Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2019.

Black Bridge, Plassey[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant The Banner talk 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why this is needed, no one is likely to seek the Black Bridge of Plassey...SeoR (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black bridge, Limerick/Black bridge (Limerick) ..? Bogger (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if unlikely to do so, in the event that someone searches for Plassey's Black Bridge, they will be able to find information on it at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we can’t have a redirect to every distinct item in every article. So is this bridge significant or likely enough to be searched?SeoR (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can have a redirect for every distinct item that is discussed in an article and someone thinks significant enough to create a redirect for. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hypno-Chip[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly trivial item in the TV series, only mentioned in one passing sentence at the target article. Only real content ever was added in a single edit thirteen years ago. No incoming links from articles. Delete this. JIP | Talk 22:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alfred Hitchcock’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 no consensus. Although I !voted in the previous discussion, this one tackles a different issue that I feel more neutral about. That being said, if anyone feels this closure is biased, feel free to let me know and I will revert and relist. -- Tavix (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Notice the use of a curly apostrophe (’); this goes against MOS:' and WP:TSC (advises against such use in page titles). Alfred Hitchcock's already exists with a straight apostrophe. This was originally part of a batch nomination and not noted separately. ComplexRational (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending a discussion on the utility of Alfred Hitchcock's. If one is a useful redirect, then the other is a useful {{R from alternative punctuation}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's highly unlikely anyone would ever use this exact text as a link or search term, especially as it has a curly apostrophe instead of a regular one. JIP | Talk 08:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not highly unlikely, it's what happens if you use an iPhone/iPad keyboard. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to the conflicts with manual of style, this redirect should never be used in links. Because curly apostrophe is less commonly used than the normal apostrophe, and Alfred Hitchcock's, with normal apostrophe, is already a rather unlikely search term, this is not likely going to help in searching, either. 193.210.235.172 (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from alternative punctuation}} and {{R to ASCII-only}}. It's a useful search term if someone copy-pastes the string from a PDF document with bad optical character recognition into the search bar or page text. MOS applies to prose and WP:TSC applies to article titles; neither are about redirects because readers pretty much never see them. I agree with Ivanvector that if Alfred Hitchcock's exists, this one should too. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — MOS:AT says: Whenever quotation marks or apostrophes appear, add a redirect for the same title but using “curly” quotemarks/apostrophes instead of the usual "straight" ones. So while the usage of curly quotes/apostrophes is discouraged in Wikipedia articles, it is actually recommended to create redirects from curly variants to straight variants. Therefore, either both Alfred Hitchcock's and Alfred Hitchcock’s should stay, or they both should go. Personally, I think both should go—why have a possessive form redirect at all? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are there more of these? This is an implausible search term, especially with the curly apostrophe. I don't see how anyone would search for this. JIP | Talk 06:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a duplicate !vote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't realise I had already voted. Scratch my second vote. JIP | Talk 21:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until it's renominated together with the straight-apostrophe version. MOS:AT is there for a reason: iPhones and iPads keyboards generally generate a curly apostrophe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Europe's last dictatorship

Creepus explodus[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. Thanks User:InvalidOS for explaining the meaning of the redirect title. However, the consensus is that the title has not been mentioned in the target article and so the redirect should be deleted. Deryck C. 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect exists because of this shirt design which refers to the Creeper enemy from the game as "Creepus Explodus." The Creeper is mentioned in the target article. I did create the redirect, so I'm not going to say keep or delete, because to do so would be a conflict of interest. InvalidOS (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shirt is also official merchandise. InvalidOS (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite appearing in official merchandise, the term still doesn't appear in the page and is not likely ever going to appear there. We can't have redirects for every single phrase that has at some point appeared in official merchandise if the meaning of the phrase is not explained at the target page. 193.210.225.12 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the fact that this is not described in the target. Someone wanting to know what "creepus explodus" means will not be able to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Venerable Master[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Venerable Master

