Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2019.

Dharma (Hinduism)[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 Dharma#Hinduism. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma in Hinduism is a general philosophical term, quite distinct from Yama, which is a specific deity. Redirect to Dharma#Hinduism, by analogy with Dharma (Buddhism), which also links to its own section in Dharma. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. That seems to be the most intuitive target. ComplexRational (talk) 01:42, 4 September 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.

Bukowski (201X film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no action required. The target article has been deleted in accordance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukowski (upcoming film). The redirects has been deleted in accordance to WP:G8. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an 'upcoming' film called Bukowski (which has yet to be released). However, no film named Bukowski was released in 2014, 2015, 2016, nor 2017, so these redirects are unnecessary and only cause confusion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, and also delete Bukowski (upcoming film) which since this discussion opened has been redirected to James Franco, where there is no information on the film. According to the redirected article, "Bukowski was planned for release in 2014. However, no news has emerged since." Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also support deleting Bukowski (upcoming film). -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Partially struck, I see the Bukowski (upcoming film) article has been restored. I have nominated it for deletion at AfD. Given the apparent situation (the film was expected to be released in 2014 but then there was a lawsuit, and no news since) I think it is worthwhile to keep Bukowski (2014 film) as a worthwhile redirect iff the film's article is kept, otherwise delete (don't retarget to James Franco, there's no info there). Delete the others, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Film articles with year disambiguation are titled based on release date though, not production. So if this film is eventually released, a redirect with 2014 still doesn’t make sense. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Titles, yes, but this is a redirect. There are a number of contemporary reports in reliable media about this film being released in 2014, which are now out of date of course, but if a reader comes here looking for information on a film titled Bukowski that was expected to be released in 2014, we should show them whatever information we have about that film as long as we have something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and consider merging or redirecting the target article per above. PC78 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw / Procedurally Close, as the target was deleted at AFD, so these redirects have been speedily deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:30, 12 September 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.

President Andrew Jackson’s[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the use of a curly apostrophe (’); this goes against MOS:' and WP:TSC (advises against such use in page titles). This was originally part of a batch nomination and not noted separately.

It is also questionable if the word "president" is necessary here; Jackson is most certainly not introduced in articles with his title every time. This reduces potential use in addition to the already-unhelpful curly apostrophe. ComplexRational (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think "President" is especially problematic here. "Andrew Jackson" is a very common English-language name, so a user may not realize that the US president is primary topic. It could also easily come up in the sort of prose that an editor would want to make such a link from. That said, combined with the curly apostrophe, I'm probably going to sit on the fence on this one, despite voting keep on the earlier batch nomination. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for stats, note that the previous nomination was on 14 July. Prior to that date this title had two hits in 30 days. Not apparently useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 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 08:00, 4 September 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.

Nelson Mandela’s[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the use of a curly apostrophe (’); this goes against MOS:' and WP:TSC (advises against such use in page titles). This was originally part of a batch nomination and not noted separately. ComplexRational (talk) 17:44, 3 September 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#Alfred Hitchcock’s

Santana (wrestler)[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.
–Darkwind (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santana and Ortiz a new page goes into more details about both wrestlers careers, rather than just at one promotion. Therefore a re-target seems appropriate to me. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note - I started to add Ortiz (wrestler) to this per Galatz's comment ([1]) but found that both of these redirects are full protected. It seems that both titles are former articles on the wrestlers which have multiple times been redirected as a result of a deletion discussion, and are protected against repeated recreation. I'm a little concerned that the Santana and Ortiz article is an end-run around AfD. Ping protecting admin Beetstra for input. Also I have not tagged the redirects through protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would greatly surprise me if this new article wound up at AfD. The Wikiproject recently finalized an essay on notability, with criteria specific to tag teams at WP:PWTAG, which they very easily meet. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Beetstra's comment below I've gone ahead and tagged the redirects to point to this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Santana (disambiguation) as there are multiple wrestlers with that name, like Tito Santana and Santana Garrett, the latter of whom had gone as the mononym Santana as a ring name. Santana and Ortiz article is also newly created but Ortiz (wrestler) can redirect to LAX until the duo's article is clarified. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, this is only a protection to avoid the continuous recreation of the single-wrestler articles which were heavily focused on 'A did this with B' vs. 'B did this with A' -the couple was shown notable, not the individual wrestlers. I'm fine with everything. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Santana and Ortiz. The duo clearly meets notability guidelines and the new article will not possibly end up at AfD. The place readers will find the most information about Santana or Ortiz would be the Santana and Ortiz article. StaticVapor message me! 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Santana (wrestler) to Santana, and Ortiz (wrestler) to Ortiz Santana and Ortiz. There are two wrestlers listed on the Santana disambiguation page neither of whom can be said to be the primary topic. There are seven wrestlers listed on the Ortiz anthro page; coincidentally, one of the wrestlers listed on Ortiz also goes by the ring name Ricky Santana. These are both too ambiguous to target any particular individual. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed the list, while I could see some arguments for which one is primary, they are the only ones who go by this exact and only name. Therefore I disagree with the retarget, we can just have a redirect hatnote to help people. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not. Both Mike Draztik (of this pair) and Santana Garrett use[d] "Santana" as a mononym. You seem to be right about [Angel] Ortiz, though, and so I've modified my comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:24, 7 September 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.

