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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- BDD ( talk) 15:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Greenland Treaty → Withdrawal of Greenland from the European Communities#Greenland Treaty  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is a redirect for discussion; I do not propose deletion. I searched this after looking at this page from Greenland's tourism bureau that referenced a World War II Greenland Treaty with the United States.

Would there a primary topic between the two Greenland Treaties? The European Communities one is primary by default right now since there isn't an article on the earlier one, though I assume it would be notable. Unless/until the other treaty gets an article, what's the best place to hatnote to? There's discussion at Denmark–United States relations#Greenland, Henrik Kauffmann, and History of Greenland#World War II.

Note the history at this title, so if we do end up disambiguating, I suggest we move it to a title like Greenland Treaty (1984) or Greenland Treaty (1985). BDD ( talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Since there's no interest and I'm not totally sure what to do myself, I'll withdraw this and leave notes on the respective talk pages. -- BDD ( talk) 15:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Burl's Creek Event Grounds. -- BDD ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Big Sky Music Festival → Ontario  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, and I would anticipate that if a music festival is not notable enough for an article, it's not important enough to be mentioned in an article about the state that hosts it (and if it is notable enough for an article, we should just have an article for it rather than a redirect _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• It's mentioned in List of music festivals in Canada and List of country music festivals, and the former gives some context. From the name, I expected this to be in Montana. -- BDD ( talk) 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Burl's Creek Event Grounds as the venue for that annual Canadian festival, however, there is a Big Sky Classic Music Festival in Big Sky, Montana, that could be a hatnote. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This seems reasonable to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Boldly redirected. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Lrrg → Lego Rock Raiders (video game)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Recent redirect with no incoming links so unlikely to be useful as a {{ r for convenience}}. Lrrg on google returns "Living Room Rock God" which is unrelated to the current topic and not an article so may also be confusing as well. Wug· a·po·des​ 20:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename to LRRG and retarget to Land reform in ScotlandDelete where there is a Land Reform Review Group (LRRG). This is about the only notable use in news articles. There is also some protein called LrrG found in Streptococcus agalactiae but it is not mentioned there. Also, Little Rock Reservoir GPS (LRRG), but that too does not have an article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) updated AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Changing to delete. There's no point in having Lrrg anymore as LRRG will now absorb it in search. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Move and retarget to AngusWOOF. Possibly disambiguate if Little Rock Reservoir GPS gets an article in the future. Geolodus ( talk) 17:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I am striking my !vote as neither of the subjects mentioned by AngusWOOF are mentioned in any article. Now neutral. Geolodus ( talk) 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget but do not rename per AngusWOOF, just because renaming redirects is kind of pointless. If LRRG is also a worthwhile redirect, create it. It occurred to me this could be a typo for Lincoln Regional Airport (Maine) (FAA code LRG) but that's far-fetched. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Ivanvector, I've created the LRRG and Land Reform Review Group redirects. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Good move IMO. Delete as the redirect will now obscure searches for the two newly created redirects and has no other logical target. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 11:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Morpeth Harriers F.C. → Morpeth Town A.F.C.  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The destination page is for Morpeth Town founded in 1909. The Inbound links are from Morpeth Harriers entries from football competitions and matches of the 19th century and very early 1900s before this founding. They don't seem to be related and the link is somewhat confusing if you happen to try and follow it. QuicoGaliana ( talk) 14:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete not the same club. Number 5 7 15:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. -- BDD ( talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Morpeth, Northumberland mentions a Morpeth Harriers that compete in athletics. Perhaps their football club is long defunct. Strange to have a category for their players but no article. -- BDD ( talk) 15:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clearly not the same club, and the presence of the redirect is arguably presenting false information to readers. As noted above, it seems odd that we have a category for a club which doesn't seem notable enough to have an article.......... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- BDD ( talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Tarık Biberovic → Tarik Biberovic  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

