Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 4

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) 15:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 4TFD → For the Fallen Dreams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 4tfd → For the Fallen Dreams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The acronym most commonly associated with For the Fallen Dreams is FTFD as noted in the article and evidenced by a quick Google search. There's no sourced use of 4TFD to refer to the band. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP unless there is another use for these redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – There's no evidence that this is a term used by anyone. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an official name or acronym for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2019 (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) 17:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rangerboard → Power Rangers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In-universe concept not mentioned in the target article. This page was formerly an article for a month that was merged and redirected to its target in January 2006 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangerboard, but that content seems to no longer be at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fan club name apparently https://www.rangerboard.com . Doesn't seem to be a fictional concept in the show itself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (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) 17:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RangerTalk → Power Rangers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Rangertalk → Power Rangers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possible in-universe concept that is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fan club naming. This also messes up "ranger talk" which is what is what National Parks Service calls talks given by park rangers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 7 January 2019 (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) 17:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pets of Sham-Fu → Prest-O Change-O  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem to be an alternative name for the target’s subject. There seems to be some sort if "Sham-fu" concept regarding the target article’s subject, but not the phrase as defined in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete implies a list of pets that Sham-fu might have had. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (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) 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Bugs Bunny cartoons in alphabetical order → List of Bugs Bunny cartoons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such sorted list in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No such list at the target and is otherwise an unlikely search term. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2019 (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 Porky Pig. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all Folks! → Merrie Melodies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• That's all, folks → Merrie Melodies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• And that's all folks → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• That's all Folks → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• That's all folks → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These all should target the same article. Porky Pig, maybe? Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Porky Pig, which seems to contain the most detailed info about the phrase and its usage. Agree that at the very least all should have the same target. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Porky Pig - I was a little confused in the beginning seeing this phrase redirecting to two different articles and none of them to this character. While it was used for the closing of the shows, it is much more related to the character who spoke those words. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Porky Pig as his catchphrase and also explained as a closing statement for multiple programs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 7 January 2019 (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) 17:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looney Tunes logos → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list or section in the target article. The redirect was an article for a month prior to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT in 2006. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2019 (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) 17:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's Looney Tunes → Bugs 'n' Daffy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem like a alternative name for the target, and I’m not finding a good alternative target for this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2019 (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) 17:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bear (Looney Tunes) → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article or List of Looney Tunes characters. Inn addition, the subject of this redirect seems to be a different subject than the one at The Three Bears (Looney Tunes). Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2019 (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) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looney Tunes CDs → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There does not seem to be such a list or item in the target article. (The redirect is a {{R with history}} as it was an article for about 3 months in 2007 prior to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't really see a discography section for Looney Tunes albums put on CD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 7 January 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugs Bunny: Truth or Hare → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. The redirect was an article for less than two days before WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a mention on this in any related article, but if its worth anything, here is an explanation of what it is [1]. Also valid for the next redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (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) 16:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Daffy Duck: Tales from the Duckside → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daffy Duck: Tales from the Duckside → Looney Tunes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. The content at the article-namespace page was active for less than 2 days before being redirected. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (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) feminist (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• St. Louis Music, Inc. → LOUD Technologies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

