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) 13:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Coops And Cages → List of companies of Australia  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirecting "Coops and Cages" to List of companies of Australia only makes sense if Coops and Cages is a notable company listed at that article, which it is not. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 20:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete' per nom. Were it notable I would suggest adding it to the list as WP:REDLINK, but I couldn't find any WP:RS about it. Si Trew ( talk) 03:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete 'coops and cages' is an animal husbandry topic -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I can't find enough refs to justify its inclusion in the target article. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am just spieling here, but wouldn't Cops and Cages be some fly-on-the-wall documentary about policemen and police stations? Cage being slang from at least Victorian times for a holding cell → prison cell. Si Trew ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree with the nominator totally. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (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 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) 13:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• About the Earth → Earth  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• Delete. WP:NOTFAQ, as for "About hair" listed here yesterday. Fortunately there do not seem to be (m)any more of these. Si Trew ( talk) 11:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete every single article is "about" the topic stated in the article title. This is an unlikely redirect -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:52, 3 August 2015 (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 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 Northeastern Australia to Queensland, and delete Southeast Australia. The latter should have no prejudice against recreation either as an article or as a redirect if a page elsewhere is created/expanded to cover it. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Northeastern Australia → Australia  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Southeast Australia → Australia  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Somewhat plausible search term (getting at least a hit a day) but no plausible target (current target certainly unhelpful). - The ChampionMan 1234 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget Northeastern Australia -> Queensland, which is geographically accurate. Delete Southeast Australia because it could refer equally to New South Wales or Victoria (Australia) since they are both in the south-east, or weak retarget to Victoria since our article says it's in the south-east, while our article on NSW says it's "on the east coast" (and not south). Plausible searches given that Western Australia and South Australia are both actual states. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Retarget Northeastern Australia because that is what it is. But keep Southeast Australia as it is a term that is often used. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Graeme Bartlett: is "Southeast Australia" used more often to refer to either of those states in particular? Or just the general geographic area? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Southeast Australia is the general area rather than just the states. It certainly includes NSW as well as Vic. It probably deserves its own short article. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. I'll move to keep pending creation of an article over the redirect, if anyone wants to, which is sort of opposite to what WP:REDLINK says but I think the current target is at least somewhat useful. We do have other non-politically-bounded "regional" articles, like Eastern Canada and Eastern United States, so an article on Southeast Australia is worthwhile if it's a notable usage. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget Northeastern Australia → Queensland. Delete Southeast Australia per WP:REDLINK. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete both as Queensland is not exclusively Northeastern Australia or vice versa, and per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 10:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Good search terms, and I'm not averse to the retargeting proposals above; however, the present targets will get readers to where they want to go. Two new articles might also be a good thing in each case, but we should remember that this can be done directly from a redirect, and red linking is not mandatory. –  Paine  16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Hmmm, I have been and still am so undecided on these. Northern Australia is an article that says in the lede it means Queensland, Northern Territory and a bit of Western Australia. West Australia is R to Western Australia, sensibly. Northwest Australia is an R to North West Australia, but not and North-west Australia which is red. Southwest Australia is an article but South-west Australia is red. It looks like, then, that we don't have alternate forms for hyphenated "south-west", "north-east" etc. Which is fine but I bet there are exceptions even for Australia, but haven't found them yet. Si Trew ( talk) 05:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• (Jumps off the fence) Retarget Northeast Australia to Northern Australia. Si Trew ( talk) 05:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• (Climbs back to sit on fence) North Australia is also a geopolitical article. Si Trew ( talk) 05:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Just get a chap with a moustache in Whitehall to draw lines on a map and colour it red. Job done. Si Trew ( talk) 05:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget the first to Queensland, delete the second, per Tavix. I don't care if "Southeast Australia" is used. I care if we have information about the topic on Wikipedia. Right now, we don't seem to—there are only three instances of "southeast" at Australia right now, and two are part of proper names. Any reader looking for specific information about Southeast Australia is going to have to do their own legwork. This redirect will only disappoint or confuse them. -- BDD ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2015 (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 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) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Gerhard Müller (terrorist) → Members of the Red Army Faction  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

• Sabine Schmitz (terrorist) → Members of the Red Army Faction  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Propose deletion. The figures are minor ones in the organization and any potential biography seems unlikely to meet WP:IMPORTANCE. Nothing links to either redirect. Both classify people under the charged POV "terrorist" label. There is no substantive edit history. — J D ( talk) 19:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, there is some kind of mismatch here (with Gerhard). Gerhard Muller, without the accent, goes to the DAB at Gerhard Müller where one entry is "Gerhard Müller, member of the Red Army Faction militant group". If that is the same chap, as I assume it is, then these should be tied together better at that DAB and I see no strong reason to delete them beyond that tidying-up.