User Tigraan moved this page to its proper title and requested speedy deletion under criterion WP:G6. It was deleted by RHaworth. I happened to notice the deletion as I was following the Wiki Facts Fixer ANI thread, and undid the deletion as the redirect is a {{ R from move}}, and I also tagged it {{ R to ASCII-only}} (the first "i" is U+0131 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I). After thinking about it a bit, I think both RHaworth and I were wrong, and this should be deleted per CSD R3: the page is not old enough to warrant keeping as a page move redirect, and the Unicode letter appears to be simply incorrect. But since it's been through the ringer a bit already, seems best to put it here for discussion and a conclusive result. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 12:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't get it. This seems to be his actual name, and is the one used for his Turkish Wikipedia article. The Unicode seems to match the Turkish dotless I. I don't remember offhand if we use the dotless I in article titles, but it's certainly acceptable for redirects. What's the problem? -- BDD ( talk) 14:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

That seems to have been done by the same user who used that character here, who is now banned, so I wouldn't take that as evidence of correctness. Tigraan's edit summary when they moved the page ("it's neither in Gaj's Latin alphabet nor in the reference") suggests that the character is not valid, but I also don't know if Gaj's Latin alphabet is authoritative. If it is a common name, then no objection to keeping it of course. I think that's not the case. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You mean Wiki Facts fixer? They edited the Turkish article, but didn't create it, and it was created with the dotless I. It seems the player might not be ethnically Turkish (most sources have him as Bosnian), but if he's playing in a Turkish league and this is a correct Turkish rendering of his name, this is at least a plausible error. The link from his Turkish article is broken, but his official Fenerbahçe page uses the dotless I too. -- BDD ( talk) 15:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn per discussion with BDD above. Plausible error, or perhaps not an error at all. I'm not sure if {{ R from diacritic}} applies here. I'm going to leave for someone else to close, my name is in the logs for this page enough. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Template:Lighthouses. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:Lighthouse → Template:WikiProject Lighthouses  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Template:Lighthouses would be the most sensible option... Jokulhlaup ( talk) 08:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Good idea. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. – Darkwind ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:KnotsProject → Template:WikiProject Knots  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CHEAP and since there is probably literally nothing else this redirect's title could refer to. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Steel1943. -- BDD ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. – Darkwind ( talk) 07:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:IndianapolisColtsProject → Template:WikiProject Indianapolis Colts  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CHEAP and since there is probably literally nothing else this redirect's title could refer to. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Steel1943. -- BDD ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:GastTalk → Template:WikiProject Gastropods  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Unused, not useful. We don't need a plethora of non-standard shortcuts to Wikiproject banners. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:EUROMICRO → Template:WikiProject European Microstates  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:Cryptography → Template:WikiProject Cryptography  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• No complaints here as the author. I assume the convention being violated didn't exist eleven years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 17:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:Compsci → Template:WikiProject Computer science  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I searched and can't find anything using this. DavidDelaune ( talk) 14:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:Climbing → Template:WikiProject Climbing  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis ( talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:Auto → Template:WikiProject Automobiles  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Auto may refer to many things and may cause potential errors too. Magioladitis ( talk) 11:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm surprised it still exists as such now, given the multitude of other possible uses for "Auto" as the name of a template. A redirect to the WikiProject Automobiles banner would not seem be the best use of it, and I doubt anyone is going to be trying to get to that project's banner from this redirect. -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete since "auto" is such a common word of sorts relating to executable code/templates that I could see this redirect being misused. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete or disambiguate. I am ambivalent toward most of the template redirects that Magioladitis has nominated recently, but this one is definitely misleading with its current target and deserves to either become a disambiguation or go entirely. Geolodus ( talk) 05:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Doctor B. → List of Tekken characters  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is apparently an alternate name for the character Dr. Bosconovitch, but it's not used in the article and is vague, so I believe a redlink would be better. — Xezbeth ( talk) 06:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Doctor B is a redlink, this should be too. -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Doctor Octogonapus → Doctor Octopus  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Dr. Octogonapus → Doctor Octopus  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

This is a spoof character from a YouTube series that has no mention on Wikipedia. — Xezbeth ( talk) 06:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hulk Hogan 2020 presidential campaign → Hulk Hogan#Endorsements and business ventures  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This would appear to be a joke/hoax. No mention in the article (although apparently Hulk Hogan announced his candidacy for the 2000 election as a hoax). The top internet search result for me is this joke Facebook page. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

