Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 22

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Love of South and North → Love Impossible  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term does not occur in target article; no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 23:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now mentioned at target with source. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw now that it appears in target article, thanks. PamD 07:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GameCube Linux → GameCube  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gamecube Linux → GameCube  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's unclear what these redirects refer to. The word "Linux" is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just discovered Nintendo GameCube Linux, which was previously an article. At the present time, I'm not sure if it should be restored and the nominated redirects retargeted there (then the article probably should be sent to WP:AFD), or this nomination should stand as is. Either way, since Nintendo GameCube Linux has substantial edit history, I don't believe that it should be grouped with this nomination. (Pinging Czar since they redirected Nintendo GameCube Linux - diff.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My stance stands unless GameCube Linux is proven notable, which I doubt._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• GameCube Linux is not independently notable, based on the sourcing. Their first release had some coverage[1][2] but at best I would just include that as a sentence in the main GameCube article. This topic should really be covered along GameCube homebrew, which together might only warrant a single combined sentence in the main article. That said, this is a topic for which readers are likely to search and one that we can cover, even if only if brief, within the main article. Retain redirects. czar 10:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 keep List of towns and locations in Xenogears, delete Towns and Locations (Xenogears). Not a strong consensus either way on the list, but given the history leaning to keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of towns and locations in Xenogears → Xenogears  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Towns and Locations (Xenogears) → Xenogears  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Towns and Locations (Xenogears)" definitely isn't needed and the other one seems like it would be too oddly specific to be of any use. ALH (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: List of towns and locations in Xenogears is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yggdrasil (sand submarine) → Xenogears  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguation is too WP:INUNIVERSE and is therefore misleading. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination. ALH (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Yggdrasil is described at the target as a "sand submarine", so I don't see this as misleading. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems that this is the Spanish translation of the word "Mii", so delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not appearing in news sources. May also interfere with Mírame, unless you'd rather retarget that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's mentioned at Check Mii Out Channel as the Spanish-language name for the channel. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned there, so I'll just leave a comment and not a formal !vote to retarget. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wii Stream → Wii U  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nintendo Stream → Wii U  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Wii U can stream, and can have content streamed to its gamepad from the console, but I don't see anything on an actual topic called "Wii Stream" or "Nintendo Stream". --BDD (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Revisit if those particular products or services are highlighted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Nintendo Stream" was a rumored name for the Wii U prior to its announcement.--Alexandra IDV^talk 11:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nintendo feel → Wii U  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm guessing this was a speculated name for the Wii U, but the term isn't used in the article now, so it seems a very unlikely search term. BDD (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not mentioned in older articles as working title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wonder if this is related to the Good-Feel company (which makes games on Nintendo systems)?
• Delete - I'm not sure I want to know what this means. I hope it's not related to Tingle..._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 List of Wii U games#Applications. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wii U Panorama View → Wii U#Wii U Panorama View  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonexistent section, concept not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Unclear what this is referring to. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and delink from List of Wii U games#Applications which houses other apps for the Wii U. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Anguswoof. feminist (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) feminist (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:400 → Wikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Context in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lourdes_2#General_comments. The obvious problem is the 400 -> 300 redirect, which is kind of confusing. While it is true that there some of the stuff on the 300 page meets the 400 criterion, I do not think this justifies the redirect as-is: we don't go around creating Wikipedia:301, Wikipedia:302 etc. I would say either to create a standalone page for 400 or delete the redirect. The latter option seems workable per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:400, there are few uses and almost all of them in archived pages.

Pinging @Serial Number 54129 and Ivanvector: who answered to my comment at the RfA page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as of right now, as the current target is presently the place where users will find listed times that 400 Wikipedians supported something. If you want to make a new list for 400 (or 400+ or 425 or 438.7352) and then retarget this redirect, go for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this follows the format of WP:100, WP:200, etc. It's plausible someone might think there is a separate list for 400+, but the redirect takes people to the correct list for the times 400+ Wikipedians supported something. I don't buy the WP:301 argument, because it's not plausible for someone to assume there's a list of times 301 Wikipedians supported something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix, essentially. People might well expect a WP:400 redirect to exist based on the current numbering scheme but not a WP:314 or WP:267. It can be retargeted if and when a separate page is created but for now the 400+ stuff is on this page, so the redirect makes sense. Regards SoWhy 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Soft redirect seems helpful and reasonable enough. If the efitor base ever gets large enough (or we just leave off KOing the socks), we will be able to have WP:9000 and WP:9001 L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above keep arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 on the ones that are correctly capitalized, delete the rest. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nintendo Entertainment System → Nintendo Entertainment System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The nintendo revolution → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Dreamcast → Dreamcast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The PlayStation → PlayStation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The playstation 3 → PlayStation 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The PlayStation 4 → PlayStation 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The nintendo 64 → Nintendo 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The ps3 → PlayStation 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The PS3 → PlayStation 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Various redirects which start with "The" and the rest of the title is the name of the console (or codename for the console) which it redirects. I can't see these as likely as they are not names for the consoles themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep But why delete? Redirects are cheap and this is definitely the correct target. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I see no reason why these are necessary, we don't have to append "the" to literally every possible article title._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of my thoughts here. That, and if these are kept, we might as well allow redirects that start with the word "The" to be created for any unique subject on Wikipedia with a proper name. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find redirects very helpful and we already have plenty of "The" redirects: [3] [4] [5] [6] I could argue that the iPhone and the NES have had comparable amounts of influence. Wqwt (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added The ps3 and The PS3 to this discussion after the above comments. (Sending courtesy pings to Koavf and Zxcvbnm to ensure their stance applies to the newly nominated redirects as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. This wouldn't change my !vote but it is considerate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The keep - correct and harmless, per Koavf. The argument that the existence of one kind of redirect necessitates or encourages creation of other kinds of redirect is the tired. So what? They would still be correct and harmless. The Ivanvector (^{The Talk}/_{The Edits}) 18:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector: Bit of a silly note here: When I read your "The keep" comment, I read it in the voice of the Starfire character from Teen Titans. And, for some reason, I still am. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all No news articles that indicate the consoles are referred to as such like the Southern California talk for The 101. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lowercased ones, keep the upper/properly-cased ones. Colloquially people often refer to consoles and bands this way, and that's okay! Redirects are cheap! People find some of these useful, so okay. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimate Frisbee(sport) → Ultimate (sport)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term lacking space, and (sport) disambiguation is unnecessary; Ultimate Frisbee is unambiguous Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - malformed disambiguation. Were it simply unnecessary, we have a tag for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, lacking the space. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 A Christmas Story. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll shoot your eye out → Daisy Outdoor Products#Red Ryder BB Gun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to A Christmas Story: This particular quote only appears in the aforementioned film and not the product itself. Searchviews would more likely want to be targeted to the film. ToThAc (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Add R from quote or R from catchphrase. This is definitely tied to the film more so than the product. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, kid. Ho! Ho! Ho! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. I'm taking AngusWOOF's comment as a "preference for deletion first 'iff' not then..." statement. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Turpid → Moral turpitude  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from adjective to specific concept seems unhelpful. PamD 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If it can't be deleted as a WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it should go to Turpitude which is a disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 🙏🏼 → Emoji  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Redirecting this emoji to Emoji is unhelpful: it is like redirecting a specific letter to Letter (alphabet). See also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 9#🙏. Gorobay (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason to think that emoji would be linking to Emoji, no obviously better target available. See previous discussion as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of gestures. The emoji is ambiguous because it can represent a few different gestures, but the gestures it can represent are listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that target is that it also lists many gestures that this emoji does not represent, with no indication of which those are. Gorobay (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that as a problem. I believe a searcher would have at least a little bit of competence to figure out which gestures involve folded hands. It's certainly better than giving them nothing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Switching to delete per nom, this is too vague to be redirected anywhere useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I'm not averse to retargeting. We routinely redirect symbols of all sorts to articles on the general class; see ແ or ະ, both of which are letters of the Lao alphabet and redirects to that article, or ╢ and ╬, both of which are box-drawing characters and redirects to that article. Redlinking such a thing, except to encourage the creation of an article (which I suppose to be highly unlikely for your average emoji), is unhelpful: for the many users whose computers cannot display the emoji, the link helps them determine what the little box is. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that your examples’ targets explain what those characters are. Emoji doesn’t explain what ⟨🙏🏼⟩ is, because it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, list all emoji. Gorobay (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Gorobay, what would you think about retargeting it to List of Emojis? My objection is the idea of converting this into a redlink, because every character that doesn't have its own article (e.g. A) ought to redirect to a relevant article if it exists, and either the emoji article or the list provides a little basic information, at least to the point that the user who thinks "what is this little box" can learn that it's an emoji of some sort. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, Gorobay, I didn't notice that you didn't have a userpage. Re-pinging in case it didn't work the first time. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since List of Emojis is a content fork of Emoji with no additional information about this emoji, I have the same objection. Redirecting a letter to an article about its script, or a symbol to an article about its notation, is useful; but “emoji” is such a broad category, the user in your example wouldn’t really learn anything about their little box. Gorobay (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Proof? My work computer has an older version of Windows, and when I encounter a little box, I routinely come here to figure out what it is. If someone's created it as a redirect, I'll reach a useful page; if I get this one, for example, I know that the little box is an emoji. Please tell me why it's important to prevent me from learning that. Why can this method of searching be marginalised? Why do you reject WP:RFD#KEEP #5? Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with the previous RFD. Should not be retained unless it has a detailed unicode box like what happened with Japanese postal mark AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think an article needs to have a detailed Unicode box to be a valid target: it just needs to give information about the character. The target doesn’t even need to use the character in question; many emoji redirect targets don’t. Gorobay (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 2#Emoticon or Emoji? for a related discussion. Though I started that discussion, I honestly have no opinion on this one since I feel like this redirect should be WP:G4'ed, but it obviously doesn't qualify, so in this case, I have no opinion about what happens to this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the emoji represents a gesture which itself has an ambiguous meaning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reasonable target. Might mean praying in Canada but a greeting in Thailand. We don't need this. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 on Tom Chilton (game developer), delete the others. Mixed on whether to restore or keep Tom Chilton (game developer), but as long as it's around that conversation can be had. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom Chilton (game developer) → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tom Chilton (Game developer) → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tom "Kalgan" Chilton → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Should also be deleted per WP:REDLINK. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tom Chilton (game developer), Delete the others for weird syntax and non-notable nicknames. His article was converted to a redirect in 2016 and he is not independently notable from World of Warcraft developer. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is not notable, why redirect to an article where he isn't mentioned?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per the history of Tom Chilton (game developer). It doesn't make sense to WP:REDLINK a redirect to encourage article development when there is already an article developed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Czar: as the user who turned the article into a redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the first one: As per Tavix. Retarget the others to the restored article. 200.171.226.100 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain the first redirect, delete the others. Per my edit summary in 2016, Chilton isn't covered in reliable, secondary sources separate from the topic of World of Warcraft development. If someone has sources to prove his independent notability, feel free to show them, but it makes no sense to restore an article that only has interviews and primary/affiliated sources from the developer if the point of the biography is that he worked on World of Warcraft. If his role in that development is important, cover it in the game's development section summary style. In the meantime, the name is mentioned in the infobox, making the target plausible. czar 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Putting aside WP:OSE, the argument that the disambiguation makes this less useful than the recently redirected counterpart is convincing. Normally I'd be anxious about deleting a redirect with non-trivial history, especially one so old, but I do believe nearly all the historical content is now incorrect due to gameplay changes, so I can sleep well tonight. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mounts (World of Warcraft) → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Barely mentioned within the article itself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: World of warcraft mounts was retargeted to Races and factions of Warcraft ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll change my rationale to... because there are hundreds of MMO's with mounts and this is the only one disambiguated in this way. Unless we are going to make a "Mounts (Elder Scrolls Online)" or something for every game, we are agreeing that this is unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The main problem with this redirect (and with World of warcraft mounts) is that the proposed target isn't particularly helpful: it contains scattered mentions of the mounts the various races use, but there's no content as such. If the redirect is retargeted there, then it will be helpful if at least a sentence or two are added explaining what mounts are and how they work in the context of the game. If someone wants to do that, then they might want to reuse some of the content that was there at that title before it got turned into a redirect. Still, neither of the two redirects are popular: between themselves they receive only about one view per week. – Uanfala (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable to claim a term in the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Semantics aside, you're all in agreement! joap should be a redlink, JOAP should point to Oil analysis. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at target, not clear what the connection is. Plantdrew (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to JOAP without redirect, retarget to Oil analysis which discusses the acronym for Joint Oil Analysis Programme. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per AngusWOOF. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose moving the redirect. It's fine if you want to create JOAP → Oil analysis, but that should not be tied with the fate of this redirect. I'd lean more towards deletion anyway. Joint Oil Analysis Program is a redlink there, so someone thinks its notable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only thing that's relating Joap to condensation topics. But redlink is fine too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 delete as G5: creation by a blocked user in violation of their block. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• United Airlines Flight 1175 → United_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as providing no value to the reader, Redirect created following deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175. The redirect takes you to a table of accidents which are just links to the related articles. As 1175 doesnt have an article it provides no content for the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5, this has been repeatedly created by two sock masters. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• HosseinEbrahimi → Hossein Ebrahimi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was an autobiography with no indication of notability. Now an improbable redirect preserves the history of this guy's resume/social media profile. Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not use the combined form as a stage name brand and he isn't foremost a social media personality but an association football player. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Name Is Rajinikanth → Rajinikanth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think there is any attempt at making an article out of this unnotable book. Hence the redirect is best deleted. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lady Camilla → Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall never held the title of "Lady" like Diana, Princess of Wales did. Camilla had no royal or noble title before her marriage to the Prince of Wales. CookieMonster755✉ 05:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete such redirects spread misinformation through mirrors. Also #NotMyQueen Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A DAB with a see also for the Crown Prince's side woman come wife works for me. #NotMyQueen Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From this side of the pond, it seems a very plausible error. However, I'm guessing there are other people named Camilla, including fictional characters, that could actually be styled this way or also plausibly done so in error. That's something to consider. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although she chooses to go publicly by her husband's subordinate title because Princess of Wales is strongly associated with her predecessor, Camilla legally holds those titles which include Lady of the Isles, so the redirect is accurate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, she legally is the Princess of Wales. However, she did not become Lady Camilla, but instead became Camilla, Lady of the Isles. CookieMonster755✉ 15:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but as Lady of the Isles, her formal oral salutation would be "Lady Camilla". This applies as well to other titles she holds below the rank of Duchess. Of course all of those titles are subordinate to Duchess of Cornwall, and would be subordinate to Princess of Wales if she used that title, but they're not incorrect. Also, I'm not aware of any other British noblewomen named Camilla that this salutation could apply to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as disambiguation page I have great sympathy with CookieMonster755's point of view, this redirect is even more absurd than the one from Princess Camilla, as misguided as one from Dame Camilla would be, but there are other ladies (I hesitate to say other women) who really are called Lady Camilla and are notable. The first who comes to mind is Lady Camilla Bloch, and another is Lady Camilla Dempster. Even without any articles, a disambiguation page may be justified. We could then add a "See also" for "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, sometimes mistakenly referred to as Lady Camilla". Moonraker (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Moonraker. Well, that shut me up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: Per Moonraker. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have started an article on Lady Camilla Bloch. Moonraker (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that we should disambiguate here, but I'm not sure what exactly the page should include. Lady Camilla Dempster, previously known as Lady Camilla Godolphin Osborne, doesn't appear to be particularly notable, for example. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this should redirect to Lady Camilla Bloch with some kind of explanatory hatnote (or just a see also) to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall for the time being? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, what Moonraker said. Redlinks on a dab page isn't unheard of, or an entry such as "Lady Camilla Dempster (née Osborne), only daughter of John Osborne, 11th Duke of Leeds". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential Superpowers - France → Great power  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted. This redirect makes no sense and confuses readers, as the redirect makes it look like it will lead to an article discussing France as a potential superpower, but it actually leads to an article on great powers that has nothing to do with France other than that France happens to be one of several great powers (nothing special about France in this context). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This redirect makes no sense. CookieMonster755✉ 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete makes no sense and an unlikely search term. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It would be different if the country was listed in Potential superpowers but France isn't. And the dash would set some uncommon precedent of allowing for creation of "Potential Superpowers - country" redirects AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.