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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Adobe distiller → Adobe Distiller  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete the redirect page because it's redundant. RMAX86 ( talk) 23:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Technically, it is a redirect from miscapitalisation - are these all redundant then? Or is there a criterion by which some (most?) of these are not redundant? I'm not sure either way. GregorB ( talk) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as {{ r from alternative capitalization}}. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 05:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Godsy. Being redundant is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:04, 10 March 2017 (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. WJBscribe (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Opera basic topics → Opera  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Project-to-mainspace redirects are not useful. The redirect has been here since December 2005. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This redirect isn't being used. See /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Opera_basic_topics. It is safe to delete it without causing any dead links. The Transhumanist 06:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#WP:Basic topics where 33 similar redirects were nominated and kept. Note: I was the admin that closed that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm also happy with a retarget as suggested by Steel1943 below. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to List of opera topics. The consensus on such redirects titled "Wikipedia:TOPIC basic topics" seems to be targeting them to pages that are titled "Outline of TOPIC" ... and since Outline of opera targets List of opera topics, this seems to be the best choice. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  @ Thryduulf: I'm pinging you since per your comment, you may want to note the comment I just posted since it seems to fit a pattern. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per The Transhumanist. I'm not disputing the close of the other discussion, but it did not generate much discussion, so I don't think it's very helpful as precedent. -- BDD ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per my opinion in the previous discussion. My thoughts on the matter haven't changed. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't believe that this is really that helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 22:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Not useful or helpful. Being in projectspace, my initial instinct was that this would go to something about Opera (web browser). —  Train2104 ( t •  c) 14:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BDD. Perhaps the prior discussion didn't draw much attention partly due to the list of nominated redirects being collapsed in the manner they were. I probably wouldn't support deleting the ones created in 2001 and 2002 by the conversion script or Larry Sanger (from a quick spot check). However, the ones created in 2005, which seemingly lack the substantial history the older ones have, can go as far as I'm concerned. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 10:20, 29 March 2017 (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 Human penis size. -- BDD ( talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Small Penis Syndrome → Penis envy#Male penis envy  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The target doesn't mention either "small penis" or any "syndrome", so the redir is misleading. 81.96.84.137 ( talk) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Human penis size, which discusses small penises. One of the references (presently number 12), used several times, does contain "small penis syndrome" in the title, but the abstract suggests that it is not the formal name of an actual syndrome. Regardless, I don't think anyone searching for this will be surprised to land at the article about penis size even if it doesn't explicitly mention their search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to micropenis. I think that's a more precise target than human penis size. —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, they are very different: "small penis syndrome" is a complex (psychology), and micropenis is a physical condition. -- 217.140.96.140 ( talk) 11:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with the IP. I looked at the micropenis article before leaving my comment above, and it is not suitable as more than a see also for this redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The odd capitalization and the lack of a proper target make it seem like we should just get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ CoffeeWithMarkets: Why do you think this lacks a proper target, given the comments above from myself and the ip user? This capitalisation is not what we would use for an article title but we have thousands of redirects from title case search terms to sentence case article titles - what makes this one "odd"? Thryduulf ( talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep (with convert to set index as second choice) - WebMD refers it to anxiety over fears of penis size. So do other sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The encyclopedia distinguishes it from "micropenis". This book considers it a part of Body dysmorphic disorder, whose article doesn't mention "penis". I don't know what this book refers it to. George Ho ( talk) 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I created a Wiktionary definition of wikt:small penis syndrome. George Ho ( talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per Thryduulf, whose suggestion makes the most sense to me. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Oppose a retarget to micropenis, as this term is not synonymous with that per 217.140.96.140. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 17:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Human penis size, whose section #Male self-perception has the relevant scope for what I glean from George Ho's findings. I don't really see how the redirect could stay pointing to Penis envy, which is a about a rather niche psychoanalysis topic, and it doesn't seem to mention anything about size. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 15:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Important Events of 2005 → 2005  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The word "important" is subjective. Also, no other pages beginning with "Important Events" exist. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• weak keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 20:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No more affinity for "important" than any other similar adjectives, for example, "significant" (e.g. Significant Events of 2005); a redirect of this nature has no more affinity for this list of events by year than any other, making it costly. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 18:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Godsy. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:13, 17 March 2017 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Dej Buh Stesti → wiktionary:dej Bůh štěstí  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Zwolf. WP:RFOREIGN is applicable since there's no usage of this term in English. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:50, 8 March 2017 (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 to delete. That being said, there was no objection to GeoffreyT2000's suggestion, so feel free to carry that out. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 16:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• January 20, 2004 → 2004  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Exact date not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Restore text in revision 106537163, put <!-- All news items below this line -->{{Current events header|2004|01|20}} at the top and <!