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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Henley-on-Toast → Boris Johnson  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I can't find much about why this redirect would need to exist, it's not even mentioned on the article. He was an MP from Henley however what does that have to do with toast? The only info I have on this is that originally in 2004, this page was a sentence saying this phrase was a "fictional consituency" of Boris' according to one magazine. Nothing else. Also, besides a massive spike of visits in July 2016, it doesn't get many visits. Captain Galaxy 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I have no idea what the name originally meant. Google suggests that it is/was the name of a craft beer from a small brewery in Henley. My guess is that the beer's name may have derived from the same non-notable joke as the redirect refers but that this has been lost to the mists of time and probably nobody cares. There are no links to it in the article space. Nobody is going to miss the redirect if it is deleted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. May be a "joke" about Henley-on-Thames. Errantius ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Brakspear's brews excellent beer (and have had 300 years practice), but this seems to have been a one-off in 2018 for a charity event and not worth mentioning in the article. Narky Blert ( talk) 06:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - irrelevant redirect. Aza24 ( talk) 08:03, 1 September 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:UKrail-header2 → Template:Rail-header2  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Deletion; no longer in use as a redirect, and the sole reference to it (in Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 2#RDT: Uber-Template ....) is as a fork of another (now) obsolete and deprecated template that is itself in the process of being replaced. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 22:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep considering this redirect has targeted its current target since 2009 and is a {{ R from move}}. Unless there are plans to retarget this redirect or replace this redirect with an actual template, it's harmless. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Harmless. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 10:05, 5 September 2020 (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 History of the Americas. This was a very late suggestion to the discussion, but was amenable by all participants who have commented since then. Since it is a broad topic that covers the possible meanings, it should satisfy those wishing to disambiguate due to ambiguity or delete due to vagueness. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Discoverer of the americas → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Discoverers of the Americas → Voyages of Christopher Columbus  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Procedural re-nomination. I partially closed the previous batch RfD of several Discovery -> Columbus redirects, and while everyone thought Voyages of Christopher Columbus was an inaccurate and poor target, there was disagreement over potential targets for these two, so i'm "relisting" it as a new discussion without the other nominated pages confusing the issue. Reasonable arguments were made to target it at Settlement of the Americas which refers to the original Paleolithic settlement of it and definitely happened first, or European colonization of the Americas, which may be what some readers are more likely to be thinking of when they type this in. Further input on which of these targets (or indeed something else) is better would be appreciated! ~ mazca ^talk 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Pinging @ Ɱ, Soumya-8974, Paintspot Infez, Sonic678, Rosguill, Mdaniels5757, and BDD: who participated in the last discussion. Apologies for asking people to think about this one again, but it seemed cleaner than relisting the other one when half of the batch nomination was decided. ~ mazca ^talk 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think I have a weak preference for European colonization of the Americas. I think I may have voted the other way in the first discussion because I was focusing on the other redirects up for discussion at the time, but searching Google Scholar for usage of the phrase "discovery of the Americas" almost exclusively returns results about the European colonization. As the two candidate targets are already linked by a hatnote, I'm not too invested in the outcome. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak retarget to European colonization of the Americas per nom and Rosguill. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Isn't it quite likely that people are looking for Leif Erikson or Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories? Would a dab page be best? — kwami ( talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  European colonization of the Americas has a brief section on this subject. I've now added a half-sentence mention of it towards the beginning of the lead, as it previously was not part of the lead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Dabify the actual discoverers are the Beringia peoples who crossed first (sea-route, then the land-route). Follow-up discoverers include the Vikings, and others. And abundant pre-Colombian theories of other peoples (Polynesians, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Ice Age Europeans, etc) The Inuit also seem to fall into later discoverers for portions of the high arctic. -- 65.94.169.16 ( talk) 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Paleo-Indians, to be consistent with discovery of the Americas which is not pointing to European colonization of the Americas but rather settlement of the Americas (which discusses the settlement ~10,000 years ago by Paleo-Indians). 