Wwwww[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#Wwwww

Australia-Hungary[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. Sorry, BDD! I don't think I've seen this lopsided of a discussion before at RfD. Jif (drink) comes to mind for me, but at least I had someone agree with me! (and yes, I'm still sour about that one...) I do see where you're coming from though, and I would probably !vote to retarget it if a bilateral relations article existed. I think a {{confused}} hatnote would need to be deployed though and I think it would be awkward to place one in the middle of a table (which is where I would choose to retarget it by {{anchor}}ing it to the correct row). That pushes me close enough to neutral to not bother leaving a !vote, but I doubt it would matter anyway... -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially no use history, could be actively misleading. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd expect that redirect to take me to an article about a notable sports fixture, or perhaps to an article called Australia–Hungary relations, but no such article exists. The redirect as it stands is surely a joke. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes no sense targeted as it is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect will cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though it made me laugh.--Darwinek (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Foreign relations of Australia#Europe and tag with {{R avoided double redirect|Australia–Hungary relations}}. This is a valid search term, so I don't see why we would treat it as a joke instead. While it could just as well point to Foreign relations of Hungary#Oceania, this defaults to alphabetical order, and there's currently a bit more content in the Australia article. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 20:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is plenty of confusion between Australia and Austria as it is. Wikipedia should not add to that confusion. JIP | Talk 07:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. Daß Wölf 13:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Place Clichy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Transfermarkt.us[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Govvy: Did you read what you linked to? That is an essay explaining why vandalism is pointless... -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are we really going to list every sizeable website in the world as a redirect to their parent media company? GiantSnowman 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The website for Transfermarkt is www.transfermarkt.de. There is an American .us variant, but that is not covered at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the domain names of this company, which has a US specific site at that URL. None of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE seem to be met. —Kusma (t·c) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 20:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not every domain name that a company registers is a plausible candidate for a Wikipedia redirect. One must consider the actual use cases. For example, Microsoft has registered a .sex domain too. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Donegal Tuesday[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 accept draft article. Deryck C. 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to a subsection to promote an irrelevant event The Banner talk 13:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided national secondary sources spanning 6 years, showing influence/impact, showing the connection to the main article and marked the redirect as "with possibilities". I have no connection to the event, and, as it is unofficial there is nothing to promote.Bogger (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reverting to Draft:Donegal Tuesday in mean time. Bogger (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote draft. Good work, Bogger! -- Tavix (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 19:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Quảng Binh Province[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. This is explicitly not R3 because it is not recently created. However, I can see an argument for G6's "unambiguously created in error" since it was a page move error by AlphaBetaGamma01, who then immediately corrected it by moving the page again after realizing the error. -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R3, incorrect spelling. The correct spelling for the province name is "Quảng Bình"; however all the templates are using diacriticless form, so I'll agree on that. However, this alternative half diacritic and half diacriticless spelling makes it confusing for editors to add the template. WP:R3 should still be applicable, since it was created with a wrong spelling for a long time, but no one noticed this. Moreover, it can be clearly seen that this template name is unused. Therefore it should be deleted Cn5900 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanzolinius[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 Leptodactylidae. as this is the most plausible target, according to this discussion. Editors are welcome to edit boldly as they see fit. Deryck C. 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correctly targetted (vice Leptodactylidae)? The term isn't mentioned in either article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this paper, Vanzolinius is a proposed new genus for Leptodactylus discodactylus. So, since this promotion of L. discodactylus to Vanzolinius discodactylus does not appear to have been challenged or vetoed, it should either be redirected to Leptodactylidae, and mention of this situation made there, or have the redirect made into its own article.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ms Nina[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. Editors are encouraged to retarget the redirect or write an article on this title boldly. Deryck C. 11:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name is not unique to Mad Decent. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator comment I had also wanted to create this redirect as Ms Nina (musician) had this title already been used for another purpose. I will not make a vote for this reason. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What are the competing topics?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning on making an article for Ms Nina who is involved in NeoPerreo? [1] [2] [3] You could convert this to an article, and hatnote it to Mizz Nina and Nina (name). Her label was Mad Decent, so this would be a logical extension for this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Kidd Creole (Emcee)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo Launchballer 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Title is not a typo. The proper stage name is "The Kidd Creole" and the article notes that the extra "d" is actually important for distinguishing the artist from other similarly named artists who only use one "d". The {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} further helps readers know that this is about the rap artist (one of the first to call themselves "MCs" which is often alternately spelled Emcee) and not the other similarly named artists. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited[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 restore the historical version of Wikipedia:Why aren't these pages copy-edited and retarget the rest there, as proposed by MJL. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#How chocolate is made, this target doesn't answer this vague inquiry. It discusses how to copyedit, but not what "these pages" are nor addressing why certain pages haven't been copyedited. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Wikipedia:Why aren't these pages copy-edited, Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyedited, and probably the rest as {{R with old history}}. Some of these redirects go back to 2002/2004, and I pretty much think anything that old is worth saving (especially projectspace redirects like this). They're less useful as navigational tools, but they show the weird twists and turns Wikipedia took to get off the ground like it eventually did. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I just found out something immediately after finishing that comment. @Tavix: They're from a merge that took place ages ago. I therefore suggest we Restore this version (removing the Merge tag of course though) and Mark historical. Then we can Retarget the remaining pages to that one. Would that work? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Restore etc. per MJL's suggestion above. -- The Anome (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a restoration would resolve my concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is some interesting page history in those redirects. The restore makes sense. Angela (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MJL's proposal. The redirect should point to a page which answers the question in the redirect. Not a very active user (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Teri Meri Kahaani (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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about a song. But no details available. Only leaving a redirect. So. it is baseless to keep the redirect. Rather it should be deleted. Sony R (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and take it to AfD. This was a bold redirect of a fairly substantial and sourced article, I don't think its fate should be decided at RfD. PC78 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One can have copyvios that are "substantial and sourced". One can have myths posed as truths and be "substantial and sourced". And then there is our case of passing mentions and un-encyclopedic trivia that can be "substantial and sourced". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article was made into a redirect back in 2016, so this isn't really a case where it needs to be made into a regular article unless there's a chance for independent notability from the film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly fine {{R from song}}. Whether it should be an article or a redirect can be discussed on the relevant talk page or at WP:AFD. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as mentioned in the article and that is satisfies disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EPIPE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#EPIPE