proposing deletion, as there is no St. Louis Music article. synthfiend (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep company is mentioned in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep company is mentioned; see LOUD Technologies#More acquisitions and divestments. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Riot Girls (film) → 2018 in film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Loved (2018 film) → 2018 in film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These films aren't mentioned at the target. Given that 2018 is now over, I don't envision more additions being added to that list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as are not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete didn't get released in 2018. Riot Girls is by Jovanka Vuckovic, but Jovanka Vuckovic does not have an article. Not sure what Loved refers to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (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 Anonymous work. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unknown artist → Anonymity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Unknown Artist → Anonymous work  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have no opinion about where these two redirect should be redirected, other than they should target the same target. I’m unable to determine which target is more helpful for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Anonymous work as that article clearly states unknown creator or author in its lead section, which is more relevant to the context of artwork per WP:LEAST. ComplexRational (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a common designation by media players to refer to files that lack the tags for the artist field, I'll not that we have Unknown Album → Unknown, which should probably also be nominated. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Anonymous work as the article is specific to artwork, literature, and publications. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2019 (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. To deal with the edit history of Slogan:Human life begins at conception, I went with Stefan2's suggestion. Since there was a cut-and-paste move on 26 March 2004, I could merge all pre-move edits to Human life begins at conception, which continues to redirect to Beginning of human personhood. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Slogan:Human life begins at conception → Abortion debate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Slogan: Human life begins at conception → Abortion debate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Human life begins at conception, and the fact that "Slogan:" is an unlikely search term. Some discussion would be appropriate because this is quite old for a redirect. feminist (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page history shows that the content was moved somewhere else, and the date of the move, 26 March 2004, may well predate the introduction of the "move" feature. (I can't find when it was introduced, but before it was, the only way to move a page was cut-and-paste, and many people continued cut-and-paste moving after it was enabled.) The history continued here, the page kept on 2018 December 18. Unless the previous discussion gets overturned by a later discussion, we need to keep this redirect because it's part of the other page's history. See the wording at {{Copied}}, which applies here: The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. All this being said, if someone wants to preserve the history some other way, I'm fine with deletion, since obviously it's not a good title. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PS, content from the recently kept redirect got merged into the United States anti-abortion movement article, which is still in existence. The nominated redirect is part of that article's history, so we have to keep the 2004-and-earlier revisions somewhere, and history-merging them with the recently kept redirect would be a bad idea, as there's an overlap and we'd get some confusing diffs. The only acceptable choices, as far as I can see, are keeping this where it is, or moving it to some other title (e.g. Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Attribution history) without a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Please do not move this history to a subpage of a talk page. That was the way such tasks seemed to be done back in the early years of Wikipedia. But now, it confounds matters since it’s not actual talk page content. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Human life starts at conception without leaving a redirect, and retarget to Beginning of human personhood (to match result at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18#Human life begins at conception), and update any {{Copied}} templates after the move occurs, and/or add the templates if they do not exist on the proper talk page(s). This option will resolve the nominator’s concern since the nominated title will be deleted, and seemingly resolve the "keep" option above me since the edit history will be retained. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so the closing admin's clear — since my only big concern is retaining the history somewhere, I'm fine with this idea, since it keeps the history and gets rid of a badly titled redirect. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete revisions from 2004-03-26 and on (unimportant redirect edits) and merge the rest to Human life begins at conception (or tag Human life begins at conception with {{histmerge|Slogan:Human life begins at conception}}). This page seems to have continued under that title with no overlapping history, and if we merge the two redirects, then there are fewer places to check for the full history. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a related redirect to the nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The related redirect can in my opinion be deleted. Unlike the originally listed redirect, the related redirect doesn't contain any history which needs to be kept for attribution purposes. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (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 UTC offset#Time zones and time offsets. Note that there's a proposed merge for that page and the other suggested target. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Time zones and time offsets → Template:Time zones and time offsets  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of UTC time offsets which is almost certainly what someone using this search term will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to UTC offset#Time zones and time offsets, which most closely matches the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The target's been deleted, but since people are advocating retargeting, this shouldn't be speedy-deleted on "non-existent target" grounds before this discussion concludes. I've given the redirect indefinite full protection, hoping that the redirect-deleting bot has been programmed to ignore protected redirects (since they're often special cases). Please ping me when this discussion concludes, and I'll be happy to unprotect it. (I'll be happy to make any requested edits before then, and of course admins should feel free to edit through protection.) My rationale says **Any** good-faith unprotection request needs to be accepted, so you can also leave a note at WP:RFPP if I'm not around or you'd rather get someone else's input. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment Someone showed me a better way to ward off the bot (it's exclusion compliant, so {{nobots}} suffices), so I've removed protection. Please be careful not to remove {{nobots}} unless this redirect should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to UTC offset#Time zones and time offsets. feminist (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY, considering that Time zone and UTC offset (the target of Time offset, a redirect) are two separate articles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G8; Target was recently deleted. The redirect can be recreated with the suggested target with or without the current page's history. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:G8 does not apply to "plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to UTC offset#Time zones and time offsets. I think List of UTC time offsets is more useful, but UTC offset#Time zones and time offsets is more appropriate and helpfully links there anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 12 January 2019 (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 restore/move (w/o rdr) per Deryck C.. non-admin closure to avoid 4th (!) relisting (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2006Rev → Template:This date in recent years  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:ThisDateInRecentYears2007 → Template:This date in recent years  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are old, outdated redirects that no longer serve a purpose. 2006 and 2007 are no longer "recent years". -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tavix: Since these redirects are {{R with history}} redirects, I’m comsidering moving the edit histories of redirects to titles without the title issues referenced in the nomination. Do you have any concerns with this? Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the history needed for anything? It doesn't look significant to me, but I could be missing something. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewing the edit history, I really don’t think I have an opinion either way other than just acknowledging that the redirects have edit history. It may be a case of "restore and send to WP:TFD", but I’m not strong on that option either. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to template subspace. The years in the template names refer to the time at which the templates were revised, so it is irrelevant whether they're "recent" compared to today. It is normal for new versions of a template to be drafted on a separate page and then copied or moved to the live template later. These old drafts should be preserved in the subspace of the live template, e.g. Template:This date in recent years/2006Rev and Template:This date in recent years/2007. Deryck C. 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deryck Chan: Could you provide some examples of this precedence? If this is a precedence, I’m surprised that I’ve never run across it or remember running across it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: See e.g. these template subpages. Deryck C. 23:06, 10 December 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• City Gallery, Bangkok → National Gallery (Thailand)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading; the National Gallery is not referred to by this name. Paul_012 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bangkok City Gallery and Thailand National Gallery, though located in the same city, refer to two separate art galleries within the city. Once notable, the other art gallery can be recreated as an article. After all, redlinks encourage article creation. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2019 (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. Gosh, what a can of worms this one was. I'll clean it up. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Worms → Worms, Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of this redirect has been changed several times over the years with no actual discussion as to where it should point. I think the current target is the worst option. Worm or worm (disambiguation) would both make a lot more sense; I'm leaning towards the former. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No reason why the German town would be primary, since Worm is about an everyday, worldwide thing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: What course of action are you supporting? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worm. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the disambiguation - I don't know what people are looking for more frequently when opening "Worms" but directing everything to worm can be confusing if you didn't look for it. --mfb (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation per my draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Worm Clear primary topic per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate at this title. The singular does indeed have a clear primary topic, but it's not always easy to see to what an extent this extends to all the forms of a given word. The German city is well-known and so a reasonable contender as well: it also receives about 40% as many views as Worm. In the absence of any further considerations, it seems best to go for Shhhnotsoloud's draft dab page. There's no good reason to redirect to Worm (disambiguation) as in half of the relevant entries, "Worms" is a different lexeme from "Worm" (and not merely its plural), and most of the entries on that page are anyway irrelevant for a user searching specifically for "Worms". – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree that that's also a good idea, we can then remove the plural entries from Worm (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2019 (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. This is without prejudice against recreation should a given convention be mentioned somewhere. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These conventions are not listed at the target. They're also not found at List of furry conventions, where I would expect them to be. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because they lead to information relevant to the titles in question, if only via external wikilink. All are real events that happened; some still run (e.g. Furpocalypse, mentioned in passing on the New York Post, regularly attracts ~1,400 attendees); most are plausible potential articles for the sake of WP:RFD#KEEP #7. Most of them were at furry convention at the time they were redirected (which I did in an attempt to avoid such pages being frequently created and deleted, which was the style of the time); the list was later moved to its own page, and subsequently trimmed of entries not deemed referenced by reliable sources (furry conventions of the era were notably wary of attracting media, thanks to coverage in Vanity Fair, CSI, et. al.). It's true that they are not currently in the list, but if coverage was found, they'd belong there until big enough for their own articles, and would still have an entry after. I guess the question is whether it's better to redirect to a page with generic information, or not redirect at all. WikiFur has a more comprehensive list, and a related timeline is linked from the shorter list here, so readers might plausibly access useful information on the conventions via these redirects, even though Wikipedia does not cover them itself. It's also not clear to me that there is a harm to these redirects (any more than for most of those previously listed). GreenReaper (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An additional source that AngusWOOF brought up in a previous related discussion is the book by Fred Patten: Furry Fandom Conventions: 1989–2015, which is already included as a "Works cited" source on the list of furry conventions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as unmentioned, and per WP:REDLINK for those with independent notability. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2019 (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.