Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8

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 move User talk:Roger Delacroix over the redirect (without leaving a redirect). It appears User:Luke de paul attempted to rename himself, but [[User:Roger Delacroix is currently not registered. So the target page is a user talk page for a nonexistent user, and what should be an active user talk page is redirecting there. This decision will make the correct user talk page functional, and the user is free to pursue an official rename request. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Luke de paul → User talk:Roger Delacroix  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Came across this redirect while trying to post this on User talk:Luke de paul. Not sure what the purpose of this redirect, but it might have been just a good faith attempt at a username change by a fairly new editor unfamiliar with WP:RENAME. Anyway, there is no user account registered as "Roger Delacroix" which means that there is a potential for conflict if someday someone does try and register that account name. Not really sure what needs to done here since both the redirected user talk page and the target user talk page now both have been edited by others and have their own respective page histories. Finally, since this relates to userspace redirect, not sure if it's OK to ask about it here. If it isn't, please advise where such a discussion should take place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the user talk page and User:Roger Delacroix/sandbox should be moved back to their original locations and a global renamer or steward can then globally rename "Luke de paul" to "Roger Delacroix". 96.41.0.15 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move target to User talk:Luke de paul since that is the name of the editor. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment the issue here is not the redirect, but the best means of changing the user name. I have asked for help here. --NSH002 (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification NSH002. For reference, Luke de paul/Roger Delacroix posted on my user talk about something else and I advised them that you are trying to help them with their user name change, and said they should contact you. Even so, there is still this redirect that needs to be resolved. Maybe both the name change and redirect can be resolved at the same time by the same admin. Perhaps asking for assistance at WT:CHU will help speed things along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Marchjuly, Avi is a highly competent admin/bureaucrat/steward who's been around on Wikipedia even longer than I have, and whom I trust and respect. It appears that Avi isn't so active nowadays on Wikipedia as he used to be, so I'll give him another day or two to respond and then if necessary, raise it at WP:CHU. Incidentally, by nominating this redirect, you made it impossible for our young friend to follow my instructions on his talk page without admin assistance. One other niggle: at the link you gave, you referred to me using the ugly and ungrammatical singular they, but on my main user page I state my real name, so you know what my gender is. I dislike the singular they in general, though I will tolerate it in some cases where its antecedent is indefinite. Even if you don't know the gender, it is always possible to recast a sentence to avoid the singular they. I find it jarring when someone refers to an editor as "they", when we know for certain that the user is only one person. I don't suppose that I can stop people doing this, but at least I can request that editors not do it about me. Regards, NSH002 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2016 (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) 04:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Women-born women → Womyn-born womyn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The sources refer to it as "Womyn-born womyn" but never as "Women-born women". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a phonetic match and plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel11943. Page is result from another user's pagemove which I undid. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, it's a phonetic swapping mistake that I'm sure multiple people will be doing in the future and probably do right now. The redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2016 (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) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Freedom Girls → Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