Nickelodeon Productions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Nickelodeon Productions

Only «Old Men» Are Going to Battle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate the redirect for deletion. This erroneous redirect was likely created by a Russian-speaking editor who didn't know that the English language uses “” quotes. (The Russian language uses «» quotes.) According to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion § Reasons for deleting, 8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Combining English words with Russian quotes seems obscure. The redirect has no useful page history. There were three pages using this redirect, but I've updated them to point directly to the article. [Sidenote: per MOS:AT, I have created Only “Old Men” Are Going Into Battle redirect (with curly quotes).] UnladenSwallow (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MBisanz: I don't know how this nomination ended up under September 30. I probably used instructions from an old tab. Should I move it myself to October 1? UnladenSwallow (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I don't know precisely how to do it though. Geolodus (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UnladenSwallow Do you want me to relist this to today's log? James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@James-the-Charizard: Yes, please. UnladenSwallow (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination from yesterday somehow ended up on the September 30th log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 15:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:SimonTrew/Ivanvector[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per criterion G8 as the target has been deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfD veterans will likely remember SimonTrew, a banned editor who used to be very active here. At some point, related to some discussion about some thing, he created this redirect to a page in my user space (which he also created) which I have just come across again and asked to be deleted. This will then have no target and should be deleted too. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anthropomorph[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget somewhere, or lacking that, delete. This is an extremely old redirect (January 2003), but it's always gone to a problematic location. Per OED, an anthropomorph is "A representation of the human form in art", and per our article, anthropomorphism is "the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities." Similar words but severely different meanings, as if the only meaning of "check" were in hockey and the only meaning of "checkers" was a board game, but someone redirected checkers to the ice hockey concept. The redirect can cause confusion, e.g. this link can cause the reference to anthropomorphs in the petroglyphs of the V-Bar-V Heritage Site to sound like someone's ascribed human qualities to the rocks, not that human figures have been carven on it. If someone can find a good replacement target, great, but otherwise we need to delete this confusing redirect. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. In this case Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human figure, or delete per Shhhnotsoloud and to encourage article creation. The status quo is confusing, but I am not sure if this could be a valid, stand-alone article, in which case deletion is preferable to encourage article creation. Redirecting to wikt:anthropomorph is an option, but unnecessary given Search would display the matching result from Wiktionary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Döblin[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. I've gone ahead and redirected Doeblin to Doblin, which might help any future discussion. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to have a discussion regarding the redirect Döblin and the dab pages Doeblin and Doblin. All three point to or list Alfred Döblin and it seems like it makes sense to merge them together. Döblin is linked to from a single article (Expressionism). All three have relatively low page views. Chris857 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No evidence that anything is broken, and the ordinary solution is that Döblin can be edited at any time if its target can be improved. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doblin. Doeblin should also be redirected. Alternatively Doeblin could be moved to Döblin but since there's only a couple of name-holders it would be best to keep them in one place. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote to Alfred Döblin. While we do have two articles on people named Döblin, all indications are that Alfred Döblin is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. - Eureka Lott 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doblin and merge Doeblin to that page as well. We don't need to have separate anthroponymy pages for three variations of a name that are only different by a diacritic or ligature: any of the variations are plausible spellings for any of the names, a reader might plausibly expect to find any of the individuals listed under any variation of this surname. Also, Alfred Döblin is not the only Döblin on Wikipedia, and per pageviews none seem to be primary topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote, primary topic. —Kusma (t·c) 15:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what are the indications that Alfred Döblin is the primary topic, over Wolfgang Döblin or Hugo Döblin, or any of the individuals who spell this name without the umlaut? Alfred has a small spike in pageviews from being an On This Day feature on Aug 10, otherwise the pageviews for all three articles are pretty similar, none more than a handful a day, except Alfred has an artificial lift of a few hits because this redirect points there. In ghits, "Alfred Döblin -wikipedia" scores 631,000, versus 705,000 for Hugo and 859,000 for Wolfgang. There's no primary topic here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a biography has to be significantly more prominent than the others to justify a primary surname redirect. Someone with the prominence of Churchill and ubiquitously referred to by their surname alone. None of these people are in that realm of notability. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results for Döblin almost exclusively refer to Alfred Döblin. I think that's a pretty good indicator. I had to go through eight pages of results before I found a result referring to something else. - Eureka Lott 00:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not; the existence of this redirect would skew those results. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MOS:CONSISTENCY[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:Consistency. Deryck C. 17:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are two different shortcuts wrt "CONSISTENCY" policy:

MOS:CONSISTENCY (WLH 50–100)
WP:CONSISTENCY (WLH 1500–2000)

Since this is confusing for editors, I suggest we disentangle this somehow. Given the number of WLH links, easiest would be to adjust the MOS: one. We could change the MOS:-name, and adjust open (=non-archive) pages (incoming links). For example:

Move MOS:CONSISTENCY → MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY. (We could also create MOS:TITLECONSISTENCY without any complications).

This would make the archives inconsistent, but as template edits go, we cannot be taken hostage by old discussions.

