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 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League#Draft and squads. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League squads → List of current Bangladesh Premier League team rosters  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Perhaps expanding into a meaningful article, or turning into just a redirect. I have no idea how it's lasted this long, but I can't fix it as I'm not football-savvy Wiki Macaroons ^Cinnamon? 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Not cricket savvy either? Seriously though, this should have been spun off as an article as soon as the new squads started being added. If notability is not temporary, either the previous season's squads are also notable enough to warrant an article, or none of them are notable enough. A7V2 ( talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League#Draft and squads per CycloneYoris (I didn't notice this was there the first time). A7V2 ( talk) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore redirect and retarget to 2019–20 Bangladesh Premier League#Draft and squads. Though creator has since been blocked for sockpuppetry, but I guess this redirect could still be useful for some. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 6 August 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Kara Shred → Asbestos  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I can't figure out what the connection between this redirect and asbestos is. Only live contribution of the creator Hog Farm _Bacon 20:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only Google hits for this name are for various non-notable people with this name, including an Ontario guitarist who died in 2013. I can't even tell why this redirect was created. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Kara Shred". Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the above. The creator also has no deleted or suppressed contributions that shed light on the reason for this redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The article page Asbestos does not mention Kara Shred. We do not know if Kara Shred is even real. So obviously, the redirect page "Kara Shred" is implausible and inaccurate. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears at 23:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - touching story here, but no indication how this is connected. The redirect predates this story by a few years anyway. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 11:10, 7 August 2020 (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 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00.. _signed, BD2412 T 20:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• 00.01 → 12-hour clock#Confusion at noon and midnight  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• 00:01 → 12-hour clock#Confusion at noon and midnight  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I don't think that this search term unambiguously refers to the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00 which I think is probably what a user is more likely to want. But I've just noticed that 23:59 redirects to something else entirely so I'll RfD that separately. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Retarget both to the same article that Shhhnotsoloud suggests but to a different section: 24-hour clock#Times after 24:00, which specifically mentions 00:01 and is most likely what readers are looking for. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget both to 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00 since 00:01 falls within that range. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (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 the people, no consensus for the U of P redirects. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thomas Gennarelli → Unnecessary Fuss  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• Thomas Langfitt → Unnecessary Fuss  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic → Unnecessary Fuss  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

• University of Pennsylvania baboons → Unnecessary Fuss  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