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 03:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wouldn't object to a disambiguation or a retarget to Settlement of the Americas. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 05:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 2 not opposed to deletion either per BananaCarrot152. I remain opposed to retargeting to European colonization of the Americas as that would be inconsistent with Discovery of the Americas. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 03:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget the 2nd to Settlement of the Americas consistent with Discovery of the Americas (which has a hatnote to European colonization of the Americas). Since we're at RfD, delete the 1st which is badly capitalised and not required. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget both to Settlement of the Americas to be consistent with Discovery of the Americas. As per Shhhnotsoloud, there's a hatnote there that can help people find the European "discoverers" of the "New World." Regards, SONIC 678 15:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete the first, given the poor capitalization and there really being no one single identifiable discoverer of the Americas. Regarding the second, I continue to think targeting something besides European settlement will be SURPRISEing, if historically just, so retarget to European colonization of the Americas and let the hatnotes give context. -- BDD ( talk) 15:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete both as they are unnecessary and I think the least surprising thing is to have no article/redirect at all. There are also very few if any other articles titled "Discoverer(s) of..."; for instance from the similarly touchy Discoverers of Australia to the somewhat controversial Discoverers of Antarctica and the (at least mostly) undisputed Discoverer of Pluto and Discoverers of Radium. BananaCarrot152 ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. I figure I may as well provide the opinion I've reached after all this relisting! While I definitely suspect that most English-speaking readers are probably looking for the European discovery of the Americas, the term is just inherently vague and there are far too many reasonable targets, none of which are ideal. We either point readers to something that's vague, something that they probably weren't looking for, or something that's technically incorrect. Sticking this phrase into the search engine gives History of the Americas as the first result, and to be honest that's as good a result as any without reading the user's mind. It will allow them to find what they're looking for. ~ mazca ^talk 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I've been swayed by the novel delete arguments. In the absence of an individual unambiguously considered to be the "Discoverer of the Americas", we don't need these redirects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment just noticed that Discoverer of the Americas also exists. Seems a bit late to add it to this nomination though. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate per Kwami and multiple IP accounts.— This is an inherently POV name, in the non-pejorative as well as pejorative sense. Taking "discovery" as a real phenomenon for those groups whose knowledge of the Americas was previously absent, as well as for humanity as a whole gives us differnt answers.-- Carwil ( talk) 19:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to bring another option to the table very late in the piece. Retarget both to History of the Americas where the reader can choose what 'discoverer'(s) they were looking for, or see an overview of discovers of the Americas. There is an argument that the singular redirect should target a different place (if any place at all) to the plural one, but I think that retargeting both to History of the Americas is the best option. If a dab page or BCA is drafted (making sure it doesn't fall afoul of SYNTH), then that may be a better option, but for now, I believe that the retarget I'm proposing is the best option.
  Noting for the record that this is the inaugural discussion for discussion – IMO the best option currently available is to relist (however unorthodox a fourth one is) given that:
  • This would enable a bundling up of Discoverer of the Americas into the discussion.
  • A new option has been presented.
  • Putting this on the current log page would remind RfD regulars about it if they wish to !vote.
• Just my 2 cents. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I would support retargeting to History of the Americas. I don't oppose a relist necessarily, but given WP:NOTBURO, I'd be comfortable if I were the closer with doing whatever is decided here to Discoverer of the Americas. I can't imagine there would ever be affirmative consensus to treat Discoverer of the Americas and Discoverer of the americas differently. -- BDD ( talk) 17:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I agree in its entirety with that, yeah. These are vague redirects but that target cover all reasonable meanings. ~ mazca ^talk 17:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  (re to BDD) FTR, adding a new redirect to the nomination does notify the redirect's watchers and the watchers of its target article, so that's a benefit. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  Certainly, and I'm not suggesting it's best practice to lump in untagged redirects. I would imagine most redirects are on no watchlists, however. -- BDD ( talk) 13:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  I'm also fine with J947's proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 28 September 2020 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 15:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:WikiProject Free software → Template:WikiProject Computing  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Template:WikiProject Free Software → Template:WikiProject Computing  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Should probably better point to {{ WikiProject Software}}. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 18:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Both of these redirects have incoming transclusions. Straight-up retargeting these redirects would break the pages which these redirects are transcluded. May need to bypass the transclusions first by replacing them with transclusions of their current target. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Steel1943: Oppose. This is exactly why a retarget is useful. If a talk page uses this template, it necessarily refers to a software WikiProject. Also, {{ WikiProject Software}} mentions WikiProject Computing anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ 1234qwer1234qwer4: IMO, in regards to this, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the editors who placed these page transclusions meant. Most of these templates are on talk pages. The assumption has to be made that the current transcluded target is the intended one in order to not break anything existing. This statement applies to any transcluded redirect; the only way this would not apply was if the transclusion was redirected via a template merge or to a template with identical parameters, but those discussions happen at WP:TFD, not here, and it wouldn't apply to these pages anyways since they've always been redirects to the same target, even after the target underwent a few page name changes itself. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep unless both of these redirects have 0 transclusions prior to the closing of this discussion for the reasons I've stated above. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  I no longer have an opinion on this since I bypassed and/or fixed all of the transclusions of the nominated redirect in an effort to allow this discussion a resolution. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Still lots of transclusions and we have to assume they are correct per Steel1943's reasoning above. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Thryduulf: At this point, all transclusions have been bypassed or fixed. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  In which case I withdraw my !vote. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:04, 8 September 2020 (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 NYPD Blue (season 2)#ep32. Consensus is against the current target, and a plausible alternative target has been presented. I will tag the redirects with {{ R from episode}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 06:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• In the butt, Bob → The Newlywed Game  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• In the butt, Bob! → The Newlywed Game  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

Per Hog Farm, (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#In the butt) I do not understand why this page redirects to that article. It's not even mentioned. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 16:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqrf5uGkm8k , and all will be revealed. But still delete anyway with no discussion of this (and even then, let search do its job). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I do not understand why this page redirects to that article. It's not even mentioned — as the redirect itself notes, this was previously mentioned at the target, but removed multiple times, most recently three years ago. Added In the butt, Bob! to the nomination. Separately, there is a TV episode by this name: NYPD Blue (season 2)#ep32 (not vandalism like I thought, see e.g. [1]), though I doubt it's worth a retarget. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 03:09, 31 August 2020 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• MacDonald's White Paper → White Paper of 1939  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The 1939 white paper article has nothing about the paper being owned by MacDonald's. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. Yes it does; see the footnote: Occasionally also known as the MacDonald White Paper (e.g. Caplan, 2015, p.117) after Malcolm MacDonald, the British Colonial Secretary, who presided over its creation. The weak part is because I'm iffy whether the genitive 's is really needed, but aside from that, it's actually a sourced alternate name mentioned in the article. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - while hard to find in the article, apparently a valid redirect as per Deacon Vorbis' comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep – not only does a reference/citation appear in the article, but also this is the common name for the White Paper in Israel. I imagine that if any Israeli were to search for information on the white paper in English, they would assume it's called the MacDonald White Paper. Edit: Realized the nomination specifically relates to Macdonald's White Paper ('s). Using 's is also a direct translation from Hebrew (הספר הלבן של מקדונלד), I don't see any harm in keeping this redirect. — Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 20:41, 30 August 2020 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Isræl → Israel  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible use of a ligature. This was already R3ed twice before being created again in 2015. A Google search link was provided as justification, however, most of these are just people's online IDs that use it as an affectation or Amazon hits where it auto-matches the ligature character to a spelled out "ae", even when it's not actually being used.

On the silly off chance someone actually searches for this, the search box will automatically match "æ" to "ae" in titles anyway (try substituting for Hetaera, already a redirect).

