Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2018.

Media racism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Media racism

Mainstream deceptions

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) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The subjects of these redirects are not exclusive to the target. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:10, 31 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.

Media propaganda

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 Propaganda through media/withdraw. Not sure how I missed that potential target. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The phrase is not exclusive to its target in the least, but there seems to not be a more proper retargeting option for this redirect either. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:09, 31 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.

Pop-cultural imperialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Pop-cultural imperialism

Racial Stereotypes (e learning)

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) 21:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Unclear what "(e learning)" is meant to refer to. (This redirect was an article for less than a day.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:59, 31 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.

"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10#"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype

Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no such information at the target article. (However, this redirect is a {{ R with history}}.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:48, 31 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.

Media lies

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) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This phrase is not exclusive to its target, and in general, the phrase is not exclusive to really anything. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:46, 31 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.

Negative stereotypes of other cultures

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 Stereotype. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The redirect does not answer the question "Other than what cultures?" and is thus vague. Also, Negative stereotype is a redirect to Stereotype, meaning that the title of this redirect basically assumes that all "other" stereotypes are "ethnic", which is not true in all contexts. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:43, 31 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.

Vincennes incident

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The target is specific to an incident with USS Vincennes (CG-49). This redirect could ambiguously refer to any incident that has happened in Vincennes or and subject on Vincennes (disambiguation). A related properly precise redirect, USS Vincennes Incident, exists and also targets the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources (such as here and here; many others) disagree with you; this is a synonym for the target unlike the spurious example you give. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:09, 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.

Weezer (2009 album)

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) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Target is not a self-titled album. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:00, 31 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.

Softies and Twelve Other Songs About Partying

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) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. This is possibly a failed WP:CRYSTAL name for the subject of this article, and possibly was never a working title. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:59, 31 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.

Kathleen and the Other Three

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) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This redirect was an article that was redirected to its current target as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen and the Other Three. However, in the article’s current state, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. It seems that a song from the subject of this redirect, ”Kathleen", is mentioned a few times, but not the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:56, 31 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 Other Lockerbie

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) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Mentioned in the references section as a title of a reference, but not mentioned in the content of the article. For this reason, the connection between the redirect and the subject of the article is unclear, and there is a possibility that readers who look up this term are looking for the referenced source and not the target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:54, 31 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.

Life And Other Times

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) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:51, 31 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.

War Zone(Crusade)

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) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:RDAB and since its equivalent with a proper space, War Zone (Crusade), exists. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:41, 31 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.

Gravediggaz (other rap group)

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, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The disambiguator “(other rap group)” is vague due to the use of the word “other”. It assumes that all readers know that the subject currently at Gravediggaz is the other from this other. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:25, 31 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.

Stati Uniti d'America

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) 21:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:FORRED. Target does not have affinity with the Italian language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete insufficient affinity of Italian language with the United States. Catrìona ( talk) 23:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are thousands of minority languages in the United States, we don't need redirects to the country name from any except the very biggest handful (at most) and Languages of the United States ranks Italian only 14th by the number of people speaking it at home. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think I lean on the side of considering Italian as having sufficient affinity with the USA to justify a redirect. Deryck C. 19:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an involved relisting to close the log page for the 19th
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This 10-year-old redirect is exactly the sort of thing described in "Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 11:19, 2 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.

Spicy meatball

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. ​ ​This was originally listed at 18 December 2018, but two sysops edit-conflicted with one another in different closes. Before it could be remedied, further contributions were made. See further explanation here and here.

As such, I am closing this as No consensus and will note the retarget as a bold redirect. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Spicy meatball could refer to the actual food spicy meatballs, I don't see how Alka-Seltzer is known as this. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 00:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. It's a reference to their famous 1969 ad campaign. OTOH, I doubt anyone is typing "Spicy meatball" into Wikipedia expecting it to have an encyclopedia entry. -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Now I see how Spicy meatball relates to Alka-Seltzer, but still, the term could refer to other things, like the actual food called spicy meatballs. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 02:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest deletion and creation of That's a spicy meatball as a replacement redirect to Alka-Seltzer (a renaming if you prefer) (and possibly also a redirect to that from That's a spicy meat-a-ball) to be more appropriately specific. And since the ad campaign is very well known, the page could even one day earn it's own content. Resident Evil even has an achievement named after it :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak retarget to meatball which actually describes a few spicy meatball dishes, or delete per Fred Gandt. The commercial is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of this common term, and in fact appears to be nothing more than a WP:PTM. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but make hatnote on target page with link to meatball. Given there's not actually a specific dish called "spicy meatball", it's far more likely someone would be searching for the commercial or the product, but it's plausible enough a search term for meatball to merit a hatnote. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reason to target to anything. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Meatball. It's a phrase for which people might conceivably search, but we should not facilitate corporate marketing when there is an article that is closer to the literal meaning if the redirect. bd2412 T 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW, I don't think "retarget at meatball" is an appropriate resolution. That would be as if someone created a redirect at Australian for beer and then an RFD retargeted it to Beer — it completely misses the point of having that redirect exist at all. Keep the Easter egg, or delete it, or rename it to That's a spicy meatball per Fred Gandt — but don't retarget it to an unhelpful article about literal meatballs! -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 02:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's strongly associated with the ad, although other sources say the the title was "Mama Mia" or "Groom's First Meal" [2]. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Meatball per bd2412. That article does list some spicy meatballs, along with another one at List of meatball dishes which is linked there. The {{ R from quote}} to Alka-Seltzer would be That's a spicy meatball (and/or variants to preserve the eye dialect). -- Tavix ( talk) 02:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Weak retarget to List of meatball dishes. The phrase is ambiguous and could refer to multiple subjects not known specifically as "spicy meatball" themselves. In addition, the adjective "spicy" is relative, considering that what is spicy to one person may not be spicy to another, so thus "retargeting to Meatball" could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I believe there is no suitable target because there is no article or section specifically about spicy meatballs. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 21:05, 1 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.

