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) 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• File:Background2.jpg → File:Clothahump at Samhain 2006.jpg  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Redirect shadowing Commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• There is nothing under this redirect on Commons. There was once a file there, but it was deleted due to lack of evidence of permission. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• No it's not. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as vague -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unused and WP:RFD#D2 confusing to have this "shadow". Si Trew ( talk) 02:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Replace with an empty page We should not have unreasonably named files on Commons occupy generic useless names appearing on Wikipedia. (This should remain as an upload protected and full protected page, until such time as Commons salts the equivalent page on Commons) -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Those protected pages are problematic as people sometimes upload pictures under the same name which then can't be used on Wikipedia. A better solution is to ask Commons to create a protected redirect from that file name to File:Name.svg. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, with Lenticel. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:45, 12 November 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) 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Dromiceiomimus(or Ornithomimus synonym → Ornithomimus  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

To me this looks like an old typo that neither makes much sense as the longstanding redirect to Ornithomimus nor to Dromiceiomimus. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yep. FunkMonk ( talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 26#Aniliidae (synonym) et alia, which included the redirect Dromiceiomimus (or Ornithomimus synonym) but missed this version without the closing parenthesis. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unlikely synonym due to formatting and typo issues -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:28, 6 November 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) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Hi, I had marked Ghatiya for deletion, which User:Kusma reverted stating it is plausible enough. Please be advised that the word 'Ghatiya' has entirely different meaning in Hindi/Gujarati. Ghatiya means rubbish, inferior, poor, etc. Please see google translation for the word. While the page where it redirects is about a food item. It is quite obvious that not all reading this message would know the script/language, so please notice the transliteration provided in google translation link, which appears just below the box where the word is written in Hindi. Though it might be plausible enough, but it should not redirecting to a page with different meaning. One can see the meaning of word Ghatiya on wiki here. As there is a separate page for Rite, though it is plausible enough for Write, as both these words have separate meanings, I see no reason to redirect Ghatiya to Ganthiya. Dhaval ^Talk 12:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I admit I am puzzled by this. This article spells the word "Ghatiya". Is this different in Hindi vs. Gujarati? — Kusma ( t· c) 13:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

  Note also that the article was at Ghatiya for almost two years, so I am not convinced we should delete this {{ R from move}}. — Kusma ( t· c) 13:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak retarget to Types of Karma (Jainism)#Ghatiya karmas per nom, which could hatnote to Ganthiya. Without knowing the languages, I would call this a plausible misspelling (the H is shifted, I think "ghatiya" and "gathiya" would be pronounced the same), but the karmas subheading is an exact match and we should prefer that. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

  By the article I quote above, I am not even sure it is a misspelling. I have asked a Gujarati speaker for help. — Kusma ( t· c) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• In any case, it is not marked as {{ R from other language|hi}} nor {{ R from other language|gu}} (or anything else). It's unreasonable to expect an English Wikipedia to avoid words that in some other language are offensive (whether or not they have been assimilated into English); the question is not what would a Hindi or Gujarati speaker make of them, but what would an English speaker make of them? Keep, mentioned at target. Si Trew ( talk) 16:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It's not mentioned at the target by this spelling. The target lists "gathiya", not "ghatiya". (The H is shifted). However, still waiting on Kusma's point. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Sorry, my confusion: I thought the quarrel was with the "n", not the "h". ~But if they're false friends between Hindi and Gujarati, I don't see how we can resolve that in the English WP. Si Trew ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Interestingly, of the three references in the target, two spell it " Ghatia" and only one (The Times of India) "Ghatiya". Si Trew ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am native speaker of Gujarati. Ganthiya and Ghatiya spoken very differently in Gujarati and has no relationship with each other. Ganthiya is food item and Ghatiya is an adjective for poor or bad thing. Delete the redirect. I edit articles on Jainism also and even Ghatiya Karma is spoken differently too. So it is also different thing. - Nizil ( talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Nizil Shah: would you say that the usage at Types of Karma (Jainism)#Ghatiya karmas is a proper name for the karmas, or does that just literally mean "bad karmas"? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Ghatiya Karma is a group of types of Karma, not bad Karma or nothing to do with bad Karma. In Jainism, there are eight types of Karma. Four of them are considered Ghatiya Karma (Karma which can be destroyed before death) and other four are Aghatiya (Karma which ends with death only). It is simple explanation of complex philosophical topic and suggest you to read article for better explanation. - Nizil ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that, that's what I thought but sometimes articles are just badly translated. Does it make sense that "ghatiya" can refer to the karmas then? Or would that be like saying "apple" and expecting you to know that I'm talking about a kind of pie? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 23:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Your example is right. If we redirect Ghatiya to Ghatiya Karma, its like redirectig apple to apple pie. It does not make sense and should not be redirected.- Nizil ( talk) 08:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