On a side note, there are a lot of these, and they should really be mass deleted; I'm open to suggestions for the best way to proceed on this. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination, the pageviews show clearly that this is unnecessary ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is an uncommon spelling but it is used, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Thryduulf ( talk) 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• I also strongly oppose any mass deletion of redirects like this one, as this shows a proper WP:BEFORE needs to be done for each of them. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As Thryduulf has demonstrated, this is a spelling that has some use. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep; alternative spelling that is harmful to delete. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:CHEAP. It's an altermate spelling that's used. That's enough. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 02:16, 1 September 2020 (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. Izno ( talk) 05:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• SDFU → Southern Tenant Farmers Union  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Sdfu → Southern Tenant Farmers Union  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I cannot determine why SDFU/Sdfu redirect here. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. SDFU stands for South Dakota Farmers Union, and the only direct mention we have is as an EL in National Farmers Union (United States). (There are other mentions, e.g. in Emil Loriks, (sometime president of the SDFU).) Narky Blert ( talk) 11:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or retarget - Keep, or retarget to National_Farmers_Union_(United_States)#External_links or STFU (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling of "Shut Da Fuck Up" per WP:CHEAP, but do not delete. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete since "SDFU" ≠ "STFU", per nom, and since retargeting to an "External links" section to reference an external link in that section is obscure and emphasizes that we have no "SDFU" subject currently on Wikipedia. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per "Steel11943" and "Narky Blert". Seventyfiveyears at 17:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The South Dakota Farmers Union might be notable (a quick google search suggests a detailed look, preferably by someone who knows the topic area, is needed to say for certain), but we don't have any content about them to redirect this to. There are no other potentially notable uses of the acronym I can find. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• I don't think there was anything calling for a relist here. Raised at the relister's talk page. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:36, 31 August 2020 (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 Already deleted under G5. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Tennessee floods → 2010 Tennessee floods  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The state of Tennessee has seen numerous floods, this isn't the only one. Not sure what use a disambiguation page would serve either, so requesting deletion. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate: plausible search term with multiple possible meanings and no obvious primary topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. We only have one article about Tennessee floods - this one - and this is the only Tennessee flood in List of floods. There is nothing to disambiguate. The year qualifier in the article title is desirable, to alert readers who follow the redirect that they've landed on a specific not a general topic. Narky Blert ( talk) 08:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is at least one other article about a flood that was limited to Tennessee ( 1867 flood of Chattanooga), as well as various articles about multi-state floods which affected Tennessee (e.g. 2011 Mississippi River floods#Tennessee, January 2013 Southeastern United States floods) 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate per IP's comment above. Apparently there are multiple entries that could be listed on a dab page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment it seems that is more like a request move because there were a indication that this redirect is primary topic so why not submit RM instead because it is only floods that happened in the city. 180.242.44.228 ( talk) 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment The redirect got G5'd by Justlettersandnumbers. SMB9 9thx my edits 13:37, 8 September 2020 (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 speedy retarget to Indian nationalism. This doesn't really need an RfD, just be bold. (non-admin closure) —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Nationalism in India → Assertive Nationalism in India  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Retarget to Indian nationalism - a more natural target. SD0001 ( talk) 07:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per nom. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per nom. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per all and tag as {{ R from modification}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Indian nationalism per everyone above and the precedent for stuff like Nationalism in Corsica. Regards, SONIC 678 19:31, 30 August 2020 (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• WP:WPCG → Wikipedia:WikiProject Montenegro  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphics. "CG" has no clear referent for English speakers with regard to Montenegro or Montenegrin. The string does not appear on that wikiproject page at all, and "CG" is not an ISO, FIFA, or other country or language code associated with Montenegro or Montenegrin from what I can tell. The native name of Montenegro in Montenegrin is Црна Гор, which can be transliterated as Crna Gora, but "CG" is unlikely to be used by English-speaking readers in looking for this. The shortcut WP:MNE (the FIFA country code) is unique to the country wikiproject, and I've also made sure that WP:MONTENGRO goes there (since there are no competing pages like MoS or naming conventions pages devoted to the country). Various other possibilities that could refer to the country or language, like WP:ME and WP:CNR (ISO codes) are already taken for other pages. As for WP:CG and possibly using that for the the computer graphics project, that is also already taken. Meanwhile, WP:WPCG is the most obvious shortcut for the computer graphics project; our standard shortcutting procedure if a WP:XX shortcut for one is already claimed by something else is to use WP:WPXX. Yet this is a convention that non-fluent-English-using visitors to this site would probably not intuit on their own, making WP:WPCG doubly unlikely as a shortcut for WikiProject Montenegro. Either way, a hatnote can be used, and definitely should be if this shortcut is not usurped for WikiProject Computer Graphics. An alternative would be making it an internal disambiguation page, since someone might also be looking for WP:WikiProject Video games which was once named WP:WikiProject Computer and video games, so someone could conceivably be thinking "CG" = "computer games".  