The second is perhaps more problematic because the German racing driver Sabine Schmitz is, I presume, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with WP:CONSENSUS. But Sabine Schmitz (disambiguation) is red, and the article (if we keep the terrorist) should be hatnoted.

It's also very difficult that these are disambiguated as (terrorist) since obviously one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but I guess WP:RNEUTRAL kicks in there. Si Trew ( talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think WP:RNEUTRAL is enough to warrant using a pejorative characterization, and these pages don't fit any of the three reasons given there for non-NPOV redirect creation. As best I can tell, the closest thing Wikipedia has to consensus on policy on use of "terrorist" ( WP:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_(policy_development)#Draft_No._4.2C_people_and_groups_only) begins: "Wikipedia does not directly label individuals or groups as terrorists." The name of this redirect seems pretty much like labeling to me. (This seems to be common for neutral style; compare Reuter's Handbook of Journalism: "Nor do we use the word “terrorist” without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events." [1].) If we're going to keep redirects for these minor figures (what's the policy on noteworthiness for redirects??), they should be moved to Gerhard Müller (militant) and Sabine Schmitz (militant). — J D ( talk) 01:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Let me add also, the redirect target contains very nearly no information on these two people. They are offhandedly mentioned, rather than having their own entry on the list of members. — J D ( talk) 01:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Gerhard Müller - he is explicitly defined as "terrorist" on German Wikipedia and in this book source.

Delete Sabine Schmitz per WP:BLP; seems to have been a minor member. This is the only source I can find which links this person to RAF (there are a couple others which are "under construction" or just don't load) and it does not explicitly use "terrorist". Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. The dab has an entry for "Gerhard Müller" and "Sabine Schmitz" has a hatnote. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tavix you added the hatnote but I do not think it's appropriate. It redirects to a page with virtually no information about that person. The fact is, Wikipedia has approximately zero information on this person. Whether she are sufficiently notable for that to change in the future is debatable. But we shouldn't hatnote now. — J D ( talk) 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Then how would someone find the person? It's the same reasoning as WP:DABMENTION. If we have information about someone, we need to be able to help someone find it. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

We don't have information about this person. That's my point. (Word search for "Schmitz" on the target page; there's no identifying information.) — J D ( talk) 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes we do. There are two mentions in Members of the Red Army Faction#The Haag/Mayer Group. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:Use of the word terrorism (policy development)#Draft no.4, People and groups only , specifically J D's point about the opening wording. Rubbish computer 10:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• 'Delete per above re that draft (nice find); although we may not totally have consensus, we are helping to build it. I'll look for other "(terrorist)"s. Si Trew ( talk) 05:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The only other (terrorist) we have is the article at Idriss (terrorist), which is at the DAB at Idriss and the navbox at Template:CanadianTerrorism. That makes a lot of WhatLinksHere for pages where the article is not otherwise linked nor the person mentioned.

I'd be inclined to move that article to Idriss (militant), and I could just WP:BOLDly move it, but that would leave the current title as a redirect which I would then list here at RfD. Since that would be makework unless we have consensus, I might as well ask here for opinions before I do so rather than afterwards. I can then propose a move without leaving the redirect, depending on what y'all think.