An other solution would be to deprecate (and delete) MOS:CONSISTENCY altogether after the move to MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More related pages: the discussion mentions more related pages (not tagged for this RfD):
-DePiep (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the actual correct decision to make would be to disambiguate WP:CONSISTENCY. There are a lot of different things we can be consistent about; having that point only to our page on article titles I think misses the boat. It's also not that great a shortcut given how lengthy it is. I wonder where WP:Consistency points. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind widening the topic. Use the DAB page, and create the two new (unambiguous) redirects? -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what to do with the MOS one? Would you still accept different targets in the two namespaces while both are a MOS? -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already MOS:ARTCON for MOS:CONSISTENCY (National varieties of English:Consistency within articles), so if you get rid of the latter, I'm not sure that it needs another. If so, I'm not really loving MOS:INNERCONSISTENCY - maybe MOS:SELFCONSISTENT or something? --IamNotU (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we agree that the WP:- and MOS:- difference must be resolved, I'm fine. Then again, multiple shortcuts can exist; helpfullness is the goal not sematical perfection. BTW "ARTCON" is not helpful: is that article title or article itself to be con(sistent)? -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that MOS:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONSISTENCY shouldn't lead to different places. "WP:Consistency" (which is a "see also" at MOS:CONSISTENCY) leads to a third place, the disambiguation page. Not a huge fan of "ARTCON" either, but at least it's short. I'm ok if WP:CONSISTENCY goes to the disambiguation page as well. When I look it up, I'm usually looking for something about the general concept of consistency in articles. That could be spelling or date varieties, article titles, or other things - actually it might be nice if there was a more general write-up about that. --IamNotU (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. EEng 16:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Per this WP:ANI (Archive permalink), this post is not to be considered agressive. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]
And the next person who says it is gets a punch in the schnozzola! EEng 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier similar situation: WP:PLURAL and WP:PLURALS, though solved more awkwardly; see WT:MOS/Archive 211. I'm not sure the late-late change by SMcCandlish is sound. -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the irony of these pages having a consistency problem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But since they *are* separate namespaces, there is very little problem. What there is can be addressed by the standard device: {{MOS;Consistency]] redorects here; for WP:Consistency, see... (I phrase it this way, because the standard template might not work.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of evades the problem. The problem is that two same-named pages in two otherwise same (interchangeable) namespaces lead to two different contants. One cannot see from the outside (by ns name) which one. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect WP:CONSISTENCY to WP:Consistency – Currently, WP:CONSISTENCY redirects to a section titled "Deciding on an article title", which already has the perfect shortcut, WP:TITLECRITERIA. By contrast, "WP:CONSISTENCY" in no way indicates to a reader that the redirect points to a section about article title names. Just because one of the criteria is "consistency" doesn't mean it makes sense as a shortcut, because "consistency" is a criteria for a lot of things, not just article names (hence, the dab). It can be confusing when we have multiple, varying shortcuts that go to the same thing. For example, if I mention WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, the unsuspecting reader will think those point to two different pages or sections. By contrast, MOS:CONSISTENCY actually points to a section entitled "Consistency within articles", and it's the only "consistency" section in WP:MOS, so it makes sense as a shortcut, and should be left alone. – Levivich 22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still keeps two different targets for the (otherwise same) pagenames re MOS, so confusion stays. When linking to it (eg, when referring to in in a talk), one cannot know or even remember which one is needed. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, probably by retargeting both to Wikipedia:Consistency, but I'm open to other solutions. It's not great when existing comments end up pointing at a disambiguation page like this, but I'm more concerned with usage going forward. (And honestly, I'm sure at least some of those previous uses weren't actually going to where the editors expected!) --BDD (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Wikipedia:Consistency which lists other uses to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bina Ganguly[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 now that it's mentioned. Thanks, Geolodus! -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a prior revision of this redirect (then an article), Bina Ganguly is Subhashree Ganguly's mother. However, she is not mentioned at the target and there is no indication that this is information that can be verified in a reliable source. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentioned here, for example, but it doesn't seem like her mother has any notability so I don't see any valid reason for a redirect. Delete. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother with it? Not specifically wrong. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I have now added a mention of her from PC78's mentioned source at the target. I doubt the utility of this redirect, but it is no longer problematic enough to justify deletion. If the mention is removed for any reason, I won't object to deleting the redirect as a BLP violation. Geolodus (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Back Roto[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Back Roto

Why'd You Have to Go?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention on target, apparently it might be a track on an album which is NN, but is mentioned here (not even sure which album!) Richhoncho (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the 10th track on her album I'll Sing with You, and is mentioned at the target page under the hidden tracklist for that album. Note that you made a similar error back in April and withdrew your RfD for another such track called "Leave a Kiss" [4].—NØ 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MaranoFan. This song is indeed mentioned the target article (although you may miss the mention). Geolodus (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Herr Wolf[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Herr Wolf