Portal:Drama[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) 06:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad. The closest available portal would be Portal:Theatre, but many of the links are from film or television actors who have no notable history of stage acting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 3 September 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.

Homo depot[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) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joko. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, CSD G3 worthy. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:G3 probably applies but this has survived for thirteen years so I'm reluctant to pull the trigger without discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The nickname has been around a long time, and a verbatim Google search "homo depot" bears that out. So I think it's useful for anyone who encounters a reference to Homo Depot and doesn't already know what Home Depot is. Combine that with WP:Redirects are cheap. The only reason my !vote is weak is that in the last 4+ years, the redirect has in fact received only 173 views. Still, that's nearly once a week. Largoplazo (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the nickname is valid, it isn't mentioned at the target and without some kind of explanation or context the redirect will not help the reader. This is for Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 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.

Passato prossimo[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. –Darkwind (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found it surprising that this redirect led to a page about a film rather than the Italian tense. Considering that the current target averages 2 views per day, and the first few pages of Google search results are mostly related to Italian grammar, perhaps the redirect should instead lead to Italian conjugation#Present perfect (Il passato prossimo), as this seems to be the primary topic. ComplexRational (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seeing as the redirect is spelt out in the opening line of the film article as the Italian title. Per the maming conventions for films, the foreign-language title should be a redirect. You could put the hatnote on the film's article to say it redirects here and if you want to look at the Italian verb usage, then link to it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example on another film article. There are countless others too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I would be fine with a hatnote if the current redirect is kept. However, I do not exactly see the resemblance between this and the other redirect you linked (another common use of the same term). Thus, I still ask: is there a clear primary topic, and if so, could the naming conventions override this (I would not think so)? ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to support a change given that interest in the obscure Italian film is so low, but the term is covered in other articles (i.e. present perfect, preterite, untranslatability, modal verb, etc.) so it's not obvious what the best target is. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is the actual title of the film, and in an English-language encyclopedia, we shouldn't expect readers to look for present perfect generally in Italian. There is some discussion of the tense in Italian at that page, though, and at the page cited by the nominator. (That gives us a bit of an WP:XY problem.) --BDD (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Usage of the sentence-case phrase "passato prossimo" in English-language books overwhelmingly refers to the tense rather than the film [2][3]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 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.

Toa So Dou[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. –Darkwind (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a misspelling of Tang Soo Do that was made with regard to Bill Duff by some PR people, hence the current redirect, but seems confusing without some kind of explanation. Keep, retarget to Tang Soo Do, or delete? Previously discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review/3rd March 2010 so pinging Niteshift36 who commented back then. PC78 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It probably is a misspelling, but I don't see any harm in keeping the redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Tang Soo Do, on the usual principle that we should regard misspellings which have appeared in print as plausible search terms ... otherwise I'd say delete given the sheer number of errors in the spelling (the usual limit at RFD is one, and this one has what, five?) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 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.

Cognitive problem[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. No consensus prior to the relist, and no additional comments since the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, these terms are not synonyms. The target is about a category of medical conditions, whereas a google scholar search for "cognitive problem" mostly returns results about problem-solving skills. signed, Rosguill talk 08:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, in the few cases it is used it seems to be about cognitive deficits [4][5], but I also found one mention in an old philosophical chapter ("the problem of cognition"). The papers on problem-solving all use full term "Cognitive problem-solving". – Thjarkur (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cognitive test may be a better target, but I am neutral for now. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 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.

Transfan[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. Consensus on deletion of Transfan is fairly clear, and while nobody specifically commented on Transfans, it has been listed on the target's talk page for 17 days without attracting any additional discussion. –Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Later note: Also the redirect transfans should have the same action taken toward it as toward this one.]