How notable is this and how do we know it doesn't refer to anything else? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be a cheerleading group that was authorized by Trump to perform in one of his rallies. Anyways, I think this may cause confusion since it may be construed that Trump owns/manages them --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The group's performance for Trump appears to be a flash-in-the-pan thing without encyclopedic significance in the first place, and I also agree that the redirect as it stands may be confusing. If this isn't particularly helpful, let's just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2016 (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) sst✈ 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that this Neelix redirect should be converted into a disambiguation page because there are two people with this name. However, Jaynee Germond is a redirect while Jaynee LaVecchia has her own article. Does the redirect template R from given name include redirects? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nobody is known by this mononym. As for the two possible targets, Ms. Germond is a non-notable candidate who lost a primary for a state-level election, which is well off from WP:POLITICIAN requirements, but I don't know if we would include this sort of person on a dab page anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no one should be searching for people by first name only anyway. Would you search for John or Henry or Susan and expect to find your target? Just because this is a rare enough name that currently there is only one subject on Wikipedia with an article does not mean this should be a redirect.
• Keep, {{R from given name}}. This is the exact same situation as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 9#Kayte: there is only one person with a Wikipedia article with the name, a non-notable person also has the name, but could be hatnoted, and there's a few similar spellings that should all be hatnoted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this situation could be a little different. Unlike Kayte, this is unambiguously a homonym of Jaynie. I could support a redirect to Jaynie, it might be better than lengthy hatnotes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jane (given name) as {{R from alternate spelling}} -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work, it's way too big of a stretch to make. I don't have any sources, but Jaynee could reasonably be a diminutive for names such as "Janine," "Janice," "Janet," and "Jana," probably among others. This is why we shouldn't be throwing out suggestions unless they're obviously related (such as the unambiguous homonyms of Jaynie and Jaynee). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose retargeting - as Tavix and 70.51 have demonstrated, it is ambiguous whether this is a homonym of Jaynie or a misspelling of Jane. Search results better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as {{R from given name}} or disambiguate with other people called "Jaynee". Since Jaynee LaVecchia is the only person called "Jaynee" with an article on en.wp, she stands as the primary topic. I don't think we should target to name lists of similar names as Jaynee is a uniquely English invention. Deryck C. 17:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Deryck. I think Germond is too low-profile to merit a hatnote, though would be worth a mention if there were a disambiguation page anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. {{R from given name}} ... unless we have other encyclopedic "Jaynee"s (spelled as such) on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:50, 9 March 2016 (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. The first policy stop to be called at when considering deletion is WP:RFD#HARMFUL. This states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." The last phrase is not currently applicable to Neelix redirects. However, the default for redirects is to keep and at least some element of harm should be shown for deletion. In this case neither of the deleters suggests any specific harm. This leaves us with keeping or dabifying. I am not seeing any convincing argument to dabify either here or in the previous discussion. OTOH I do find BDD's argument to keep both persuasive and policy compliant. Just Chilling (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Splitting discussion from batch-nomination Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#Neelix PTMs. In the previous discussions, the suggestions were:

• Keep as {{R from given name}} as Shenae Grimes is the only person with the name "Shenae" and an article on en.wp; or
• Disambiguate with Autosticha shenae and Dichomeris shenae.