So as to distinguish from all the other joke 2020 presidential campaigns that happened to get serious coverage (e.g. Mike Gravel)? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think it's useful for those seeking information on Hogan's campaign to find none, and this is more quickly achieved by directing them to the absence of such in the place it might go (if real) than leading them nowhere at all, which would certainly not confirm his bid but less clearly deny it. In a perfect world, the target would contain an explicit denial. But I feel silence speaking volumes is the next clearest way to impart all we (currently) need to know about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Beyond the 2000 announcement, some people might reasonably wonder based on his 2015 offer to be Trump's running mate, their similar skin tones and his position as the next-most famous living American WWE Hall of Famer (after Steve Austin, arguably). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. With no information on this, the redirect does nothing but confuse or disappoint those looking for such information. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep – plausible search term, and it's pointing to the right page. Whether to include information on this in the article is a content question that can be discussed on the article talk page. But bottom line: reader could plausibly be looking for this information, and we should inform the reader (through silence or otherwise) that it's not real. – Leviv ich 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and as a confusing redirect. If the situation changes, the redirect can be reinstated without prejudice. - Eureka Lott 18:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - if it were a notable hoax then we would have coverage on it. We have none, so it is harmfully confusing and may also constitute a BLP violation. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 12:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

To be clear, it's no sort of hoax. Nor mudslinging, subtle or otherwise. Just a rumoured venture some people may be interested to know hasn't led to anything; those who hadn't heard or never wondered won't be affected by the presence or absence of this query aid at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there is no content at the redirect target related to this title. Because of that, it is decidedly confusing and unhelpful. -- Sable232 ( talk) 02:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was move Common Sense (pamphlet) over the redirect. There is a strong consensus for this outcome, and the article adequately meets the criteria for a primary topic. -- BDD ( talk) 19:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Common Sense → Common sense  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There is continuing inconclusive discussion about the redirect targt of Common Sense (title case, unqualified). Should it redirect to:

1. Common sense (lower case), the everyday meaning philosophical meaning?
2. Common Sense (pamphlet) (1776, by Thomas Paine)?
3. Common sense (disambiguation), the disambiguation page including both articles?

1. Robert McClenon ( talk) 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Question, after having watched this forum a bit. What happens if this procedure gets less feedback that the original RFC on the article talkpage which came to a very clear conclusion? Isn't there a risk that this whole dispute is WP:FORUMSHOP and trying to create a less clear situation out of a clear one?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Andrew, which RfC are you referring to? I found Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet)#Main meaning of common sense?, which was just you and one other editor (who has also weighed in here), and Talk:Common Sense (pamphlet)#Move?, but that's from 2010. I would be concerned if there were a large-scale RfC and there was a quick contrary outcome here, but that doesn't seem to be the case. -- BDD ( talk) 20:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I meant the 2010 article discussion. But note that what happened after that clear consensus is that the opposite actions were snuck through until very recently. This of course affects things like the reading history of both articles. I see no evidence that people interested in the articles ever came up with new arguments. I don't see how we avoid feeling uncomfortable with this.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• It should be targeted to the disambiguation page, IMO. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I personally think that "Common Sense" (two capitals) should best redirect to "Common sense" (1 capital, the common everyday meaning, and the philosophical connected subjects). Redirecting to a dab seems acceptable but less preferable. Redirecting to the pamphlet seems frankly ridiculous, and that is also what previous discussions have said.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC) See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which tells us that usage and long-term are critical for such discussions. The pamphlet, well-known in US high schools but not many other places, was clearly named after an extremely common and old concept???-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I agree that the lowercase Common sense article seems to be the most fitting target, and it already contains links to the pamphlet and the disambiguation page. – Sonicwave ^talk 22:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget back to longstanding target Common Sense (pamphlet) (2005-2007, 2010-15, 2016-Aug 2019). Readers bothering to capitalize the S when searching for or linking to Common Sense usually want the famous treatise. The generic concept is rarely written with caps. There are roughly 30 incoming wikilinks that intend the book (I cleaned up 2 intending the concept, 1 intending the band, and 1 intending Common (rapper)). A dab page is second best, but at least the wikilinks are more likely to eventually get fixed that way than with the concept being targeted. Station1 ( talk) 09:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Target pamphlet Per pageviews, the pamphlet is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title case usage.