Looking up the word "transfan" on Google seems to indicate that it is way more common to use it for fans of Transformers than for those who have attraction to transgender people, the current target.

The current redirect seems to be a historical accident. The "attraction to transgender people" article was once named "tranny chaser", and it was moved to "transfan" because "tranny chaser" is generally considered offensive. [6] It was later moved to its current title.

I propose this redirect go to Transformers instead; and given the lack of reliable sources indicating it is in use for the other meaning, there is no need for a hatnote at the new target. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC) added note -Crossroads- (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments below, I am now arguing for deletion of this redirect instead. There does seem to be consensus so far on this, especially on the fact that it should not redirect where it currently does. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support. In addition to what Crossroads says, I've personally never heard the term "transfan" outside of this page in any context even though I have heard the terms "chaser", "tr*nny chaser" and even "trans amorous". Loki (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, "tr*nny chaser"? Since when has "tranny" been an obscene word? JIP | Talk 10:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our own page on the word says Tranny (or trannie) is a term for a transgender, transsexual, transvestite, or cross-dressing person, and often considered to be derogatory or offensive. During the early 2010s, there was confusion and debate over whether the term is a pejorative, or was still considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride. In 2017, the word was banned by several major media stylebooks and considered hate speech by Facebook (emphasis mine) Plus, I get the Daily Beast calling it an "anti-trans slur" in the first page of a Google search. (So, taking your question literally, at least since 2017 and probably since the early 2010s?) Loki (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This seems kind of funny, because way back when people still used UseNet, from the middle 1990s to the early 2000s there existed an on-line discussion called "The Trannies" where people voted for their favourite Transformers-related things. That "Trannies" came from "Transformers", not from "transsexual". JIP | Talk 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally arguing for a retarget, but given what you mention here, and the apparent rarity of the term in any context, I would support a delete also. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my nomination to arguing for delete. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Transformers or delete per nomination. I have known of "transfan" meaning "Transformers fan" for over two decades but never of it meaning "transvestite fan". Note that the redirect is included in a navbox template about transvestitism, so if something happens here, the template has to be fixed. JIP | Talk 13:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Transfans was not tagged or officially added to the nomination prior to this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 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.

Trojan milestones[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. –Darkwind (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Trojan" in the target. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Where's the deletion-otherwise requirement that the term appears in the target? The target article could be clearer, certainly, but I can't see (yet again, I never see this) how making things incrementally worse is supposed to be an improvement.
As to the term, then look at the first reference. De Rose (2004) uses Horse in the title, so I hope I don't have to point out the reference (Also 'CLIX' is another name for it). Or else there's Witt; Metzing (2010). Linguistic Modeling of Information and Markup Language. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a hard and fast rule about redirects being mentioned, though this category speaks to the rationale somewhat. Consider a reader trying to figure out what a Trojan milestone is. Will the status quo satisfy them? (Not being familiar with the subject, I genuinely don't know.) --BDD (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But if the target's unclear, do you fix the target? Or do you delete the redirect? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing the redirect to RfD prompts page watchers of the target page to do exactly the former. If no-one does, then redirecting without a mention amounts to WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Nor is RfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That essay argues against deleting an article as a means of improvement (i.e. against WP:TNT). Starting an RfD asking for editors familiar with the subject to provide a justification for the redirect is completely different matter. signed, Rosguill talk 16:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only used in De Rose's paper and another paper that references De Rose's paper. Not expanded upon in the article as one of the typical terms associated with milestones in computing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC) updated 19:15, 27 August 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, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mr. Donald John Trump[edit]