As clerking admin I am neutral on this. Deryck C. 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence this person is known by a mononym. A Neelix-created redirect does not imply WP:RFD#K5 unless it can be shown separately; he mass-created thousands of these. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose creating any dablist or setindex, which would be almost entirely made up of partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep as {{R from given name}} ("used because Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name" in addition to mononyms). This was converted to a dab before Deryck relisted, but species are almost never referred to by the second part of their binomial names alone. I actually don't know of a single case. So they're a true partial-title match. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I favor Ivanvector reasoning. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD and my comments regarding the close: "From my understanding, species names are considered WP:PTM's and aren't disambiguated. You'll either see it as "Autosticha shena" or "A. shenae" but never simply "shenae" unless that happens to be the common name. A good example for precedent would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria." On the other hand, a given name is not a WP:PTM because people are commonly referred to by their given name only (ie: it would be correct to refer to her simply as "Shenae," the "Grimes" isn't necessary). For example this article refers to her as simply "Shenae" throughout the piece, title and first sentence aside. The person doesn't have to be mononymous for this to work; I think that's more of an article titling question. (And also, Ivan, people like myself view this as useful, so WP:RFD#K5 is implied here). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an editorial decision. She is identified by her full name in the title and early in the article. Had they not, it would not be readily apparent who they were referring to, but later in the article since she's already been identified and it's in an informal tone they just use her first name. Had this been an article about someone who is commonly known by the name "Shenae" (like, for example, P!nk [1] or Raffi [2]) then they would not have had to do that. As for K5, it's not implied that Neelix finds this redirect useful; you stated explicitly that you do though so it doesn't need to be implied. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K5 is if someone finds it useful. I do, so it meets K5. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not arguing that. I disagree that Neelix's creation of the redirect suggests that he finds it useful. We often use K5 as an argument that "someone created this, so it must be useful", and I'm saying that I don't think that should be an argument for redirects that Neelix created, because he created thousands of them probably with an automated tool and likely with no thought to what would be useful or not and clearly with no review at all. But I'm not saying that you don't find it useful, that would be silly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, even though I don't see the relevance since no one was arguing that in the first place. For the record, I don't like the "someone created this, so it must be useful" argument, no matter who the author is, as all redirects could be argued that they are useful since they were created. Then what are we doing here? Unless someone comes out and specifically says why they find it useful, I don't believe K5 to applicable, implied or otherwise. Even more off topic: Neelix didn't use an automated tool with his edits. He said it himself in his ANI and I believe him due to his editing patterns. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak dabify per Deryck. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Champion: Not sure what you mean by "per Deryck" - I've only repeated two mutually exclusive suggestions from previous discussion and didn't provide justification for either. Deryck C. 12:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Indexify/Dabify per the last RfD discussion -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as {{R from given name}}. I've become convinced by BDD and Tavix's arguments. It is incorrect to refer to either A. shenae or D. shenae simply as "shenae" per binomial nomenclature, but always correct to refer to a person (at least in the English-speaking world) by given name only. As such, if we turned this into a dab, it'd be giving away the primary topic status of an {{R from short name}} to a disambiguation with several {{R from incorrect name}}s, which is not a good idea. Deryck C. 13:48, 29 February 2016 (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) 20:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Heart Forth Alicia → Chucklefish Games  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Heart Forth, Alicia → Chucklefish Games  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per this edit, Chucklefish Games is no longer publishing Heart Forth, Alicia, and there's nothing else of note to redirect this to, so I don't see any reason to keep this redirect. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: added related redirect Heart Forth, Alicia to this discussion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2016 (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) 20:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Friends Day → Facebook  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should perhaps redirect to Friendship Day? JZCL 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - February 4th was declared "Friends Day" by Facebook, and utilized by multipled individuals. "Facebook's 'Friends Day' videos take you on trip down memory lane". USA TODAY. 4 February 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. The current target is unhelpful as the article on Facebook gives no information on a 'Friends Day.' Friendship Day, on the other hand, would be a closely related concept and an appropriate target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mattijs → Matthew (name)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Three redirects to Matthew (name). I'm unclear on how these redirects relate to the name. Nominated here:

• Mattijs
• Madz
• Madts

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - 'Mattijs' should go to Mattijs Visser. As well, 'Madz' should go to 'University of the Philippines Madrigal Singers' as the popular group has that as a nickname, which is a fact important enough to be in the lead section of the group's article. The last case is more ambiguous. 'Madts' seems to usually be used as a term referring to this, but we already have a page for 'MADT' to which the entries can have 'MADTs' / 'Madts' as a valid plural. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hopefully we can keep this from being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Fingers crossed:

Retarget Mattijs to Mattijs Visser, {{R from given name}}. to Matthijs. I agree with Drmies that we should "have one single article for names like Mattijs/Mathijs/Matthijs." Expanding Matthijs to include all three spellings seems reasonable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Madz to University of the Philippines Madrigal Singers, seems to be the primary usage.

Delete Madts, there is nothing on Wikipedia by that name, and nothing at "MADT" seems to go by "MADTs". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ? "Mattijs", "Mathijs", "Matthijs" etc. are all Dutch variants of English "Matthew". A redirect to Mattijs Visser looks good but only at first glance; you could redirect it to Mathijs Bouman as well, since this spelling, with or without h, with single or double t, is arbitrary. Perhaps a better target is Matthew (name) (or Mathew!), but that article needs to link to the name disambiguation pages.