Family Game Night

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. Thank you MarkZusab for creating Family Game Night (disambiguation) on 28 December 2018. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Based on page views, it's a WP:NOPRIMARY situation between Family Game Night (TV series) and Hasbro Family Game Night. Therefore, Family Game Night and Family Game Night (TV series) should be swapped, with the TV series article residing at the base title. Then a hatnote to Hasbro Family Game Night can be added to the TV series article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I’m confused: The first part of this nomination is claiming WP:NOPRIMARY, but then the next sentence claims that there is a primary topic. It’s contradicting itself. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Either way, my vote is for convert Family Game Night into a disambiguation page (I agree with WP:NOPRIMARY for this), then tag the page with {{ dabconcept}} since this phrase seems exclusive to the Hasbro concept. (Seems that there is a series or franchise-type article that should be made in regards to the Hasbro concept.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • dabify convert to dab paage - per the nom -- 67.70.34.69 ( talk) 10:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus for disambiguation but I'm not clear what entries are proposed for it, so relisting to close a very old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 18:45, 31 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.

Family Game

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. -- BDD ( talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 16#Family game, Family game is now a disambiguation page. I propose retargetting this capitalised title to that disambiguation page. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:42, 31 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.

American settlers

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 convert to set index. Thanks to wbm1058 for doing it. -- BDD ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

retarget to a more appropriate target. Some options

-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems that the most appropriate article for the redirect is already chosen. I say to leave this redirect the way it is. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Can we create a topic index? It seems that the term "American settlers" isn't actually ambiguous as is, but it is a dictionary definition that can refer to multiple encyclopedia articles that refer to related (but separate) topics. Deryck C. 10:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Settlement of the Americas which seems to be the most encompassing target. "Colonization" seem too narrow to me, settling also occurred post-colonization. If a dab is to be created, also consider American diaspora (Americans settling elsewhere) and The Oregon Trail: American Settler (especially if the dab is created at American settler). -- Tavix ( talk) 01:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several suggestions but no consensus so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 18:13, 31 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.

Choppy scene

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) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Choppy scene doesn't really have anything to do with the article for film director, and it probably isn't even a topic that has encyclopedic value. The only thing that links to it is a disambiguation page, which might also be unnecessary. I propose that the redirect be deleted. Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 17:50, 31 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.

Shannon Stone

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) 06:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The only thing that links here is the page it links to. Not needed. Beasting123 ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Sheesh! What's happened to RfD when redirects like this are placed in jeopardy? If I were a god I'd say in my deepest, most intimidating voice, Don't make me come down there! Why the correction? It was created as a Stub article in 2011. Paine Ellsworth, ed.   put'r there  22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    (The stub that was written in 2011 was redirected the same day, and it seems the redirect remained until 2 December 2018 when another stub was written, only to be redirected again in the diff I referenced above.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:38, 31 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.

Baruch Hashem

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) 06:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This redirect should be deleted as Baruch Hashem is not an alternate phrase for Besiyata Dishmaya. They mean completely different things. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Although indeed the translations are different, Baruch HaShem (correct capitalization per WP:HEBREW) means "Praise be to God" and BeSiyata DiShmaya (correct capitalization strikes again) means "With the help of Heaven", but the usage is the same: both are used at the beginning of letters written by religious Jews to express their thankfulness to God. Debresser ( talk) 19:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I hear these expressions used often in my community, and in my personal experience, they are not at all used in the same way. “Baruch Hashem” is used after remarking about a good event. Example: “I thought I was going to miss the bus, but I managed to catch it, Baruch HaShem.” Besiyata Dishmaya on the the other hand, is used when expressing hope that something will happen. Example: “We will begin this project now, and hopefully have it done by next week, Besiyata Dishmaya.” Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 23:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
That is another usage of Baruch HaShem. The one I mentioned is the well-known writing of 'B"H' at the beginning of a letter. Not the same thing. Debresser ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't doubt what you are saying, but I personally have never seen B"H used in that way. Regardless, however, they still mean different things and aren't the same thing just because they can both be used in a similar situation. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle ( talk) 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 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.

Template:R with possibilties

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. It may make sense to discuss some of these individually, regarding how likely a particular error is, though I'd recommend a cooling-off period first. There is certainly not consensus to remove typos in template-namespace redirects wholesale. -- BDD ( talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not a good idea to support typographical errors in the maintenance template space. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 00:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. If people took the idea of creating these seriously, we'd have tens of thousands of redirects no one needs. Having these around also makes maintenance more difficult.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Template:R with possibilties, which I created nearly four years ago because either I or another editor actually had used that spelling to call the template, can be considered a common misspelling. I've created many redirects in several namespaces for that reason, and they can all be considered to be common misspellings. These redirects certainly do no harm as cited by those who've used WP:COSTLY, and, in my humble opinion, they serve an important purpose for those readers who search on Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed.   put'r there  00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 22:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY, it takes just as much time to fix such a typo as it does to create such a redirect, keeping these would simply encourage the creation of similar redirects. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but consider {{ R possible}} if you really want some more useful alias for that AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 4 and 5, with no comment on the others. "Seperate" is always a plausible mistake for "separate" (and {{ Separate article}} is a working redirect to the "Seperate" title's target), and I've seen "reasearch" far more times than I can count. Someone demonstrated that my creation of {{ relfist}} was problematic, since bots look for the existence of {{ reflist}} and add it when neither it nor other reference-placement code is present; however, these templates aren't being added by bots, and I can't envision a situation in which they're significantly problematic. Template-dating bots already know how to convert redirects to current names; I've often seen {{ cn}} or {{ fact}} get bot-converted to {{ citation needed}}, for example. Nyttend ( talk) 04:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 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.