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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COSTLY and WP:UNDUE: "Mr." and "Mrs." are not normally honorifics for which full-name redirects are created. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These are well used terms that unambiguously refer to the subject. "Mr. Donald John Trump" gives me 169,000 ghits (eg: [7] [8] [9]) "Mr. Donald J. Trump" offers 46,000 ghits (including: [10] [11] [12]). -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while we shouldn't encourage people to make such redirects, they're essentially harmless and creating an RfD for them is more costly than ignoring them. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I meant about WP:UNDUE: there are 1.7 million articles withing the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. In order for these three not to receive undue weight, relative the other biographies on Wikipedia, by virtue of these redirects existing but the other ones not existing, (1.7 million - 3) redirects would need to be created. Can you please explain what the value of that would be? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE is about article content, and doesn't really apply to redirects (redirects are only mentioned in neutrality policy in relation to explicitly non-neutral titles, which isn't the situation here). On a less lawyer-ish note, undue weight is a problem when it lends disproportionate credence to one idea or perspective over another, inhibiting Wikipedia's neutrality by distorting the relative importance of various viewpoints. Having a redirect from Mr. Donald Trump but not from say, Mr. Barack Obama (or any other person) does not give precedence to Donald Trump over other people, and won't even be noticeable unless someone specifically types in these search terms. signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, (and I should have made clear my my cite was based on the spirit behind, not the letter of, the policy) because the Wikipedia search box starts showing suggestions as soon as characters begin to be typed into it. So the user is presented with three (!) Trump redirects, and not the article they are seeking, even if they start typing Mr. Don Kintd, Mr. Don Johnson, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld or any other similar plausible combination. (even Mr. Doctor Who!). UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the search box excludes redirects to the same target. It is not doing so right now (as UnitedStatesian described) because the RfD banner hinders that functionality. Also, what Tavix said. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should generally not have redirects from "Mr." (and so on), we should have (I presume we do) a search engine that mostly ignores those. And editor able to link the proper name.- Nabla (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nabla. These are useless; if you search for this string or link it or go straight to the URL, and you find that it doesn't exist, you'll try searching/linking/going to the name without the "Mr." The fact that almost no biographies have these "Mr." redirects makes it less plausible, and also more confusing: anyone familiar with our naming conventions will not expect to find a redirect with a "Mr." prefix, and anyone not familiar who encounters one of these is likely to expect there to be lots of other pages. Although a different situation, obviously, the potential problem for the not-familiar issue is comparable to the Dutch speaker looking for "Klimaatverandering" at WP:FORRED. Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first two as per above, but delete the third, as I see it as much less likely to use than Mr. Donald John/J. Trump. James-the-Charizard (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Nabla and Nyttend. These are relatively newly created redirects with no significant incoming links and minimal pageviews (0–2 per year before the RfD), so the argument about their utility simply does not stand up, in my view. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to attempt consensus clarifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 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.

Prop (stage, screen)[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) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely harmless. This is a misinterpretation of WP:RDAB, which isn't intended to apply to cases like this. - Eureka Lott 19:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of RfD is to discuss what purpose a redirect has. "Harmless" implies the nominator thinks the redirect is "harmful", when in reality they just think it's unnecessary and a clog of Wikipedia. Without specifying what purpose it has, this just feels like a WP:POINTed opinion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a valid reason to delete this, I'd be happy to hear it. I'm not aware of one, though. - Eureka Lott 20:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here's your reason. A parenthetical disambiguation describes what the page IS, not what it's USED FOR. Therefore, it's essentially saying that it is a stage called a prop, not that it's a prop used on the stage. This is understandably confusing and should qualify it for deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could agree with you, but that rationale is contrary to WP:NCDAB, which states that using "the subject or context to which the topic applies" is a typical form of parenthetical disambiguation. I also checked the page view statistics, and this redirect gets regular use, which means that it's helping people find the target article. - Eureka Lott 01:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you even reading the pages that you are linking to? The most recent one (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) is about violating policies and guidelines in order to change them; it is entirely unclear how EurekaLott is doing that. Geolodus (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No valid reason has been given to delete and I can't think of one. It doesn't clog WP, the original reason given is completely bogus, and the subsequent reason doesn't have sound basis. Given WP:NCDAB, as stated above, it's doubtful that a good reason exists. - NewageEd (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a standard disambiguator or one we'd want to use willy-nilly. By all means, we could mark it {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} or at least {{R unprintworthy}}. But I think a lot of users will struggle coming up with the "right" search term for this beyond just "prop". I'm no expert, but I've acted and even directed club/community theater, and didn't know for some time into that that "prop" was short for "property". This is undoubtedly the right target for this search term, so I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brazil 2016[edit]

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 2016 in Brazil. –Darkwind (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to 2016 in Brazil. Vague and ambiguous, and AFAIK not a common way to refer to the Olympic Games. Search engine results may vary, but for me a Google search brings up a fairly mixed bag. Some for the games, yes, but often for peripheral topics such as Brazil at the 2016 Summer Olympics rather than the games itself, and other stuff including the 2016 Brazilian Grand Prix. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it is normal to refer to Olympics in this way. Consider, for example, the book Rome 1960. Matchups 12:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you chose an example undermines your point. Rome 1960 is a disambiguation page. In any case, the corresponding page for the 1960 Summer Olympics would be Italy 1960, which doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Novel way of referring to an Olympics, compared to the more standard "City Year" format. I could see this being an acceptable substitute if the host city were not a well-known world city, but that is not the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2016 in Brazil per Dass Wölf. Tons of things happened in Brazil in 2016, and such a title doesn't make sense as a redirect unless it's going to a "year in country" overview article like this one. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in an attempt to clarify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 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.

