on this page (or the 1/21 page if you don't do this within the next few hours), but you could rollback those edits as soon as you're done. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if that's required for bulk nominations. I know that I do it, but I've seen others not. Could an RfD expert weigh in? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the extensive list; I only just came across them while performing a article split with hundreds of incoming links to the article. I'm fine with any number of them being kept - I only listed them all here to be discussed, not necessarily for all of them to be deleted - that is what this page is, redirects for discussion.
I will happily tag them if required, I already use Twinkle so it shouldn't be a hassle; I'll just remove the duplicate entries on today's or tomorrow's page as you've suggested, though I would note again that they're only here for discussion, not necessarily deletion. If they are required, it unfortunately won't be until at least tomorrow, as I'm presently set to leave for a long flight between Australia and Texas today. -- AlexTW 22:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: FWIW, I've raised the question at WT:RFD. If it turns out these don't need to be tagged, I'd be the happiest guy in the room, since I'm planning on doing an RfD of a few hundred redirects, maybe even a thousand, pretty soon. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the following obvious ones:
    • "DW episodes" – could refer to Deadliest Warrior or a number of DW shows or DW-related episodes from Arthur, or stuff like Deadwood (TV series). This would require a hatnote which is kind of silly.
    • "Doc who episodes", "Who episodes", "dro who episodes" – vague and pointless. it's easier to type "dr who episodes" without the typos
    • "List of Titled Doctor Who Episodes", "List of titled Doctor Who episodes". – No such distinction between titled and untitled
    • "Doctor who 1963-2008" – Unless there's a book specifically with this title, then this isn't helpful.
    • anything that has "episode guide" or "guide" in it – WP:NOTGUIDE
    • "Recurring themes in Doctor Who" – weak retarget to Doctor Who theme music Theme music is recurring. Otherwise, delete
    • "Recurring references in Doctor Who continuity" – WP:NOTTRIVIA
    • "Story arcs in" – there isn't any section that gives overarching storylines?
  • The more specific ones like Eleventh Doctor episodes can be scrutinized later. Any Thoughts? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating my position that the 46 listed redirects cannot be validly deleted until they have been tagged. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TRAINWRECK. This nomination is too large and many of these redirects seem like obvious keeps to me. These should be renominated in smaller, more obviously related batches (e.g. have one for unlikely abbreviations like "DW", another for titles with years in them, another for "List of Doctor Who whatevers", another for "Recurring themes/references", etc.). --NYKevin 22:12, 1 February 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.

Square/Enix[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) 15:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a believable typo, nor does the company refer to themselves in such a way. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can see them being referred to as both 'Square-Enix' and 'SquareEnix', but this particular redirect doesn't appear worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since Square Enix was made form a merger of Square and Enix, this seems like a reasonable enough redirect with no other possible targets AFAIK. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for incorrect markup as it has never been referred to in news articles with the slash. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All_for_Nothing_(band)[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 Jeremy McKinnon. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original redirect was patent nonsense. I changed the redirect to "Music" but really, this page needs to be deleted until someone can come along and write an article about the band. The original redirect was to some album by some completely different band, it was nonsense. Robo042 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're mischaracterizing the original redirect. It points to the album title of another band because that article gives some history of how the group formed. One of the members was in a band with this title. It's not out of the realm of possibilities to have a redirect for this reason. However, it can be potentially confusing. I tried to find some sources for All for Nothing (the band) but I'm not sure they'd meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and therefore may not ever have an article written about them. So at this point I'd lean to keep this. Killiondude (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jeremy McKinnon, who appears to be the common link between these items. Note that the redirect we are discussing is [5], and not the redirect as nominated. On an additional note, I'm not a fan of changing a redirect's target to "an even dumber one" so that "moron editors" will "get the hint" (all quotes from this edit summary: [6]). I think that was uncalled for and should not be done again. --NYKevin 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Element XLVII[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) 15:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible use of Roman numerals. In chemistry, Roman numerals are reserved for positive oxidation states. See also this discussion. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allow (song)[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 Redirect Allow (song) and Delete Allow (Björk song). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears there are editors creating redirects for rumoured song tracks. There is no 'Allow' on the target and unable to find a Bjork or other song with this title. Richhoncho (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, probably harmless. Early descriptions of the anticipated album (e.g. [7]) suggested there would be a track titled "Allow", which was not present when the album was released. Perhaps it was dropped from the final cut. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:. Fair point and if you want to add information into the article then the listing here should be removed. However, if there had been any reference to the song in the WP article I would not have listed here. They are redirects that take you nowhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: don't let my comment stand in the way of what is probably a WP:G7 situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Whatever else you find, it's very doubtful that an apparently unreleased song is the primary topic for this title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Nasty C one at Bad Hair Extensions is the only one I found as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any other songs either. Also, FWIW, there's a reliable source that Björk really did record a song called "Allow" and was undecided about including it on the album [8], but I'm not sure whether we should reinsert a mention of the song in Utopia (Björk album) if editors there have decided it shouldn't be there (it was shunted from the body into the "notes" section and then removed entirely by an anon in November). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_28&oldid=1037876357"