Redirects without mention to Gallatin County, Montana

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 Sappington, Montana and Trident, Montana, delete the rest. The keep on those two is might as well be on the No Consensus side of things, but all the delete !votes specifically call out "not mentioned" and, as Steel1943 points out, those two are indeed now (trivially) mentioned. I'll be focusing them to the specific section. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

None of these places are mentioned at the target article. Most, if not all, of these should be presumed notable and should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of proper articles on these places. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 18:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Someone just added a lot of information at Gallatin County, Montana#Communities, which substantially overlaps with this list, so the original rationale ("None of these places are mentioned at the target article") is invalid. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think any reasonable person would call 2 out of 23 a "substantial overlap". My rationale hinges on WP:REDLINK: these places should have their own articles instead of being redirected to a place that doesn't leave the searcher with much, if any, information on this place. A redlink, on the other hand, shows a reader that an article on the term is wanted. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • How sure are you that all of these should have their own articles? Keep in mind that nearly every community in the US was bot-created with US census data, so if these don't exist, when we definitely know that we don't have population data or other typical sources. "Turquoise Lake", for example, appears to be one of six fishing spots along a hiking trail. I doubt that a separate article on that lake is warranted, much less actively wanted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
        • WP:GEOLAND. If not an article, there should be some kind of information on these places. If, for example, the hiking trail you mention had an article, describing the lakes along this trail would be satisfactory and a redirect there would be fine. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Sappington, Montana and Trident, Montana as now mentioned ("Weak keep" per WP:REDLINK.) Delete the rest since they are still not mentioned. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Redirects are useless if their target does not mention them. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:44, 2 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.

Retail politics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10#Retail politics

Cashina Krabs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Cashina Krabs

List of nontheists

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. After two relistings failed to bring any new opinions, I think it's safe to say that everyone who cares has opined and that there is no consensus among them. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Nontheism is not exclusive to Atheism, meaning that the scope as defined by these redirects is broader than the scope of their target articles. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. I appreciate the logic of the nomination rationale, but readers looking for these lists may start by looking for the redirect name, which is in effect a redirect from an alternative name, even if that goes against the actual definition of nontheism. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ...Considering that Atheism and Nontheism are two separate articles, these redirects also have an WP:XY issue unless the scope of the target pages are updated. That, and per the definition we have for Nontheism, not all nontheists are atheists, which leaves all of these redirects telling our readers the opposite (all nontheists are atheists), which is wrong. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I don't feel very strongly about the other related redirect discussions on this page, but here I think there is really a serious argument against deletion. It's fine to say that nontheism is not atheism, which is true, but saying it does not make all notable persons obey what Wikipedia tells them to do. There are notable persons who self-describe in all manner of idiosyncratic ways, and our policies regarding fidelity to source material should take precedence over redirection guidelines. It's not like page subjects obediently segregate themselves according to our definitions, and we have to go by what the sources about those persons say. I don't feel too strongly about the other nominations, about "atheists, agnostics, and nontheists", because those lengthy redirect titles are not all that useful as search terms. But it's entirely realistic to expect some readers to come to Wikipedia, and search using the term "nontheism" or "nontheist", and it's better to redirect them to the atheism pages than to present them with an empty search result. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Your comment sounds more like rationale to nominate Nontheism or Atheism for WP:AFD (not really sure which one), but then the result being to either merge or redirect the nominated page to the other. The reason I say that is that if the lines of distinguishing the subjects really are that blurry, they should be at/in the same article. However, at the present time, they are not, which leaves these redirects in a state that is similar to redirecting Number to 10 (an example of a higher-level topic redirecting to a lower-level topic, which is not the case in this hypothetical scenario and doesn’t happen that often in practice since the redirect in this hypothetical case would essentially be eligible for deletion per WP:REDLINK since there would be huge potential for an article to cover the subject “ Number”.) Steel1943 ( talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
          • No matter what it sounds like, I guess I'm coming from a place of wanting to make things accessible to our readers, as opposed to following a rigid set of "rules". I think some of the ideas below about disambiguation and lists of lists sound very promising, although I don't think they can be decided entirely here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
            • I share a similar goal of wanting to ensure that our readers are able to locate what they are looking for when they request it. Quite frankly, it’s been my primary goal during the almost half-a-decade I’ve been actively editing. It's just in this case (as it stands), it’s somewhat misleading and could confuse some due to the target not containing all the information that the redirects are basically telling they will find when they look up these terms. (IMO regarding the "rule" comment: In most cases, I’ve found that "guidelines" [and sometimes "essays"] are created based on what the community has found to be consensus on a regular basis, but again, that’s just my opinion since I’ve also found sometimes that a guideline or essay doesn’t apply to all cases, and then I WP:IAR for the better of our readers if I believe that my action will have next-to-no chance of being challenged.) But yes, the list idea below is something I think will help readers find what they are looking for since it will give them options of what they are intending to locate when they look up the ambiguous terms (but specifically only the first two redirects in this nomination.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is covered in multiple places. List of agnostics would be another valid list of nonthesists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Convert Lists of nontheists into a list of lists, retarget List of nontheists there, and delete the rest. I knew this wasn't a candidate for disambiugating, but a list of lists is feasible, especially considering there are more lists than I had envisioned. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:08, 31 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.