China 2008[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 2008 in China. –Darkwind (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to 2008 in China. Vague and ambiguous, and AFAIK not a common way to refer to the Olympic Games. Search engine results may vary, but for me a Google search brings up a fairly mixed bag. Some for the games, yes, but not overwhelmingly so. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the Summer Olympics are the clear primary topic for this term. A hatnote to the Paralympics already exists so another isn't needed, but can be added to 2008 in China if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not clear at all. On the first two pages of the linked Google search, less than half of the results refer directly to the Olympics and those that do come from running text, i.e. "Human Rights in China: 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics" and such. PC78 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague. Sawol (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (my preferred option) or delete per nom. It's quite ambiguous, but notable events are listed at 2008 in China. - Eureka Lott 19:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Matchups 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Novel way of referring to an Olympics, compared to the more standard "City Year" format. I could see this being an acceptable substitute if the host city were not a well-known world city, but that is not the case here. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2008 in China per comment by Dass Wölf on the Brazil 2016 discussion. Lots of things happened in China in 2008, and while the Olympics are outweigh most of the others individually, everything else outweighs them by a massive margin. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in an attempt to further clarify consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 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.

Magic Seal[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 as follows: There's no consensus on retarget vs. deletion for Magic Seal since no two people suggested the same target. However, the consensus is clear to disambiguate Sword of Flame, and delete Dark Druid. –Darkwind (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is really not something unique to the game, or series. Overly vague fantasy term. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, all of them are too vague. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disamb. would serve nicely for several of these terms. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind disambiguations are only for articles sharing the same title, not containing the concept. That would be better served by Search.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, you make a bunch of redirects to where they gotta go. I did a light draft for Sword of Flame to give a sense of what I am talking about. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly convinced we need a disambiguation for Flaming sword either. Flaming sword (effect) is already explained in Fire eating. Sword of Flame is not how people generally serach for "Flaming sword".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a mixed bag:
    • Retarget Magic Seal to Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow#Magic Seal, which looks like the primary topic to me.
    • Delete Dark Druid. There are a few minor mentions in other articles, but I don't think there is anything significant enough for a disambiguation to make sense. There is some mythological usage (eg: Sadhbh), so there may be scope for an article on this.
    • Weak disambiguate Sword of Flame for its usage in Fire Emblem (this is the translated Japanese subtitle), Flaming sword, and The Artefacts of Power (where The Sword of Flame would need to be retargeted). I agree that such a disambiguation would not be for listing all usage in fiction that happen to have a "Sword of Flame" as an element, I believe the typical way to handle it would be in a section like Flaming sword (mythology)#In fiction. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure redirecting Magic Seal to the Castlevania article would be that useful given how many works of fiction have magical seals in them. There's also no currently (or at least one I know of) article that discusses magical seals- either in fiction or the occult sense so I don't know where it would be redirected to. As for Dark Druid Delete, the concept of dark (evil) druids doesn't seem unique to Fire Emblem (or any fiction) so having it redirect to it would be misleading. No opinion on the flaming sword redirect, however. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was expecting concepts like Weapon triangle to be redirected to the series. These are too generic. Anyway:
    • Retarget Magic seal to Sigil (magic) since sigil=seal
    • Disambiguate Sword of flame to Flaming sword (disambiguation) to include Flame-bladed sword, Flaming sword (mythology), Flaming sword (effect) and Fire and sword disambiguation. Fire Emblem can be added if it has a distinguishable fictional element
    • Delete dark druid not specific to this game
AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:55, 3 September 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.

Aphex Twin's 1993 track "On"[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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term, I would suggest deletion. This redirect has had a belabored history, as it has now twice been nominated for deletion using invalid rationales (CSD G4 and PROD). An article was also created with this title, puzzlingly by the same editor that nominated the redirect for PROD. I don't think that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article, but that's outside of the scope of this discussion; I would simply like to clarify that I am not intending this as any sort of back door deletion, as this title is inappropriate regardless. If anyone wants to pursue creating an article about this song, it should be done at On (song) signed, Rosguill talk 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The title is certainly specific enough but as a search term it's very convoluted. PC78 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 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.