With this edit of 13 September 2011 the article was moved from Idriss (Canadian) by @ Cyfraw:. Si Trew ( talk) 05:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Good find. Idriss (militant) or Idriss (codename) would definitely be more apt names. The current title shouldn't be left, per above discussion. (Also, does this hypothetical person, apparently described only in person's uncorroborated testimony, even satisfy WP:NOTABILITY?) — J D ( talk) 05:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'd prefer Idriss (codename) – I should have thought of that – but casting around, "(militant)" seems to be taken as WP:NPOV, so it might be better for consistency. Si Trew ( talk) 09:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• By the way, I only just realised we have WP:TERRORIST → WP:Words to watch#Contentious labels (as does WP:LABEL), where it is given as an example. Si Trew ( talk) 09:32, 4 August 2015 (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 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 some to Grand Champ, delete the others. At the risk of being a bit supervote-y, I'm just retaining the ones that seem like plausible iterations of the DMX song: Fuck Y'all, F**k yall, Fuck y'all, and Fuck yall. As always, contact me with concerns. -- BDD ( talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Fuck Y'all → R. Kelly discography  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• F Yall → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• F ya → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• F**k yall → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Forget y'all → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Forget yall → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Fuck y'all → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Fuck ya → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Fuck yall → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• R kelly fuck yall → Black Panties  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I'm getting hits that this is a snippet and a rumored track title on Black Panties, but I'm not seeing any information at the album nor on his discography page. Due to that I think they should be deleted but I am willing to entertain retarget ideas for the ambiguous ones. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 04:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment "Fuck Y'all" is the title of a track on DMX's fifth studio album called Grand Champ.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 06:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Grand Champ#Track listing, or to a disambiguation if this is mentioned in several articles about different things. Rubbish computer 10:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You mean Grand Champ#Track listing? Si Trew ( talk) 12:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SimonTrew: Yes. Rubbish computer 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• (nom update) Retarget "Fuck Y'all" and "Fuck y'all" per Rubbish. Neutral on "Fuck yall." Still think the rest should be deleted. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:33, 7 August 2015 (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 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) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Two Headed Girl → Abigail and Brittany Hensel  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Two headed girl → Abigail and Brittany Hensel  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D3 as this is an offensive redirect. This was created by msuvula with the edit summary "Redirect to correct two headed girl to the names of the respective heads" which should be a dead giveaway of the intent here. They aren't "heads" and they aren't a "two headed girl" which would imply they are one person. This name is insulting and should be a fairly obvious WP:G10 in my opinion, but it was declined by Chillum. This should also be deleted as a WP:BLP violation because the girls themselves denounce this nickname. Check out this YouTube video (skip to 2:43) where the girls are asked "Do you have two heads?" and they respond "no." -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 04:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I declined the CSD request because it did not meet the requirements of CSD. Deletion may still be appropriate. Given that policy does allow for non neutral redirects if it is a term likely to be searched for I think RfD is a better way to go than me deciding it myself. I will leave it to you folks here to figure this out. Chillum 05:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It's nothing against you or anything, I understand why you made that call. It's not blatantly obvious that it's an attack unless you know or investigate what the term means. The thing about WP:G10 though is that it asks whether or not a redirect is a plausible search term and I just didn't think it was plausible search term for them specifically. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 05:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

No offence taken, this RfD is a good idea. Chillum 05:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment There's Polycephaly#Humans, though retargeting there might have the same BLP issues as the current target (given that it contains a list of names). 58.176.246.42 ( talk) 06:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or retarget as we have conjoined twins most of whom have two heads, and many who are girls -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Retarget. This would refer to most conjoined twins as most share a body but have two heads. This is inaccurate as conjoined twins are two separate people, not a person with two heads, but 'two headed' seems a plausible search term, for example it could be used by people who do not know the name for conjoined twins. Rubbish computer 11:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Do not retarget. Guys, don't you understand that this is an attack and WP:BLP violation no matter who you apply it to? "Two headed girl" isn't mentioned at "conjoined twins" either so it's not helping anyone putting it there. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Rubbish computer 20:13, 1 August 2015 (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 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 Hardware. -- BDD ( talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hardware system → Computer  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Hardware System → Computer  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The term "hardware" isn't exclusive to computers, so these redirects could be seen as misleading. Also, the redirects' term is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, clearly this is extreme computation bias due to our using computers -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Rename redirect to Electronic hardware, a more general article. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 13:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to the dab at Hardware. It's a much more broad topic than just electronics. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Retarget, but to Computer hardware: The "System" bit is telling. I doubt one would describe B&Q or Home Depot as a hardware system. (I just describe them as creditors...) Si Trew ( talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