List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

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. After two reslistings have brought no new opinions to the table, I don't see another round as likely to bring any either unfortunately. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Considering that agnostics and nontheists are not part of the target lists/subjects (the target lists are exclusive to atheists), these redirects are misleading in the spirit of WP:XY. In addition, the scope of the redirects is much broader than the scope of their target pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. Unless we are going to create separate lists for the agnostics and nontheists, readers looking for these topics need to be able to find the most relevant list. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ...Considering that all nontheists are not atheists and agnostics are not atheists, these lists aren’t relevant to the redirects at all. In fact, since there are no agnostics on the targets lists, these redirects lead to a WP:SURPRISE and mislead our readers into thinking the lists contain these three subjects, which they do not. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I do acknowledge that any reader searching for "atheists, agnostics, and...." will get "atheists" showing up in the search box first, so that makes these redirects somewhat less than useful to readers. I don't feel strongly here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per WP:XY. These are different topics and treated differently since List of agnostics exists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:08, 31 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.

Henan dialect

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. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle ( talk) 16:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

错误的(Wrong)重定向(redirection)。请(Please_)参见(refer to_)中文维基百科的 河南话(Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia.)。中(the Central)原( Plains)官话(Mandarin)是(is)一个(a)广泛分布于中国中北部地区的汉语方言(Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China)，(, )并非(not)河南特有(unique to Henan)，而且(and)河南(Henan)也分布着(also distributes )一些(some )非( non-)中原官话( Central Plains Mandarin_)的汉语方言( Chinese dialects)例如( such as )晋语。( Jin Chinese.) Ngguls ( talk) 09:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For anyone who overlooks the ruby characters or can't easily read them: the inscription says Wrong redirection. Please refer to Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia. The Central Plains Mandarin is a Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China, not unique to Henan, and Henan also distributes some non-Central Plains Mandarin Chinese dialects such as Jin Chinese. Nyttend ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • 简而言之，河南话和中原官话并非同一个概念，尽管他们有重叠。我认为，河南话应该介绍的是河南境内的汉语方言，而不是重定向到中原官话。这个页面上的河北话同理。 Ngguls ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Translation of above comment: In simple terms, Henan dialect and Central Plains Mandarin are not the same concept, although they overlap. I think that what Henan dialect should discuss is Chinese dialects in Henan, rather than redirecting to Central Plains Mandarin. The same applies to Hebei dialect on this page. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Inaccurate scope. feminist ( talk) 04:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite the nominator's statement, zh:河南話 shows that "Henan dialect" (a reasonably direct translation of "河南話") refers to a geographically defined dialect subgroup of Central Plains Mandarin. The fact that some areas of Henan speak Jin Chinese rather than Central Plains Mandarin does not stop the Central Plains dialect from being primary topic. Deryck C. 11:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 16:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:07, 31 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.

Wheelbench

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) 21:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

No subject in any article regarding this redirect title. Not notable and therefor should be deleted. The redirect was originally its own article and there was discussion to merge it with wheelchair. Since that time, the information and subsection of the wheelchair article has been removed due to lack of notability. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This redirect's history is part of the history of the wheelchair article; for legal reasons, this must not be deleted. Moving it to some random title, e.g. Talk:Wheelchair/Wheelbench, can be appropriate, although of course that shouldn't be done unless there's consensus that wheelbench is an inappropriate redirect. Nyttend ( talk) 04:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • How about moving the history to Wheelchair (chair)? Sure, it’s redundant, but it’s not inaccurate. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I would be opposed to that becuase the history would no longer relate to the title. The history of the redirect is about wheelbenches, not wheelchairs. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I just did some digging and I agree with the "delete" side at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelbench. The sourcing is simply not there to add anything verifiable to Wheelchair. A merge was quickly undone; with no content from the merge remaining at the target, this can be safely deleted without violating WP:MAD. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:06, 31 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.

Buraq Express

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) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the article. Like other entries in Template:Named passenger trains of Pakistan, a redlink would be better than a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:20, 31 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.

Polystar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Polystar

El Tigre (comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#El Tigre (comics)

Frank Adonis

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. Anarchyte ( talk | work) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no evidence that Frank and Joe Adonis were related. WWGB ( talk) 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as misleading per nom. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 03:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redirect. There is no evidence of connection between the two. One was a gangster/convicted criminal. The other was an actor. Both deserve Wikipedia articles in their own right. Rangasyd ( talk) 07:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've seen some sketchy evidence to support the theory they were related, but even then per WP:REDLINK I couldn't really support this redirect. Nohomersryan ( talk) 09:26, 31 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_31&oldid=1138582328"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2018.

Media racism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Media racism

Mainstream deceptions

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) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The subjects of these redirects are not exclusive to the target. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:10, 31 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.

Media propaganda

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 Propaganda through media/withdraw. Not sure how I missed that potential target. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The phrase is not exclusive to its target in the least, but there seems to not be a more proper retargeting option for this redirect either. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:09, 31 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.