It's clear that the purpose of these four redirects ( University of Pennsylvania baboons‎‎, University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic‎‎, Thomas Langfitt‎‎, Thomas Gennarelli‎‎) were to continue the 1984 animal rights activism agenda of excoriating the University of Pennsylvania and two of its personnel. Especially since there is a search function within Wikipedia, there is no reason to create a redirect with these titles. The two men, in particular, should not be abused by directing their names to an article that is not about them and does not cover them in any depth. That they are (or were) mentioned in the article is no reason to create a redirect in their name. Similarly with the two "University of Pennsylvania..." redirects, there is no reason to create these "spam links". Wikipedia redirects are not intended to be used as labels, metatags, hotlinks, or hashtag activism, which is how they are being misused here. These four redirects were created 14 years ago on the same day as the creation of their target article, Unnecessary Fuss. They could well be considered a violation of Wikipedia:Attack page. One of the two men is still alive and the Thomas Gennarelli‎‎ redirect violates WP:BLP. Gennarelli is a well-respected person in his field (neurosurgery); and he is not notable for a 36-year old film; instead he was notable before the film, and afterwards, and in spite of. A redirect in his name to activism events 36 years ago is offensive and abusive. Gennarelli is published, and even cited within Wikipedia, but anyone using Wikipedia's search for his name will more likely land on Unnecessary Fuss instead of his research because Wikipedia's search results say "There is a page named "Thomas Gennarelli" on Wikipedia". These four redirects have not been edited since their creation, nor discussed. There are no pages which use these redirects (except Talk:Unnecessary Fuss where yesterday I brought up the idea of deleting them). Their pageviews are super low (4 per month for all four combined redirects over the last year; Gennerelli being the highest hits— which could well be readers trying to find his research or where he is cited). All four should be deleted. Normal Op ( talk) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete the people, keep the last two. The nominator makes a good case why Mr. Gennarelli should be deleted, and indeed if he is notable there should be an article on his work. The part on Mr. Langfitt was removed back in 2013, so that one can go as well. However, I don't see the problem with the other two redirects. This article sums up the incident well and is the most significant content on both the clinic and the baboons so someone searching either of these things will find the information that they are probably looking for. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 23:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. I agree with User:Normal Op and User:Tavix on the two people's names; for the latter two, I'm not convinced that the baboon head injury incident recorded by Unnecessary Fuss is the only significant event in their history. Other noteworthy events exist, e.g. this 2012 baboon research at UPenn. Deryck C. 18:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Thomas Gennarelli because although he is mentioned in the article, Search provides 3 other mentions, notwithstanding that 2 are about the situation that gave rise to the film, and Google and other searches give a wide variety of results. Delete Thomas Langfitt because there is no mention of the subject anywhere in enwiki. Keep University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic and University of Pennsylvania baboons because Google and other searches overwhelmingly associate those terms with the subject of the film at the current target. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Gennarelli's professional work is used as citations in these two articles: Intracranial pressure and Abbreviated Injury Scale. Normal Op ( talk) 07:16, 7 August 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Kookies N Kream Dence Crew → Australia's Got Talent (season 6)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Kookies N Kream is the name of an Australian dance act. This redirect was supposed to be titled "Kookies N Kream Dance Crew" but was moved due to an implausible misspelling of the word "Dance". I suggest deletion since correctly spelled counterpart Kookies N Kream Dance Crew already exists. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No-one is getting this far into typing a string without the correct name popping up. ("Dence Crew" sounds South Efrican or possibly New Zealand, not Austrylian.) Narky Blert ( talk) 19:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete this unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate, with any editor welcome to split off the name portion. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Chien → Jian  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Joseph2302: Keep - The Wade-Giles romanization system renders the Pinyin "Jian" as "chien" see this translation table. Wade-Giles is in fact noted in the Chinese translation table as "chien4". Bear in mind the word "Jian" is not the same as "Ji'an" which would be "Chi'an" in WG, but some people may mistakenly write "Ji'an" as "Jian".
  • NOTE: It is important for Wikipedians specializing in foreign languages to pre-emptively educate RFD filers about alternate romanization systems and to ensure filers review them, and to make sure the information is known even if it had been removed by a third party. Person A can do their best in making sure redirected terms are in a page, but then Person B can drive by remove them out of a personal opinion that WG is irrelevant without knowing that Wikimedians want redirected terms to be in an article. Person C can then file the redirect on RFD not knowing that Person B had removed the term and that Person A intended it there. Then Persons D-F can vote to delete the redirect, with Person G doing it not knowing about Persons A-C and without Person A knowing.
• WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. "Chien" is French for "dog". Narky Blert ( talk) 19:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Narky Blert: Ah, forgot about that! I'm also fine with this being a disambig page. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That was my thought, though I forgot to mention it in the nom. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate, this term is also a Chinese name, used as both a surname and part of a given name, in addition to being French for "dog" and a plausible alternative name for a jian (which should ideally be mentioned if this term's disambiguated), and also add a mention of "chien" to Jian. Regards, SONIC 678 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW, if a disambiguation page created, we would not add mention of it being the French word for "dog" since 1) the spirit of WP:FORRED, 2) Wikipedia is not a translation service, and 3) that is what Wiktionary is for, so instead, we would add a {{ Wiktionary}} link at the top of the disambiguation page. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as {{ R from Wade–Giles romanization}}. It's interesting that this template was created in 2006 while the redirect under discussion was 2004. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect) since Qian (Wade-Giles: Ch'ien) frequently also gets simplified to Chien, particularly in people's names. It will be hard to determine the Chinese names of several people surnamed Chien with Wikipedia articles, so they would fail WP:V to be listed either at Jian (surname) or Qian (surname). There is also Padre Pedro Chien Municipality, whose Spanish Wikipedia article says is just known as "Chien", and a band and a film known as Les Chiens. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 09:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, if there is consensus to disambiguate, it may be better to split off the list of people to Chien (surname) given its length, per WP:DABSUR (Chien has its own entry in Patrick Hanks' Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, so the name index wouldn't just be an unsourced list). 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 09:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with 59.149.124.29 WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate and split per IP; but split both given names and surnames to Chien (name), because of the usual Western problems with Chinese name order, and to keep everything about what might become a referenced article in one place. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate as has been done on the redirect already, looks much better for readers to find what they want. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:46, 29 July 2020 (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. The idea that this is somehow an attack page is absurd, but there's enough support for deletion on the premise that it's an unlikely misspelling. N.b. that Usama bin Laden exists and will catch editors miscapitalizing this alternate spelling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• USama Bin Laden → Osama bin Laden  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Could also be an WP:ATTACK towards the United States. Cf Obama bin Laden. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Some languages - Chinese is a good example - have methodical transliteration schemes. Chinese words are always transliterated that same way. Arabic is totally unlike that.