<rant>Personally, I find it extremely annoying when I type in title case querys and then get redirected to more general disambiguations, or even find myself on a dab page when the title case is unambiguous. Same goes for articles and plurals.</rant> Paradoctor ( talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Not that page views are at all relevant, but in any case the page views will be caused by the long standing redirect only, surely? And clearly it is more annoying to come to an article which has nothing to do with what you are looking for? So this "rant" seems well-described :) It is frankly bizarre to argue that the pamphlet is more commonly used and older subject, when it was clearly named after a term used every day which goes back to ancient times. But usage and long-term is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC really tells us to look at. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• If the pamphlet is considered primary topic, its article should be at Common Sense, not having it redirect there. -- BDD ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Target DAB or move pamphlet to base name per WP:DIFFCAPS as noted pamphlet could indeed be primary for the upper case but at least the concept shouldn't be primary for the upper case. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Move Common Sense (pamphlet) to Common Sense as the primary topic for this capitalization. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget/Move, as per Station1, Andrew Lancaster, and Tavix. The pamphlet was what I was looking for when I deliberately typed in "Common Sense" (with capitals) just now, and was redirected to this discussion by the RfD notice. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 07:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ DocWatson42 you might be misunderstanding my position I think.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Andrew Lancaster: It seems I did. I apologize. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 07:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Move Common Sense (pamphlet) to Common Sense per Tavix, in the spirit of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Move Common Sense (pamphlet) to Common Sense as with Case Closed and Cold Case for the capitalized version referring to the media. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Move Common Sense (pamphlet) to Common Sense. It is the primary topic for that capitalization. By the way, I also found this discussion because I was looking for the pamphlet. – Leviv ich 00:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was Restore article. There is no consensus here, and since the redirect was the result of a blank and redirect, restoring the page for the time being seems to be the most sufficient option, considering how long this discussion has been open. If there are concerns with the article after restoration, they can be addressed via WP:AFD. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 17:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Project blog → Logbook  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Double redirect that now indirectly redirects to a page where the subject isn't mentioned. No useful edit history. Reyk _YO! 09:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Reyk: By double redirect, do you mean an WP:XY redirect? James-the-Charizard ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • No, I mean that Project blog redirects to Project diary, which redirects to logbook and there is no mention of blogs there. Reyk _YO! 17:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  Note that Wikipedia does not allow double redirects, so I've updated the target accordingly (a bot would've done this anyway once the RfD tag was no longer there). -- BDD ( talk) 19:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete I'm surprised to see we don't seem to have any coverage of the topic anywhere. I checked the target article, Electronic logbook, Blog (which links here), and Corporate blog. -- BDD ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Restore article (and clean-up), which would once again give Wikipedia coverage of this topic. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 21:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• • If you want to write an article from scratch, go ahead. But note that, when it was an "article" it always stunk of promotion, and the sources were barely even related. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • RfD has never been an adequate forum to handle the sourcing and potential promotional issues of articles. Per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD, I would prefer to have the article restored, and if any issues with the article aren't subsequently resolved, it should be taken to WP:AFD where the article can then be discussed on its merits. Hey, you never know what could happen there... -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Thanks to whomever dealt with the transclusions. -- BDD ( talk) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Template:R other → Template:R from alternative name  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Could be confused with {{ R other spelling}}, {{ R other dab}}, and {{ R other capitalization}}. This has about 20 or so transclusions in the mainspace that should be bypassed and this redirect depreciated. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 01:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• I would prefer disambiguating this rather than deleting it, but I have no substantial arguments for either action. Geolodus ( talk) 07:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete or disambiguate (see below). As a redirect it's ambiguous to the point of uselessness. PC78 ( talk) 10:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Templates shouldnt be disambiguated. When I use templates like this I just guess as to what is the right name.   Nixinova   T   C  01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yes they should if necessary. PC78 ( talk) 10:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This redirect currently has transclusions that need to be bypassed prior to this redirect being deleted or retargeted. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate in case someone types it in while editing. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 16:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Template:R template index, ambiguous with any number of options listed there. PC78 ( talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  I like this if there's a way to keep the navbox from showing up if someone tries to use this as a regular Rcat. I think there should be a way to do this. Any ideas, Paine Ellsworth? -- BDD ( talk) 21:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  I've become a firm believer in making things as easy as possible, especially for newcomers. What is easier than previewing one's edits to see if something weird that you don't want to happen will result when you save the page? IMHO, that traditional way we use to check our edits is still the best way to make sure that one's edit accomplishes what one wants it to do. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there   01:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is. Barring that outcome, then retarget to {{ R template index}}, the functional index of redirect category ( rcat) templates. Please keep in mind that {{ R other}}, like hundreds of other template redirects, was created as a shortcut, an abbreviated form of its target, and just like most of those other hundreds of shortcuts, it is ambiguous with other rcats. Don't recommend disambiguation because that will set a precedent that most editors will not want to pursue. Then next will come {{ R from}}, {{ R to}}, {{ R with}} and a host of other ambiguous rcat shortcuts. Create all those dab pages and other editors will want to delete them as unnecessary navigation pages. Let the functional index act as a dab page. I personally have no problem with whatever happens to rcat shortcuts, because I no longer use most of them anymore. I use TemplateScript (highly recommended), which gives me the ability to add a fully-named rcat to a redirect with one click. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there   01:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Paine Ellsworth: I am personally offended you don't use WP:Archer (not really lol) because this RFD came about when I was updating it. Also, now I instantly want to nominate those shortcuts as well, but I won't since I'm not trying to start unnecessary discussions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 01:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  They are after all just shortcuts. Editors only use them if they know what they are and what their targets do. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there   01:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Paine Ellsworth: Not sure what you mean by "setting a precedent"; template dab pages can and do exist. PC78 ( talk) 09:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  The precedent I refer to is not for template dab pages, it is for shortcut dab pages. Do we really want to begin creating dab pages for all the cryptic shortcuts on Wikipedia? template or otherwise? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure that's a useful distinction to make; whether a title was created as a template or a shortcut makes little difference, a template dab would look the same regardless. If it's vague and ambiguous then it's probaly best to disambiguate. In this case, a retarget as proposed above would effectively serve the same purpose. PC78 ( talk) 22:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  The main problem with dabbing a cryptic shortcut is that the shortcut becomes unusable as a shortcut to the editors who use it. Secondly, you dab one cryptic shortcut and some editors will "grab on" to that edit-count-increasing idea to make all cryptic shortcuts into dab pages. Yeah, let's do all the [[WP:]] shortcuts like WP:U and WP:WP, and then let's dabify helpspace shortcuts like H:DL and H:H. There are several other targets those could apply to, so let's get busy WikiGnomes! Talk about your slippery slopes. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  02:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  I dunno, the whole point of dabbing a template page is to make it unusable. This wasn't a partucuarly good shortcut to begin with, and it doesn't seem to have much use. PC78 ( talk) 11:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  Well, maybe I'm overprotective because it's an rcat shortcut and I've been working with them for many years. I think shortcuts like this have fallen out of usage due to the need for less cryptic applications that new users can understand more easily. Gone are the "good ol' days" when I had to template link a shortcut template (such as {{tl|R other}}) just to see what it targeted, so I could learn what was going on with redirect categorization. And I loved using shortcuts because it greatly shortened the per-redirect time spent categorizing. Modern tools cancel that out now, so utility shortcuts like this, that is, shortcuts that actually do a job rather than just point to a longer-named page, appear to be on the way out. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The redirect is vague, I guess all redirects could be "other" than something else. I don't think it's a good idea to retarget to a navbox because we wouldn't want to have a navbox transcluded if someone tries to use it as an RCAT. Because of that, if not deleted it should be turned into an error message or disambiguated. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• All due respect, your rationale needs a little explaining. This is a shortcut and designed to be quick to use rather than to be clear and precise in its obvious meaning. You make it sound as if editors will slap {{ R other}} on a redirect and click save the page without even previewing their edits? As I previously stated, editors who use these shortcuts actually know what they do and what rcat they target, and they seldom if ever edit irresponsibly in a manner you appear to suggest. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there   04:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• If editors who use RCATs know which RCATs to use, they should have no problem using the correct shortcuts instead of this vague, unhelpful one. And yes, I do envision a mistake like this happening if retargeted, so deletion is the better option. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I suppose we'll have to differ on this issue, then. I could list hundreds, perhaps thousands of shortcuts on Wikipedia that are just like {{ R other}} in that they are vague, unclear and yet correct shortcuts used by editors who know what they target and who know how to use them. I still don't understand the distinction you think you are making. Since nearly all "shortcuts" are like this, what precisely makes this shortcut different from the rest? P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there   23:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Other shortcuts may be useful for other reasons, but we are specifically discussing this one. I do disagree that this shortcut is correct though. Redirects may be "other" than something else, and that doesn't mean that it is an alternative name. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 23:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Point is, for those editors who have actually used this shortcut, it is certainly and precisely an alternative name, and nothing else. P. I. Ellsworth,  ed.  ^put'r there  08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, except that the shortcut should be deprecated (systematically removed from use and recommendation) and not depreciated (adjusted in carrying value to reflect implied loss of asset worth due to the passage of time). Note that of the 20 or so transclusions, usage is not consistent. It's clearly intended as {{ R from alternative name}} in some cases, as {{ R from other capitalisation}} in some, and as {{ R from other disambiguation}} in at least one case. So it's not only confusing, it's breaking our redirect categorization scheme. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 12:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as too vague. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete most. The only rationale given for keeping any of these redirects was to satisfy the attribution requirements for those pages that had article content. Accordingly, the two pages with significant histories have been kept, the others are deleted. – Darkwind ( talk) 07:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Final Fantasy armor and accessories → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Armor and accessories  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of armor and accessories in the Final Fantasy series → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Armor and accessories  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Final Fantasy Armor → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Armor and accessories  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Final Fantasy armor → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Armor and accessories  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Final Fantasy armor and accessories → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Armor and accessories  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Final Fantasy weapons and armor → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Inventory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Final Fantasy weapons → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Weapons  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of Final Fantasy weapons → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Weapons  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• List of weapons in the Final Fantasy series → Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Weapons  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 05:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• This was merged but I don't know if any still exists in an article. Peter James ( talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Well, this is a bit of a pickle. Final Fantasy armor and accessories and Final Fantasy weapons and armor were in the past two separate articles; both have history as an article. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• The history is entirely unreferenced WP:OR gameguide content. There is no requirement for preserving it in such cases. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 00:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Unreferenced OR gameguide content is still bound by the attribution standards, and we need to be able to attribute old revisions as well as current, so anything that got merged into an extant page needs to be preserved properly. Lots of complicated merging happened, e.g. [1] merged Final Fantasy armor and accessories into Final Fantasy weapons and armor, which got merged elsewhere, so maybe content didn't actually get merged (maybe something just got redirected) so we maybe don't need to keep all of these pages. But unless someone can prove that a merge didn't happen, we need to keep these titles. Nyttend ( talk) 05:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• As far as I can tell, none of the content from those pages currently exists from any merges that took place. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Understood, but we also provide access to old page revisions, and we need to have attribution for those. This is an absolute legal requirement, not something stipulated by Wikipedia policy. Of course, if you can demonstrate that no content got merged at all, that's completely different. Nyttend ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, along those lines of thinking, when I made my original comment, I was considering stating that the two pages I mentioned should be restored and sent to WP:AFD for a proper sendoff to alleviate any WP:CWW concerns. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Steel1943:About that.... maybe check the reception that articles such as Monsters of Final Fantasy got when they were restored and sent to AfD. I think it's crystal clear nobody wants that to be done for any of these articles. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 23:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Attribution is a legal requirement, and given the AFD mentioned above, it seems preferable to have these as redirects. They aren't misleading and do lead to relevant content, though at a very high level scope. Perhaps it would be better to open a seperate RFD for the "List of..." redirects so their histories can be examined in greater detail. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I did a scan of the article and don't see any content about weapons, armor, or accessories. If nothing survives from any possible merges and there's nothing to give to readers looking for these, I just don't see how we keep. -- BDD ( talk) 20:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• N.b., if there's any potential compromise here besides keeping or deleting all, it looks like the only ones with history are Final Fantasy armor and accessories and Final Fantasy weapons and armor. (IMO, that's also all the more reason to delete the other 7.) -- BDD ( talk) 20:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep those that do not contain the word "list". There is just enough in the article on the subjects, including character's class usually determines the types of weapons and armor that they can use. Delete the list redirects per BDD, the target does not have lists of armor, weapons, or accessories. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:26, 23 August 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.