Pop-cultural imperialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Pop-cultural imperialism

Racial Stereotypes (e learning)

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) 21:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Unclear what "(e learning)" is meant to refer to. (This redirect was an article for less than a day.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:59, 31 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.

"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10#"White" redirects to Ethnic stereotype

Stereotypes of Italians and Italian Americans

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no such information at the target article. (However, this redirect is a {{ R with history}}.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:48, 31 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.

Media lies

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) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This phrase is not exclusive to its target, and in general, the phrase is not exclusive to really anything. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:46, 31 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.

Negative stereotypes of other cultures

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 Stereotype. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The redirect does not answer the question "Other than what cultures?" and is thus vague. Also, Negative stereotype is a redirect to Stereotype, meaning that the title of this redirect basically assumes that all "other" stereotypes are "ethnic", which is not true in all contexts. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:43, 31 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.

Vincennes incident

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The target is specific to an incident with USS Vincennes (CG-49). This redirect could ambiguously refer to any incident that has happened in Vincennes or and subject on Vincennes (disambiguation). A related properly precise redirect, USS Vincennes Incident, exists and also targets the same target. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources (such as here and here; many others) disagree with you; this is a synonym for the target unlike the spurious example you give. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 02:09, 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.

Weezer (2009 album)

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) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Target is not a self-titled album. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:00, 31 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.

Softies and Twelve Other Songs About Partying

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) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. This is possibly a failed WP:CRYSTAL name for the subject of this article, and possibly was never a working title. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:59, 31 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.

Kathleen and the Other Three

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) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This redirect was an article that was redirected to its current target as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen and the Other Three. However, in the article’s current state, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. It seems that a song from the subject of this redirect, ”Kathleen", is mentioned a few times, but not the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:56, 31 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 Other Lockerbie

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) 21:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Mentioned in the references section as a title of a reference, but not mentioned in the content of the article. For this reason, the connection between the redirect and the subject of the article is unclear, and there is a possibility that readers who look up this term are looking for the referenced source and not the target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:54, 31 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.

Life And Other Times

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) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:51, 31 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.

War Zone(Crusade)

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) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:RDAB and since its equivalent with a proper space, War Zone (Crusade), exists. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:41, 31 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.

Gravediggaz (other rap group)

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, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The disambiguator “(other rap group)” is vague due to the use of the word “other”. It assumes that all readers know that the subject currently at Gravediggaz is the other from this other. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:25, 31 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.

Stati Uniti d'America

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) 21:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:FORRED. Target does not have affinity with the Italian language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete insufficient affinity of Italian language with the United States. Catrìona ( talk) 23:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There are thousands of minority languages in the United States, we don't need redirects to the country name from any except the very biggest handful (at most) and Languages of the United States ranks Italian only 14th by the number of people speaking it at home. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think I lean on the side of considering Italian as having sufficient affinity with the USA to justify a redirect. Deryck C. 19:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an involved relisting to close the log page for the 19th
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This 10-year-old redirect is exactly the sort of thing described in "Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 11:19, 2 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.

Spicy meatball

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. ​ ​This was originally listed at 18 December 2018, but two sysops edit-conflicted with one another in different closes. Before it could be remedied, further contributions were made. See further explanation here and here.

As such, I am closing this as No consensus and will note the retarget as a bold redirect. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Spicy meatball could refer to the actual food spicy meatballs, I don't see how Alka-Seltzer is known as this. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 00:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. It's a reference to their famous 1969 ad campaign. OTOH, I doubt anyone is typing "Spicy meatball" into Wikipedia expecting it to have an encyclopedia entry. -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Now I see how Spicy meatball relates to Alka-Seltzer, but still, the term could refer to other things, like the actual food called spicy meatballs. Colgatepony234 ( talk) 02:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Suggest deletion and creation of That's a spicy meatball as a replacement redirect to Alka-Seltzer (a renaming if you prefer) (and possibly also a redirect to that from That's a spicy meat-a-ball) to be more appropriately specific. And since the ad campaign is very well known, the page could even one day earn it's own content. Resident Evil even has an achievement named after it :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak retarget to meatball which actually describes a few spicy meatball dishes, or delete per Fred Gandt. The commercial is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of this common term, and in fact appears to be nothing more than a WP:PTM. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 06:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but make hatnote on target page with link to meatball. Given there's not actually a specific dish called "spicy meatball", it's far more likely someone would be searching for the commercial or the product, but it's plausible enough a search term for meatball to merit a hatnote. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reason to target to anything. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Meatball. It's a phrase for which people might conceivably search, but we should not facilitate corporate marketing when there is an article that is closer to the literal meaning if the redirect. bd2412 T 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW, I don't think "retarget at meatball" is an appropriate resolution. That would be as if someone created a redirect at Australian for beer and then an RFD retargeted it to Beer — it completely misses the point of having that redirect exist at all. Keep the Easter egg, or delete it, or rename it to That's a spicy meatball per Fred Gandt — but don't retarget it to an unhelpful article about literal meatballs! -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 02:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it's strongly associated with the ad, although other sources say the the title was "Mama Mia" or "Groom's First Meal" [2]. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Meatball per bd2412. That article does list some spicy meatballs, along with another one at List of meatball dishes which is linked there. The {{ R from quote}} to Alka-Seltzer would be That's a spicy meatball (and/or variants to preserve the eye dialect). -- Tavix ( talk) 02:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Weak retarget to List of meatball dishes. The phrase is ambiguous and could refer to multiple subjects not known specifically as "spicy meatball" themselves. In addition, the adjective "spicy" is relative, considering that what is spicy to one person may not be spicy to another, so thus "retargeting to Meatball" could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I believe there is no suitable target because there is no article or section specifically about spicy meatballs. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 21:05, 1 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.