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• I would mostly want to hear from members of the WikiProjects in this discussion. -- BDD ( talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  I've notified all three of the mentioned projects at their talk pages.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Looking at the history I apparently created this as a compromise with user:CrnaGora who wanted WP:CG to redirect to the Montenegro project. See the discussion here. Changing to the computer graphics project would be fine with me. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think WP VG has quite sufficient shortcuts. It was also a long time ago that we shed the computer games moniker and I think the general opinion is that we don't want it back. No opinion on preferred target otherwise. -- Izno ( talk) 05:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speaking from the WP VG side as well, I see no issue. While there are "computer games" from a Wikiproject standpoint we haven't use that term at all of late so it shouldn't be any conflict here. -- Masem ( t) 06:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphics. The connection to the current target is tenuous and it appears that the members of the video game wikiproject don’t want to use it.-- 67.68.208.64 ( talk) 03:49, 6 September 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• "Marvel's The Avengers" → The Avengers (2012 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete: Unnecessary use of quotation marks. Chompy Ace 05:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• "Delete" per nom. "Why should this exist" when we already have "the correctly formatted Marvel's The Avengers?" Regards, " SONIC 678" 06:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Not only do we not put titles of things in quotation marks in our article titles, doing so in this case is an error (films go in italics not quotes).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ SMcCandlish: Seems a bit silly to be voting on your own proposal. Why not update your original rationale instead? -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Soumya-8974: They did not vote on their own proposal, if you look carefully, their proposal is exactly the same as their !vote above, possibly due to an error. CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  I went ahead and fixed the formatting of this nomination, including hiding SMcCandlish's duplicate vote. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Steel1943: Thank you! I initially thought SMcCandlish was the nom, (apparently Soumya-8974 thought the same), should’ve clicked on the redirect to actually verify who it was! LOL CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sorry I apparently broke something. Not sure what the issue was.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per everyone. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep ... since the title is traditionally in italics on Wikipedia, and quotation marks is an example of someone inputting two consecutive apostrophes incorrectly. But, then again, the creation of titles with consecutive apostrophes has been restricted by the title creation blacklist for over half a decade, so ... thus why I'm "weak" keep ... I'm not too sold on being able to keep one over the other, but the use of quotation marks doesn't break inline wiki markup like consecutive apostrophes do. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  If it's using punctuation characters in a way that we specifically disabled years ago, then this actually qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G6, since the obvious intent of that decision was to not have page names with back-to-back apostrophes at all, ever. It's also technically WP:R3, since a page name that our software is trying to prevent from ever even existing (on purpose, not just for technical reasons we can't avoid) doesn't qualify as a "plausible typo" for a WP page name.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  ...Thus my "weak" since I agree with basically everything you said, but since it doesn't cause the formatting issues that wiki markup does, I could see this type of formatting being used for titles that Wikipedia either encases in quotation marks in the respective article or uses consecutive apostrophes since two consecutive apostrophes look like quotation marks. (" vs '') I'm also "weak" since such search strings, as the one in this redirect, whether it be for quotation marks or consecutive apostrophes, is rather Wikipedia-meta. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Double quotes here is inappropriate. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (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 Television#Negative impacts. Essentially withdrawing my own nomination since a plausible option has been found. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Cognitive effects of cable television → Cable television  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Formerly redirected to a section that no longer exists at the target ( Cable television#Cognitive effects), and does not seem described in the target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Point the redirect to Television#Negative_impacts, which contains the information removed from this article. Nemo 07:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Nemo. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2020 (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 no consensus. No comments after the relist, and no consensus prior to the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Dr. Kubota → Ordyne  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A redirect for an obscure character from an obscure video game. I don't see this being helpful for any reader to navigate as the character would never pass WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Mentioned with some info in the article. WP:N does not apply to redirects. See e.g. {{ R from song}}, which exists because "There is consensus that the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Narky Blert ( talk) 16:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• I wondered if we had any articles on people named Kubota with doctorates. Mantarō Kubota was a professor. I didn't check everyone listed at Kubota (surname), since the others seemed unlikely to have doctorates. The fictional character is listed there, so if there was another use, we could retarget there. -- BDD ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2020 (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 disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Kaitak → Kaytagsky District  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect is neither mentioned nor found in the target. It's probably better if we retarget this to Kai Tak Airport. Seventyfiveyears at 22:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• It's not mentioned because it's simply an alternative form of the target's name :) A google books search for the term comes up mostly with results about the Daghestanian region, people or language. I've listed them on the draft dab page below the redirect. The airport seems like a really prominent topic but I almost can't find any instances where its name is spelt "Kaitak", so I've placed it the "See also" section rather than the main body. – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate per Uanfala's good draft. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:19, 1 September 2020 (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.