-- All news items above this line -->{{Current events footer}} at the bottom, move the page to Portal:Current events/2004 January 20, and remove the "January 20, 2004 (Tuesday)" section from Portal:Current events/January 2004 to match the format of other daily events pages. This is probably uncontroversial. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 05:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• N.b., there are two deaths on this day listed at January 20, but nothing else. -- BDD ( talk) 22:08, 22 February 2017 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Very bad trip → The Hangover  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Very Bad Trip 2 → The Hangover Part II  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I'm not sure about these two, so I'm bringing them here for discussion. Even though these words are in English, I am not sure if they should be deleted per WP:FORRED or not. So ... how could I be wondering whether or not these redirects qualify for WP:FORRED? Well, these titles were only used for their releases in France/French language. So, I'm not sure if that would mean that these redirect have affinity to the French language since from what I can find, these redirects are only used in conjunction with the French language. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Bad trip (i.e. a negative psychedelic experience) exists. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete both, since there is no mention of them in the targets and no need to mention foreign release titles. I thought of retargeting to bad trip, but the second one doesn't work for that. — Gorthian ( talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (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 restore article. The nominator appears correct in arguing that Bahrain doesn't fit the main list's inclusion criteria. The restoration is indeed done without prejudice to future action, such as AfD. -- BDD ( talk) 21:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• List of restaurant chains in Bahrain → List of restaurant chains#Bahrain  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Propose to delete redirect as it's target leads to a section that doesn't exist in target article nor is there any mention of it anywhere else. Ajf773 ( talk) 06:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Restore section and/or article without prejudice to AfD. This was previously an article, converted to a redirect by Unitedstatesian in 2009 with the edit summary "merge back to main article" but I can't find any evidence the merge was actually done. The small amount of content in the main article (the specific has always been more extensive) was removed from the main article with the apparently misleading edit summary "cleanup" by Funandtrvl in 2013. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • None of the list entries are actually unique to Bahrain. They are all global restaurant chains. This is potentially the limit of what merging could have been done. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Restore section, I apologize for deleting it, it must have been because it was red-linked and no reference. But I have found a "chain" in Bahrain, called Veranda, at this link, so that could be added once it's restored. Funandtrvl ( talk) 19:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The list criteria of List of restaurant chains stipulates all list entries must have a (blue linked) article. Veranda does not. There is no point restoring the section unless at least one list entry in the section is notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Restore per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 20:59, 8 March 2017 (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. Deryck C. 13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Downhill (film) (2014) → Downhill (2014 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The odd punctuation here makes this an unlikely search term. No incoming links. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Double disambiguation is not useful. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 09:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Downhill (upcoming film) → Downhill (2016 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not an upcoming film any more. There were two incoming article links that I've fixed; it's ready to be deleted. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Crystal has served its purpose. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:03, 15 March 2017 (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 deleted, G7. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Moana (2018 film) → Moana (2016 film)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is a bit of a faulty crystal ball. Moana was released in 2016, not 2018. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as creator: no incoming links, and implausible search term. St Anselm ( talk) 03:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks, StAnselm. I'll take care of it via G7. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:25, 8 March 2017 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Template:Gaelic handball by region → Template:Gaelic handball  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The template no longer has a "by region" section as all regional articles have been deleted. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:55, 8 March 2017 (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 American Health Care Act. There's been enough input where the result seems inevitable at this point. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Trumpcare → Political positions of Donald Trump#Health care  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Trump care → Political positions of Donald Trump#Health care  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Should this go to 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals instead? - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 00:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Support this idea. Someone should find the first reference in the news to "Trumpcare" and see what that describes.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Both should go to American Health Care Act. The administration has committed to passing it and its putting its full weight behind it. As such, it is being referred to as Tumpcare in multiple sources. For example, Battle erupts over 'TrumpCare', What is the difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare, and what happens next?, and Kaine attacks 'Trumpcare' on Twitter Casprings ( talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support this idea instead because I did not know the new proposal had an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to American Health Care Act [5] [6] [7] –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to the legislation article. A widely used term, and we have a more specific usage for which to point this. If the measure fails, and another piece of legislation comes about, then retarget back to the political views article. Further if, some future measure passes, that would be the target to use. -- 70.51.200.162 ( talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to American Health Care Act since this is the legislation to which the term refers, and we even mention it in the lede of that article. This is Paul ( talk) 11:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• No opinion from me, but there is also World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017. – Kaihsu ( talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to American Health Care Act. This legislation is being referred to as "Trumpcare." It should be redirected there. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to American Health Care Act. ~ Quacks Like a Duck ( talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to American Health Care Act AHC300 ( talk) 12:37, 14 March 2017 (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.