Бурый[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete per WP:RFOREIGN since there's no indication that its used in English for "Bury". Furthermore Google search and Google Translate seems to indicate that this is actually Brown bear (but "Бурый" isn't mentioned there) see Kamchatka brown bear for example where it is mentioned so if this is kept I would support redirecting to an appropriate article since the name is mentioned there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Бурый is a shade of brown (ruWiki), and a Russian surname. Russian Wikipedia has two articles for people named Бурый (see here), one of which has an article on Wikipedia, Aliaksander Bury. However, on closer examination, as they are Belorussian and Ukrainian respectively, the argument could be made that Бурый is still incorrect, as their native languages spell their names as Буры and Бурий respectively. Altogether, I think an argument could be made for redirecting to Bury (surname) as an alternative to deletion, although its utility would be limited for the foreseeable future. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that until August last year Bury was about a town in Greater Manchester but Бурый redirected to Bury (disambiguation). I agree with Rosguill about deleting or ratargeting to the surname page, whichever others think is best. Its probably implausible but could be remotely useful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MFx[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common abbreviation for the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have not seen anyone even use this abbreviation. JIP | Talk 07:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Me neither. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fox of Fire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to Foxfire, anyway, delete as this is overly vague to refer to anything specific. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing and not used in any meaningful way for either Firefox or Foxfire. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not particularly plausible for either target. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