Wikipædia[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) 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be deleted because these are not something anyone would ever search for. Would anyone possible ever search for "Wikipædia" or "Wikipaedia" when looking for Wikipedia? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both "ae" and "æ" come from the alternative spellings of the word "encyclopedia" [13] --LukeSurl t c 12:02, 3 September 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:Gastropods[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) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard name convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would expect this to be a navbox, not a rediret to a Wikiproject banner. Plantdrew (talk) 19:22, 3 September 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:Electro[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) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard name convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 10:54, 3 September 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:Econ[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) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard name convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 3 September 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.

Remain Alliance[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) 06:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. "Remain Alliance" is not a synonym of Change UK. The concept of a "Remain Alliance" has been discussed in UK political circles [16] but it is not the same thing as this political party. LukeSurl t c 09:33, 3 September 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.

Beckman Professor[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) 06:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 3 September 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 live guy[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) 06:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect, doesn't appear to be a very common nickname for Newsted. gnu57 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ambiguous. With the context implied by current use it would more appropriately target Ed Kowalczyk. But it's just too vague to be useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 3 September 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.

Thai mistranslation[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) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a mistranslation: according to Google Translate, the Thai term means "monk". An image search returns images related to Buddhism, not fish. The actual Thai name for this fish would appear to be ปลาช่อนเอเชีย signed, Rosguill talk 05:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED, even if the Thai proper names are redirected to the correct article (Channa (Buddhist)), there is not need for such a redirect, because the name is not unique for Thai Buddhism, but known to all schools of Buddhism. See also other discussions of Thai terms below.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: fake articles. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:42, 9 September 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.

Ingurisshu[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) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of a Japanese approximation of the word English (not even the actual word for English, which would be 英語 (eigo) for the language or イギリス (igirisu) for the country), delete per WP:FORRED. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you realize you're including traffic that's occurred during the course of this discussion? Excluding that, there were only three page views in the past three months. Those were on August 4 and 5—and, those are the only page views received during the entire year ending August 31. Largoplazo (talk) 12:08, 8 September 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.

Blue Guy[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) 06:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirects: might apply to Paul Karason or anyone else with Argyria. gnu57 05:31, 3 September 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.

Miscellaneous Thai translations of words[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) 06:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED signed, Rosguill talk 05:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Rosguill's arguments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For the benefit of readers who do not speak Grockle, WP:FORRED this means "Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages", something we're not supposed to have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's rationale.Onel5969 TT me 13:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Already we have these articles except for "อารยัน" and "ดราวิเดียน" in English Wiktionary. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:38, 9 September 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.

Thai names for other Asian countries[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) 06:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a redirect from the Thai words for other countries per WP:FORRED. signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 3 September 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.

Thai terms for regional Buddhist topics not directly relevant to Thailand[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) 06:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No special relationship between Thai and concepts in Tibetan Buddhism (Sakya), the location in Nepal (Devdaha), or the noble family (Koliya). Delete per WP:FORRED. signed, Rosguill talk 05:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an added note, the editor that created these (and the other Thai redirects on this page) also created many more Buddhism-related redirects. I approved all the ones that looked like they were pointing at generic Buddhist concepts, but due to the weakness of Google translate for Thai and my own limited knowledge of Buddhism, I'd appreciate it if an editor with more familiarity with the Thai language and Buddhism could take a look at them. signed, Rosguill talk 06:15, 3 September 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.

Bardzrberd[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. One author agrees to deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is an alternative title for the subject. Internet searches confirm that Bardzrberd was the name of an Armenian city in Cilicia, and Andırın is located in what was once part of the region of Cilicia, but beyond that connection there's no evidence that they are the same place. None of the target article's sources loaded on my computer, and the linked Armenian Wikipedia and Turkish Wikipedia articles don't mention Bardzrberd there. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I created the redirect when I saw that the Russian article (later note: the article for Thoros III) linked to Andirin while displaying the name Bardzrberd, and thus I assumed that these were synonymous, however after having done further research into it Italian Wikipedia has a page for the subject in question and in no way are they the same. The redirect should very much be deleted. Cilidus (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I've gone ahead and added a G7 tag to the article. signed, Rosguill talk 06:16, 4 September 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.

Third industrial revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Third industrial revolution

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_3&oldid=1073158641"