Family Game Night

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. Thank you MarkZusab for creating Family Game Night (disambiguation) on 28 December 2018. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Based on page views, it's a WP:NOPRIMARY situation between Family Game Night (TV series) and Hasbro Family Game Night. Therefore, Family Game Night and Family Game Night (TV series) should be swapped, with the TV series article residing at the base title. Then a hatnote to Hasbro Family Game Night can be added to the TV series article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I’m confused: The first part of this nomination is claiming WP:NOPRIMARY, but then the next sentence claims that there is a primary topic. It’s contradicting itself. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Either way, my vote is for convert Family Game Night into a disambiguation page (I agree with WP:NOPRIMARY for this), then tag the page with {{ dabconcept}} since this phrase seems exclusive to the Hasbro concept. (Seems that there is a series or franchise-type article that should be made in regards to the Hasbro concept.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 21:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • dabify convert to dab paage - per the nom -- 67.70.34.69 ( talk) 10:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clear consensus for disambiguation but I'm not clear what entries are proposed for it, so relisting to close a very old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 18:45, 31 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.

Family Game

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. -- BDD ( talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 16#Family game, Family game is now a disambiguation page. I propose retargetting this capitalised title to that disambiguation page. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:42, 31 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.

American settlers

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 convert to set index. Thanks to wbm1058 for doing it. -- BDD ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

retarget to a more appropriate target. Some options

-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems that the most appropriate article for the redirect is already chosen. I say to leave this redirect the way it is. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Can we create a topic index? It seems that the term "American settlers" isn't actually ambiguous as is, but it is a dictionary definition that can refer to multiple encyclopedia articles that refer to related (but separate) topics. Deryck C. 10:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Settlement of the Americas which seems to be the most encompassing target. "Colonization" seem too narrow to me, settling also occurred post-colonization. If a dab is to be created, also consider American diaspora (Americans settling elsewhere) and The Oregon Trail: American Settler (especially if the dab is created at American settler). -- Tavix ( talk) 01:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several suggestions but no consensus so far
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 18:13, 31 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.

Choppy scene

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) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Choppy scene doesn't really have anything to do with the article for film director, and it probably isn't even a topic that has encyclopedic value. The only thing that links to it is a disambiguation page, which might also be unnecessary. I propose that the redirect be deleted. Secundus Zephyrus ( talk) 17:50, 31 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.

Shannon Stone

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) 06:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The only thing that links here is the page it links to. Not needed. Beasting123 ( talk) 22:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Sheesh! What's happened to RfD when redirects like this are placed in jeopardy? If I were a god I'd say in my deepest, most intimidating voice, Don't make me come down there! Why the correction? It was created as a Stub article in 2011. Paine Ellsworth, ed.   put'r there  22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    (The stub that was written in 2011 was redirected the same day, and it seems the redirect remained until 2 December 2018 when another stub was written, only to be redirected again in the diff I referenced above.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:38, 31 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.

Baruch Hashem

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) 06:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This redirect should be deleted as Baruch Hashem is not an alternate phrase for Besiyata Dishmaya. They mean completely different things. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 17:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Although indeed the translations are different, Baruch HaShem (correct capitalization per WP:HEBREW) means "Praise be to God" and BeSiyata DiShmaya (correct capitalization strikes again) means "With the help of Heaven", but the usage is the same: both are used at the beginning of letters written by religious Jews to express their thankfulness to God. Debresser ( talk) 19:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I hear these expressions used often in my community, and in my personal experience, they are not at all used in the same way. “Baruch Hashem” is used after remarking about a good event. Example: “I thought I was going to miss the bus, but I managed to catch it, Baruch HaShem.” Besiyata Dishmaya on the the other hand, is used when expressing hope that something will happen. Example: “We will begin this project now, and hopefully have it done by next week, Besiyata Dishmaya.” Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 23:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC) reply
That is another usage of Baruch HaShem. The one I mentioned is the well-known writing of 'B"H' at the beginning of a letter. Not the same thing. Debresser ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't doubt what you are saying, but I personally have never seen B"H used in that way. Regardless, however, they still mean different things and aren't the same thing just because they can both be used in a similar situation. Puzzledvegetable ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle ( talk) 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 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.

Template:R with possibilties

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. It may make sense to discuss some of these individually, regarding how likely a particular error is, though I'd recommend a cooling-off period first. There is certainly not consensus to remove typos in template-namespace redirects wholesale. -- BDD ( talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not a good idea to support typographical errors in the maintenance template space. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 00:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. If people took the idea of creating these seriously, we'd have tens of thousands of redirects no one needs. Having these around also makes maintenance more difficult.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Template:R with possibilties, which I created nearly four years ago because either I or another editor actually had used that spelling to call the template, can be considered a common misspelling. I've created many redirects in several namespaces for that reason, and they can all be considered to be common misspellings. These redirects certainly do no harm as cited by those who've used WP:COSTLY, and, in my humble opinion, they serve an important purpose for those readers who search on Wikipedia. Paine Ellsworth, ed.   put'r there  00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 22:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY, it takes just as much time to fix such a typo as it does to create such a redirect, keeping these would simply encourage the creation of similar redirects. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete but consider {{ R possible}} if you really want some more useful alias for that AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 4 and 5, with no comment on the others. "Seperate" is always a plausible mistake for "separate" (and {{ Separate article}} is a working redirect to the "Seperate" title's target), and I've seen "reasearch" far more times than I can count. Someone demonstrated that my creation of {{ relfist}} was problematic, since bots look for the existence of {{ reflist}} and add it when neither it nor other reference-placement code is present; however, these templates aren't being added by bots, and I can't envision a situation in which they're significantly problematic. Template-dating bots already know how to convert redirects to current names; I've often seen {{ cn}} or {{ fact}} get bot-converted to {{ citation needed}}, for example. Nyttend ( talk) 04:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 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.