  Mads, as in Mads (given name), is the Scandinavian form (as is Mats (name)) of Matthew and should redirect in the same way that Mat(t)(h)ijs does. I cannot make a similar case for Madts--but that was made way back when by, you guessed it, Neelix. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Other options to consider: We could update Matthijs to include all Dutch variants of Matthew (Mattheas?), and redirect there. Mathijs is currently red, but that could redirect to Matthijs as well, since it looks like there are four people with the name who have Wikipedia bios. The other option would be to redirect to Mr. Visser and add a hatnote to Matthijs. There could be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT claim for Mr. Visser since his spelling is "unique" on Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't really know much about primary stuff. That spelling, sure, that's something, but I think we shouldn't overemphasize spelling. I went to school with Bouman, and I never really knew if it was one T or two. If I had my way, we would have one single article for names like Mattijs/Mathijs/Matthijs, also because they're first names, and if that were subsumed under the larger article Matthew (given name) I would not have a problem with that ("Shoemaker" is not a translation of "Schoenmaker", or vice versa, in the way that "Mathijs" and "Matthew" are both translations of Matityahu). I like most parts of your suggestion, but I'm not a big fan of a first name redirecting to a biography, not even for Donald. Ha! I see where The Donald goes... Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drmies; -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2016 (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) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png → File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Due to bugzilla:28299, this redirect is ignored in favour of a redirect on Commons. The local redirect should be deleted as confusing. Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eligible for {{Db-redircom}} speedy deletion. Tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (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) 20:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland..jpg → File:Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland.jpg  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Due to bugzilla:28299, this redirect is ignored in favour of a redirect on Commons. The local redirect should be deleted as confusing. Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Eligible for {{Db-redircom}} speedy deletion. Tagged. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (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 as outlined by Tavix, delete the remainder. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think that these should have the same rationale as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_6#Redirects to Main Page as this is the English Wikipedia and those searching these terms would not be helped by them. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is confusing that 維基大典 and 維基百科 have different targets. Retarget all of them to articles about a Wikipedia language edition which uses the redirect name in the local language. If there are multiple such language editions, then disambiguate instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget any redirects that have an article written about that language's Wikipedia. For example വിക്കിപീഡിയ should retarget Malayalam Wikipedia. Retarget ambiguous redirects that could be used for multiple languages to List of Wikipedias, as that should solve the WP:XY problem. Delete the rest. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've gotten some agreement, here's what my proposed solution would look like, redirect by redirect:

• Delete Guiquipedia, Gueiquipedia, Güiquipedia, Oiquipedià, Oiquipedia, Vicipaedium, Vicipaedius, Vicipedium, Vicipedius, Vikipiedija, WikipÆdia, Wikipédien, Wîkîpediya, WİKİPEDİA, Википедиja, Википедию, விக்கிபீடியா, వికిపీడియా, ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ, วิกิพีเดีย, 維基大典.
• Retarget Vicipeid to Irish language Wikipedia, Vicipedia to Latin Wikipedia, Wéijībǎikē to Chinese Wikipedia, Вікіпедія to Ukrainian Wikipedia, Վիքիպեդիա to Armenian Wikipedia, ويكيبيديا to Arabic Wikipedia, വിക്കിപീഡിയ to Malayalam Wikipedia, ვიკიპედია to Georgian Wikipedia, 위키백과 and 위키피디아 to Korean Wikipedia, and ויקיפעדיע to Hebrew Wikipedia.
• Retarget Vikipedia, Википеди, Википедия, Википедија, ویکیپدیا, विकिपीडिया to List of Wikipedias. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not all of the R's are marked. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 維基大典 as there is no article for the Classical Chinese Wikipedia (zh-classical:維基大典:卷首). sst✈ 02:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update now they are all marked. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Stefan2 and Tavix. bd2412 T 13:44, 12 March 2016 (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 Vim. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• VIM → Vim (text editor)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should go to the dab at Vim, disregarding the hatnote at the target. The reason I brought it up here rather than correct it myself is because this R has a history and also the hatnote, thus I thought it may be controversial. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to dab page per nom ; though the software is an acronym, there are other capitalized uses. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page. As an acronym for the software ("vi improved", "vi" is never capitalized) it would be either "vim" or "vIm", depending on your level of unix zealotry. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dab. Differences in capitalisation always make poor disambiguation, but even if we wanted to point this redirect somewhere other than the dab page, Vim (text editor) seems like a poor candidate. The software is inconsistent at best when it comes to capitalisation. Its splash screen starts off with "VIM - Vi IMproved", but three lines down has "Vim is open source and freely distributable". The man page it is distributed with and the program's website consistently use "Vim", not to mention it's own logo. Most people I know who use it refer to it as "vim" without any capitalisation at all because that's the way the executable is capitalised (like most Unix programs).—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 02:12, 12 March 2016 (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.