There are two Gujarati words ગાંઠિયા and ગાંઠીયા in the article -- do they relate to different spellings of the same thing?— Kusma ( t· c) 21:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, both are spoken almost same way. According to Gujarati spelling convensions, ગાંઠિયા is true spelling. But alternatively ગાંઠીયા can be written as both are spoken same way to illustrate the same thing. Gujarati is Abugida language so what is spoken is equal to what is written. In speaking there is very little difference between two, like speaking e in Sin and e in Deep. :) - Nizil ( talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm sorry, but I don't feel that the discussion of Gujarat transliteration helps here. The fact is the article is not even at Gathiya but at Ganthiya. Two English language references in the article give the spelling as Ghatia, which we haven't got, and one as Ghatiya, which is the redirect; none for Ganthiya, Doing a Gsearch for " Ghantiya" gives me results unilaterally for the food item, even though it is not referenced with that spelling in the article and the results I get are probably not RS (restaurant reviews etc). Gsearch for Ganthiya is mostly a film/theatre production.

The problem stems, I think, from the page move. It's realy not a question of how a Gujarati speaker/writer uses the word, but what an English speaking audience should expect. Since "Gh-" at the start of the word is almost always an approximation to a sound in an import word that does not exist in English ("ghost" is an exception; most entries in my dictionary are from Hindi, with a couple from or via Dutch), there is some room for manoeuvre here in the transliteration. English is not a speak-as-you-spell language, so the point is moot. (I pronounce the vowel in "sin" and "deep" quite differently.) Si Trew ( talk) 02:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, problem is due to transliteration. Several words spoken and written differently in Gujarati are spelled same when they are transliterated in English. But nobody search for Hindi/Gujarati adjectives (Ghatiya) on Wikipedia. And Ganthiya is totally different thing and transliterated differently too if not misspelled. So I find no reason to keep Ghatiya as its redirect.- Nizil ( talk) 08:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have a reason: it is spelled as "ghatiya", in a context that makes obvious it is a noun that has a snack food meaning, in the reference to here to the Times of India. That reference was removed with this edit of 8 November by User:Dsvyas (Dhaval), with the edit comment starting "replaced irrelevant reference"... I would say that an RS that has that spelling is very relevant to this discussion. Si Trew ( talk) 12:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment should we add Gathiya → Ganthiya (i.e. same target) to this? That R is not tagged in any way. Si Trew ( talk) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Gathiya can be redirected as possible misspelling. Ghatiya should be deleted, IMO.- Nizil ( talk) 08:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Nizil; I defer to the native speaker. Thanks for your help understanding the meanings here. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Am I completely missing the point here? We are told that Ganthiya means something else, and certainly it's not referenced with that spelling. Fiddling with the redirects is not going to help that; we need to move the target page. Si Trew ( talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)_{struck; refs with target's spelling have been added. Si Trew ( talk) 12:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)} reply
  • No @ SimonTrew:, Ganthiya means the savoury snack, about which the article is. The target page is correct. So your suggestion above here, Gathiya → Ganthiya, is good and valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaval ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I found some uses when I Gooogled for "ghatiya snack -gatia". These websites may not be (very) RS but do show that spelling in use and not just typos:
• Narsi, Ajit (19 December 2012). "Diwali sweets – traditional home-made Indian sweets". wordpress.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• Soni, Vibhision K. "Stock photo: Ghatiya namkeen". dreamstime.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• "Thikha Ghatiya". annapurnafoods.in. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• BhagwatiDevi. "Ghatiya Namkeen". thinkstockphotos.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• "3 Pack of Idhayam Tikha Ghatiya". wholesale.khanapakana.com. New York. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• "Namkeen Snacks > Lashun Ghatiya". tradeindia.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
• "Tum Tum Ghatiya". flavorsofmycity.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015.