Redirects without mention to Gallatin County, Montana

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 Sappington, Montana and Trident, Montana, delete the rest. The keep on those two is might as well be on the No Consensus side of things, but all the delete !votes specifically call out "not mentioned" and, as Steel1943 points out, those two are indeed now (trivially) mentioned. I'll be focusing them to the specific section. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

None of these places are mentioned at the target article. Most, if not all, of these should be presumed notable and should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of proper articles on these places. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 18:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Someone just added a lot of information at Gallatin County, Montana#Communities, which substantially overlaps with this list, so the original rationale ("None of these places are mentioned at the target article") is invalid. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think any reasonable person would call 2 out of 23 a "substantial overlap". My rationale hinges on WP:REDLINK: these places should have their own articles instead of being redirected to a place that doesn't leave the searcher with much, if any, information on this place. A redlink, on the other hand, shows a reader that an article on the term is wanted. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • How sure are you that all of these should have their own articles? Keep in mind that nearly every community in the US was bot-created with US census data, so if these don't exist, when we definitely know that we don't have population data or other typical sources. "Turquoise Lake", for example, appears to be one of six fishing spots along a hiking trail. I doubt that a separate article on that lake is warranted, much less actively wanted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
        • WP:GEOLAND. If not an article, there should be some kind of information on these places. If, for example, the hiking trail you mention had an article, describing the lakes along this trail would be satisfactory and a redirect there would be fine. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Sappington, Montana and Trident, Montana as now mentioned ("Weak keep" per WP:REDLINK.) Delete the rest since they are still not mentioned. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Redirects are useless if their target does not mention them. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:44, 2 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.

Retail politics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 10#Retail politics

Cashina Krabs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Cashina Krabs

List of nontheists

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. After two relistings failed to bring any new opinions, I think it's safe to say that everyone who cares has opined and that there is no consensus among them. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Nontheism is not exclusive to Atheism, meaning that the scope as defined by these redirects is broader than the scope of their target articles. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. I appreciate the logic of the nomination rationale, but readers looking for these lists may start by looking for the redirect name, which is in effect a redirect from an alternative name, even if that goes against the actual definition of nontheism. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ...Considering that Atheism and Nontheism are two separate articles, these redirects also have an WP:XY issue unless the scope of the target pages are updated. That, and per the definition we have for Nontheism, not all nontheists are atheists, which leaves all of these redirects telling our readers the opposite (all nontheists are atheists), which is wrong. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I don't feel very strongly about the other related redirect discussions on this page, but here I think there is really a serious argument against deletion. It's fine to say that nontheism is not atheism, which is true, but saying it does not make all notable persons obey what Wikipedia tells them to do. There are notable persons who self-describe in all manner of idiosyncratic ways, and our policies regarding fidelity to source material should take precedence over redirection guidelines. It's not like page subjects obediently segregate themselves according to our definitions, and we have to go by what the sources about those persons say. I don't feel too strongly about the other nominations, about "atheists, agnostics, and nontheists", because those lengthy redirect titles are not all that useful as search terms. But it's entirely realistic to expect some readers to come to Wikipedia, and search using the term "nontheism" or "nontheist", and it's better to redirect them to the atheism pages than to present them with an empty search result. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Your comment sounds more like rationale to nominate Nontheism or Atheism for WP:AFD (not really sure which one), but then the result being to either merge or redirect the nominated page to the other. The reason I say that is that if the lines of distinguishing the subjects really are that blurry, they should be at/in the same article. However, at the present time, they are not, which leaves these redirects in a state that is similar to redirecting Number to 10 (an example of a higher-level topic redirecting to a lower-level topic, which is not the case in this hypothetical scenario and doesn’t happen that often in practice since the redirect in this hypothetical case would essentially be eligible for deletion per WP:REDLINK since there would be huge potential for an article to cover the subject “ Number”.) Steel1943 ( talk) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
          • No matter what it sounds like, I guess I'm coming from a place of wanting to make things accessible to our readers, as opposed to following a rigid set of "rules". I think some of the ideas below about disambiguation and lists of lists sound very promising, although I don't think they can be decided entirely here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
            • I share a similar goal of wanting to ensure that our readers are able to locate what they are looking for when they request it. Quite frankly, it’s been my primary goal during the almost half-a-decade I’ve been actively editing. It's just in this case (as it stands), it’s somewhat misleading and could confuse some due to the target not containing all the information that the redirects are basically telling they will find when they look up these terms. (IMO regarding the "rule" comment: In most cases, I’ve found that "guidelines" [and sometimes "essays"] are created based on what the community has found to be consensus on a regular basis, but again, that’s just my opinion since I’ve also found sometimes that a guideline or essay doesn’t apply to all cases, and then I WP:IAR for the better of our readers if I believe that my action will have next-to-no chance of being challenged.) But yes, the list idea below is something I think will help readers find what they are looking for since it will give them options of what they are intending to locate when they look up the ambiguous terms (but specifically only the first two redirects in this nomination.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is covered in multiple places. List of agnostics would be another valid list of nonthesists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Convert Lists of nontheists into a list of lists, retarget List of nontheists there, and delete the rest. I knew this wasn't a candidate for disambiugating, but a list of lists is feasible, especially considering there are more lists than I had envisioned. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:08, 31 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.