THe Magic of Christmas (Nat King Cole 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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_29#LEad, not very plausible as you theoretically can have millions of similar redirects and the search engine corrects it automatically. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just occurred to me a similar RfD took place not long ago which ended in no consensus, so it seems like a different consensus is emerging based on the results of the discussion I linked to in the nom. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as TH is not the stylization for either of these titles AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random and useless capitalisations. PC78 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleTH - neither of these redirects gets any use at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. Nothing remotely looking like the redirect supposed topic is present at the target page. It introduces confusion with the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are in full communion with Rome. There's no such thing as Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with Rome. Redirect page history shows one edit with an essay by a SPA, not worth keeping imho. Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I just looked through the original article, from before I replaced it with the redirect, to see, at least, what churches it was referring to—and it doesn't mention any specific churches. I infer from one section of it that the writer of that screed was idiosyncratically referring to the churches (the Orthodox churches, for example) with which the Roman Catholic church is in partial communion as "Catholic". The premise, I see now, is invalid and contradicted by the information in the article I'd redirected the title to. Delete. Largoplazo (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated. PPEMES (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to delete. as none of the proposed targets have majority support, and it has been demonstrated that the "Chiang Rai province flag" meaning of this sequence isn't recognised by the Unicode Consortium. Deryck C. 17:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This title is not rendering properly in my browser, so it's possible that it creates a relevant emoji character (I just see a black flag followed by two white boxes). That having been said, I'm hard pressed to think of an emoji that could unambiguously refer to the target, and would appreciate having a justification provided for this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Flag; the current target doesn't make much sense to me either. At least a few Google search results call this emoji "England flag", but redirecting to England also wouldn't make sense; Flag seems like the least ambiguous target (if this is kept). As a side note, User_talk:Error#🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿 might be relevant. –Sonicwave talk 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick look at [5] See also section shows that unless rendered properly the redirect as it is displayed could refer to any number of flags. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to flag; I can't see any reason why a flag emoji should be deleted instead of pointing to the flag article. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargeting to Flag. Possibly retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags. This is a specific emoji sequence, which, were it properly rendered, would show the flag of Chiang Rai, not a generic flag. There's already a 🏴 redirect that correctly points to Flag. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: Also, not opposed to deleting, since it's extremely unlikely that a character combination with no known rendering support will ever be a useful redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name Codepoint UTF-8
WAVING BLACK FLAG U+1F3F4 F0 9F 8F B4
TAG LATIN SMALL LETTER T U+E0074 F3 A0 81 B4
TAG LATIN SMALL LETTER H U+E0068 F3 A0 81 A8
TAG DIGIT 5 U+E0035 F3 A0 80 B5
TAG DIGIT 7 U+E0037 F3 A0 80 B7
CANCEL TAG U+E007F F3 A0 81 BF
  • Retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags per Paul 012's suggestion. I'm also not particularly opposed to deletion, but it definitely shouldn't point to flag. For those of you for whom it's not showing up, the character sequence is in the table at right (to summarise, that's a flag followed by the ISO 3166-2:TH code for Chiang Rai written in Tags (Unicode block) characters). Emojipedia link, FWIW. Regards, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On Firefox, black flag. On Google Chrome, black flag. In Internet Explorer, black flag unless it is a link, in which case the flag takes on whatever link colors the user has chosen (defaults to blue). On Microsoft Edge, black flag followed by five white boxes (all one really wide character; you can't select just one of the boxes). All browsers latest versions running on a fully updated Windows 10. If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results. Fun fact: List of black flags. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone need me to I can try it on my Linux box and report the results - FWIW I'm on an Ubuntu 18.04 box right now and I get a black flag on Firefox 68.0.2 and a flag with question mark on Chromium 76.0.3809.100. Also might be worth noting: most flag emoji are not "Recommended for General Interchange" by the Unicode Consortium. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Thai flags#Provincial flags. Some background on how emoji flags are done via Unicode [6] The "Flag for Scotland" section explains the situation for what we're seeing with the Unicode. So, what fits
    [waving black flag] T H 5 7 [cancel tag]? As 59.149.124.29 has pointed out, it's the flag for Chiang Rai. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chiang Rai Province, where the flag is shown with context. For reference, here is the Emojipedia entry. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you chose that over the hundred or so other provinces that are listed on the same Emojipedia page ([7][8][9][10][11]...)... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this is specifically "Flag for Chiang Rai"—the flag for Chiang Rai Province. The rest of the provinces are listed under "see also", where similar emojis, but not this exact one, are listed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. I'm running IE, so as Guy Macon noted, it just looked like a really basic dark flag, identical to 🏴. I now see that they have different coding, %F0%9F%8F%B4 versus %F0%9F%8F%B4%F3%A0%81%B4%F3%A0%81%A8%F3%A0%80%B5%F3%A0%80%B7%F3%A0%81%BF, but since I don't pay much attention to emojis, I didn't realise that they have 4 and 24 percent-encoded characters, or I would have known that they were different. Since this has Chiang Rai-specific coding, yes, let's send it there. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. I did not notice that the flag should be that of the province , not that of the city. Ideally Wikipedia should have a page for Flag of Chiang Rai Province and this would redirect there. Even better, we would have pages or redirections for the flags of all the Thai provinces, and the corresponding emoji sequences would point to the page or the target of the redirection. --Error (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, this should point to wherever Flag of Chiang Rai Province redirects. Please also make sure it's tagged with {{R avoided double redirect}}. (Personally, I'm not really convinced that the province article is better as a target than the flags list.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paul_012's observiations. Per WP:REMOJI, we generally keep single-character emoji redirects only when they render fairly universally in a way which refers to a specific target; when one renders differently in ways that iconify different targets depending on which platform it's viewed on, it's inherently confusing and should be deleted. From what most editors are saying here it seems that this one doesn't render correctly on any system, so besides being potentially ambiguous it's also patently useless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that it will have support sometime. --Error (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless these types of flag emoji redirects follow a pattern already existing on Wikipedia. Else, I don't see how this redirect is useful or helpful. Nothing links to it and it's hardly a common search term. -- œ™ 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector, and the IP who noted that this hasn't been endorsed by Unicode. The Emojipedia page further states "Expect limited cross-platform support." We can revisit this if the situation changes. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning more toward delete now. I don't see this ZWJ sequence becoming supported in the foreseeable future. We should avoid creating these redirects until then. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss film

Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect serves no purpose right now. Considering the fact that the subject has three children who are notable in their own rights, having this redirect makes no sense and it is definitely useless. Keivan.fTalk 02:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_2&oldid=970820797"