This next (and last!) one, while just a product list, is interesting because it spells it both "Gathiya" and "Ghatiya":

• "Snacks". benzexports.com. Retrieved 9 November 2015. Nylon Bhavnagari Ghatiya / Nylon Makhania Gathiya / Nylon Papdi Ghatiya

Would I be right in thinking that the compound noun ("ghatiya namkeen") has become contracted so that "ghatiya" stands on its own as a noun, like "chips" in context just means " potato chips"? Si Trew ( talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It is a problem of transliteration. The way you write Gujarati word in England. When people not native to language transliterate words, its possible that they transliterate it wrong as they do not know how to speak the word themselves. So there may be some source where its written wrong. Ghatiya is a noun describing poor or bad. And if you search it with Namkeen, its obvious that search engine would give you result about Namkeen transliterated similar to Ghatiya, so Ganthiya. There is no benefit in keeping the redirect as the word Ghatiya itself is totally different word and spoken entirely different way. The problem is its transliteration is somewhat similar to Ganthiya. - Nizil ( talk) 16:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

For all of you. Here all three words spoken by me to illustrate a difference. They may sound similar initially but listen carefully again. Regards, - Nizil ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Given what the native speakers say (thank you for your help), I am now leaning delete. If kept, we certainly need to tag as {{ R from misspelling}}. — Kusma ( t· c) 14:27, 10 November 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 retargeted as proposed. ( non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates → Wikipedia:Glossary  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Wikipedia:GAUDD → Wikipedia:Glossary  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Wikipedia:GADD → Wikipedia:Glossary  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Once upon a time, this redirect was a redirect, converted to an active Wikipedia page via an RFD discussion, but was then converted back to a redirect as a result of a WP:MFD discussion. The result was to redirect the title to Wikipedia:Glossary. However, I recently discovered a page titled Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. For this reason, I think the nominated redirect should be retargeted to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: I added two shortcuts that previously targeted the redirect when it was an active page. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Additional note: As uncontroversial as this proposed change may be, I did not WP:BOLD-ly update the redirect since that would have went against the consensus formed at the MFD discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Good observation. I'd just say be WP:BOLD and go for it. — Kusma ( t· c) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support retargeting: I concur, just do it, Steel1943. - Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Plus one - +1. Good find. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 15:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Likewise. Nice find. (Not sure quite enough for a landslide close yet.) Si Trew ( talk) 02:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:42, 9 November 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) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• GOVCOM → Arbitration Committee  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The arbitration committee is not a governmental body, and does not make policy on Wikipedia. NE Ent 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete The target is not about government communications networks, it is a Wikipedia administrative body, and Wikipedia slang should not redirect to article topics, as the world is not solely about Wikipedia. WP:ARBCOM is also not the encyclopedic article about itself. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, best target for this redirect. sst✈ ^discuss 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)\ reply

• This could equally refer to any government committee, or Communities and Local Government Committee for example.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 21:53, 5 November 2015

• Delete - confusing. WP:GOVCOM doesn't exist, so this doesn't seem to be a mislocated project shortcut. As 70.51 points out, our Arbitration Committee is not a governing body. Stats show this isn't a term being commonly searched, so there is not a pressing need to identify a better target. There are a few not-really-notable organizations which use the name "GovCom" or some variation, but we don't have articles about them. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A possible perhaps pejorative slang for a Wikipedia specific topic that has enough notability for an article. While the nominators rationale is moot, this still isn't a good redirect, especially for the article namespace; it's vague.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Search shows sense of " Government communications", which we have not got (and would be a rather vague topic). Si Trew ( talk) 04:57, 9 November 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• 25 Million Pounds → Inside Story Special: £830,000,000 - Nick Leeson and the Fall of the House of Barings  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not the official name, per Firebrace's reason for the move. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The fact that the name is not official is not a enough of a reason to delete the redirect epscially if the error can be shown to be common.-- 65.94.253.102 ( talk) 03:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - this redirect serves readers searching for this article by its erroneous but commonly-known title by redirecting them to the correct article. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - AGF, and that this truly is a well known alternative name the target is known by. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I've never heard of it being called this myself, but this got on average a dozen hits a day before the page was moved. More annoying is the target's title, since the name should be singular "House of Baring" (we don't have House of Windsors or House of Tudors for example), but that's the programme-makers' fault, not ours. ours). Si Trew ( talk) 02:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems a plausible redirect if a plausible search; will also prevent another article from being created if the name is a common misnomer. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems to be a plausible synonym per abovementioned reasons. -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:38, 10 November 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.