List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

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. After two reslistings have brought no new opinions to the table, I don't see another round as likely to bring any either unfortunately. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Considering that agnostics and nontheists are not part of the target lists/subjects (the target lists are exclusive to atheists), these redirects are misleading in the spirit of WP:XY. In addition, the scope of the redirects is much broader than the scope of their target pages. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. Unless we are going to create separate lists for the agnostics and nontheists, readers looking for these topics need to be able to find the most relevant list. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • ...Considering that all nontheists are not atheists and agnostics are not atheists, these lists aren’t relevant to the redirects at all. In fact, since there are no agnostics on the targets lists, these redirects lead to a WP:SURPRISE and mislead our readers into thinking the lists contain these three subjects, which they do not. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I do acknowledge that any reader searching for "atheists, agnostics, and...." will get "atheists" showing up in the search box first, so that makes these redirects somewhat less than useful to readers. I don't feel strongly here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per WP:XY. These are different topics and treated differently since List of agnostics exists. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:08, 31 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.

Henan dialect

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. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle ( talk) 16:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

错误的(Wrong)重定向(redirection)。请(Please_)参见(refer to_)中文维基百科的 河南话(Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia.)。中(the Central)原( Plains)官话(Mandarin)是(is)一个(a)广泛分布于中国中北部地区的汉语方言(Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China)，(, )并非(not)河南特有(unique to Henan)，而且(and)河南(Henan)也分布着(also distributes )一些(some )非( non-)中原官话( Central Plains Mandarin_)的汉语方言( Chinese dialects)例如( such as )晋语。( Jin Chinese.) Ngguls ( talk) 09:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter ( pingó mió) 07:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For anyone who overlooks the ruby characters or can't easily read them: the inscription says Wrong redirection. Please refer to Henan dialect on Chinese Wikipedia. The Central Plains Mandarin is a Chinese dialect widely distributed in north central China, not unique to Henan, and Henan also distributes some non-Central Plains Mandarin Chinese dialects such as Jin Chinese. Nyttend ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • 简而言之，河南话和中原官话并非同一个概念，尽管他们有重叠。我认为，河南话应该介绍的是河南境内的汉语方言，而不是重定向到中原官话。这个页面上的河北话同理。 Ngguls ( talk) 05:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Translation of above comment: In simple terms, Henan dialect and Central Plains Mandarin are not the same concept, although they overlap. I think that what Henan dialect should discuss is Chinese dialects in Henan, rather than redirecting to Central Plains Mandarin. The same applies to Hebei dialect on this page. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Inaccurate scope. feminist ( talk) 04:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Despite the nominator's statement, zh:河南話 shows that "Henan dialect" (a reasonably direct translation of "河南話") refers to a geographically defined dialect subgroup of Central Plains Mandarin. The fact that some areas of Henan speak Jin Chinese rather than Central Plains Mandarin does not stop the Central Plains dialect from being primary topic. Deryck C. 11:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 16:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:07, 31 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.

Wheelbench

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) 21:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

No subject in any article regarding this redirect title. Not notable and therefor should be deleted. The redirect was originally its own article and there was discussion to merge it with wheelchair. Since that time, the information and subsection of the wheelchair article has been removed due to lack of notability. Steve Lux, Jr. ( talk) 17:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This redirect's history is part of the history of the wheelchair article; for legal reasons, this must not be deleted. Moving it to some random title, e.g. Talk:Wheelchair/Wheelbench, can be appropriate, although of course that shouldn't be done unless there's consensus that wheelbench is an inappropriate redirect. Nyttend ( talk) 04:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • How about moving the history to Wheelchair (chair)? Sure, it’s redundant, but it’s not inaccurate. Steel1943 ( talk) 08:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I would be opposed to that becuase the history would no longer relate to the title. The history of the redirect is about wheelbenches, not wheelchairs. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I just did some digging and I agree with the "delete" side at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelbench. The sourcing is simply not there to add anything verifiable to Wheelchair. A merge was quickly undone; with no content from the merge remaining at the target, this can be safely deleted without violating WP:MAD. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:06, 31 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.

Buraq Express

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) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the article. Like other entries in Template:Named passenger trains of Pakistan, a redlink would be better than a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:20, 31 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.

Polystar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#Polystar

El Tigre (comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 7#El Tigre (comics)

Frank Adonis

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. Anarchyte ( talk | work) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no evidence that Frank and Joe Adonis were related. WWGB ( talk) 01:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as misleading per nom. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 03:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redirect. There is no evidence of connection between the two. One was a gangster/convicted criminal. The other was an actor. Both deserve Wikipedia articles in their own right. Rangasyd ( talk) 07:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've seen some sketchy evidence to support the theory they were related, but even then per WP:REDLINK I couldn't really support this redirect. Nohomersryan ( talk) 09:26, 31 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_31&oldid=1138582328"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE