Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 13

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) 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A time loop → Time loop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a rather unnecessary redirect, with only the addition of an "A". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A Delete per nom AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:25, 14 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. Unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kshatriya Powar → Parmar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally created as a poorly-sourced caste-glorifying article -- was turned into a redirect because none of the sources mentioned this term. There are no mentions of this term outside of Wikipedia, its mirrors and some caste-glorification blogs / posts. utcursch | talk 13:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Powar probably needs some attention too: it currently redirects to Parmar, an article about a kshatriya caste; previously, it redirected to the surname article Pawar. – Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 13 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) 18:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of listcrufty lists → Wikipedia:Listcruft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect to internal/essay page Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This really did not need a redirect..._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'Useless redirect' being the understatement. –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and send to WP:DAFT. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 19 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) 18:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Underground New York → Mole people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect makes no sense. No clear target, as it is overly vague. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. On the other hand, New York Underground has some PTM's. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Had it been "New York Underground" then it could've been a disam to either the festivals or the subway however because it's different it makes it useless (For instance no one would search "Underground London" they'd search "London Underground"...), Delete as unfortunately being useless. –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can see people searching "New York Underground" and/or "The New York Underground" looking for various things, but this in particular doesn't seem actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was redirected by Graymornings in 2007, following a merge. Mole people supposedly live under New York. Makes perfect sense.--Auric talk 11:10, 18 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 move without redirect to WP:OVERWRITE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• COM:OVERWRITE → commons:C:Commons:Overwriting existing files  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have already converted this from a {{soft redirect}} (never appropriate for the mainspace) to a {{wikimedia commons redirect}}. I have also taken the liberty of deprecating the only use of this, which occured in 2013 (that may be why this redirect was created). As this really should not be in the mainspace, there are two viable options: deletion or a move to the projectspace e.g. WP:COM:OVERWRITE. @Malcolmxl5, EurekaLott, and Amory: pinging participants of Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#COM:OVERWRITE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at WT:RFD; while generally allowable, we don't need to encourage the COM pseudonamespace, particularly for unused redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not opposed to moving to WP:OVERWRITE ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:OVERWRITE as a compromise, It's useful overall but at the same time the COM: makes it unuseful (because we're not not Commons). –Davey2010^Talk 16:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to WP:OVERWRITE and suppress redirection per WP:PMRC#3. There seems to be enough history attached to this to warrant moving rather than deleting and recreating. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 20 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.