No, but they are certainly hardware retailers. A plumbing system or a mains electrical system would be a hardware system. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Hardware per Ivanvector. I think this term is too vague to be narrowed down to electronics or computer hardware-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Hardware. Ivanvector's comment above convinced me, but in a roundabout way: I am not sure anyone would call a building's plumbing the " plumbing system" or its electrics the " electric system" ( → electricity), they would just call them the "plumbing" and the "electrics", wouldn"t they? "System" has become one of those words, like "situation", that seems to be tacked on to things unnecessarily: as indeed in this case for "hardware system" here. So it's best to send it simply to "hardware". Si Trew ( talk) 06:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Hardware. Rubbish computer 11:02, 1 August 2015 (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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I know when I'm against consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 20:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Goulddigger → Gold digger  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. Improbable typo; intentional misspelling to refer to Goulding or, more likely, a Gould. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as implausible typo. According to Urban Dictionary, this is an informal term for "a fan of Ellie Goulding" -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep More likely to be an error from an English-language learner, but it seems like a plausible enough error in English. -- BDD ( talk) 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

*Delete as implausible typo, and per Lenticel's point this could be a deliberately offensive redirect or one created as a joke. Rubbish computer 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10: as suggested by Lenticel's point it appears to serve only to mock Goulding fans. Rubbish computer 20:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:RFD#D3. I wouldn't necessarily call it G10 as it's nowhere near an obvious attack, but I can see the sentiment. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:36, 7 August 2015 (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 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) 20:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Garaoke → Karaoke  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Another one from the creator of Leondeon, this does not seem like a plausible typo, though, unsure if this is another Asian eye dialect spelling. - The ChampionMan 1234 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I did see this when I was going through the IP's contribs but thought it was plausible enough to leave it alone, but now that it's been nominated, weak delete as implausible. G and K are pretty far apart, and on different hands for touch typists. Furthermore according to the article there aren't any languages which pronounce this without a hard K sound at the start, so it's also phonetically implausible. Also worth noting there's a karaoke DJ in Ottawa (possibly others elsewhere) who goes by "Garaoke", though I have no reason to suspect the IP is related. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Ivanvector, I imagine you didn't mean to, but your above comment seems to assume bad faith, and that you are now the Lord God Almighty on the subject of enunciation. I am sure that is not the case, but it sounds like that. (Or rather, types like that.) Si Trew ( talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I can see what you mean, but I assure you that when I'm assuming bad faith, I state it explicitly so that there's no doubt. I have no way to investigate what the motivation was for creating this redirect, I can only report what I see, and that's that our karaoke article only lists pronunciations from languages which use a hard K sound (Japanese and English). There may be others which use G, or P, or W, or 3, but we don't consider them notable, or we don't consider them to have an affinity for this topic. Since every language in which this has an affinity has transliterated this as a K, I see G as implausible, and failing WP:FORRED. Also, let me state explicitly that I am Lord God Almighty of nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Not a question of typing, a question of speaking. Perfectly plausible to me. Karaoke, after all, is a transliteration. Ga and Ka are distinct sounds in Japanese, but I can easily imagine a labial slide between the two makes a K into a G. (Put your mouths wide open and say Ka and Ga, your mouth doesn't move, your tongue slides forward and back, especially the back part of it.) Gaak! Si Trew ( talk) 23:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:PROMO. This seems to be a Karaoke system business. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Do we have any evidence of this spelling used elsewhere, perhaps in early English references to karaoke? -- BDD ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as implausible misspelling and per Lenticel's point possibly a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Rubbish computer 11:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Simon. G and K are both velar consonants which is what I think he's getting at. Since Karaoke isn't an English word, I see see where the transliteration differences might be coming from. I'm weak because I don't see any actual evidence of this, but there's no harm in keeping it there just in case. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah, labial slide was wrong, it's nothing to do with the lips but the tongue. Phonetics terms do vary widely though, so what I call a front labial unvoiced plosive others call by other names, such as the letter P. Wikipedia, on phonetics terms, seems to use argot much different from wot I was taught, but that is fine as long as it is consistent. Si Trew ( talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (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 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 Deleted per G7. I have no idea how in the world I managed to create this monstrosity, although I suspect it had something to do with my input technology at the time, but in any event it's obviously unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 13:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• ダルビッシュ 有 → Yu Darvish  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete, since when searching for a Japanese person we woudn't type all surname, half-width space and given name. We just type surname and given name without space characters. RekishiEJ ( talk) 12:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as appears to be an implausible typo. Rubbish computer 12:52, 1 August 2015 (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.