  Here is an example. Even though their names were top secret, we did know the names of some of the Guantanamo captives. One guy whose name we know was Ahcene Zemiri. When the DoD was forced, by court order, to publish as official list, in early 2006, Ahcene Zemiri's name was one of several dozen names apparently missing from the offical list. I eventually figured out why all those names were missing. In Ahcene's case, he was from a North African country that had been a colony of France. His name was on the official list, after all, as "Hassan Zumiri". Ahcene is how Hassan is often transliterated, by French speakers.

  Osama bin Laden is the most common transliteration, but there are a dozen or so other transliteration one will see. Given that there is no reliable trusted transliteration scheme for Arabic, the other transliterations are just as valid as the most common one.

  I have absolutely no idea what nominator means by calling this an attack page. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  Look at the "US" portion of "USama bin Laden". It is an attack towards the United States by blending its acronym with "Osama bin Laden". However, we aiready have Usama bin Laden. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• That is extremely farfetched... 2607:FEA8:4C0:5B40:3441:BA42:34A3:9996 ( talk) 17:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - pageviews indicate usefulness. I suppose because the first two letters are capitalized one might interpret it as an attack title, but it's not pointed at a corresponding target (I might think differently if it was targeted to Barack Obama for example). It's just a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  If pageview is the only reason we should keep this redirect, then we should undelete the protologism Floydian protests, which had high pageviews. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• ok. lets do that... 2607:FEA8:4C0:5B40:3441:BA42:34A3:9996 ( talk) 17:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• ... WP:OTHERSTUFF... Steel1943 ( talk) 18:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Pageviews are not the only reason, but they are a strong indicating factor that someone finds it useful. It's also, as I said, a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 16:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• WEak keep, while some people might think it's an attack title (per US being a redirect to United States), "Usama" is another way to write "Osama," and someone might hold the ⇧ Shift or ⇪ Caps Lock key for too long. Regards, SONIC 678 16:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Even if it's not an attack page, there is precedent for deleting this type of redirect, such as at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_22#UNited_States. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per LaundryPizza, unlikely mispelling. ( t · c) buidhe 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unnecessary capitalization of the first two letters which might be misinterpreted as an attack towards the US, even if it isn't. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:37, 30 July 2020 (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 speedy deleted per U1. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• User:ShohagS/Rokomari.com → Rokomari.com  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

no longer required A. Shohag 11:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Redirect from a page move. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:29, 28 July 2020 (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 Third-person pronoun. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Neopronoun → Spivak pronoun  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Looking at all the google results for neopronoun, it does not refer to only this set of pronouns, but any unusual third-person pronouns. Therefore I think it should redirect to Third-person pronoun#Historical, regional, and proposed gender-neutral singular pronouns — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I agree with your argument, but the section you're proposing favors English, while the article has content on neopronouns in other languages too (e.g., Swedish). Despite this being the English Wikipedia, simply retargeting to Third-person pronoun seems better. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were some novel first- and second-person pronouns, but it seems safe enough to assume we mean third-person.) -- BDD ( talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I think that redirect suggestion makes perfect sense. Part of the reason I created this redirect in this way is because, despite the title "Spivak Pronoun", the table on the page seems to suggest a greater scope. On a closer reading however, although the page certainly talks about some particular neopronouns, that section definitely has a broader scope, so I support this change. DinoD123 ( talk) 06:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete since we do not have a proper target article to redirect this. Better leave a redlink, so that an editor would be encouraged to create an article about the neopronoun. -- Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see how Third-person pronoun is a bad destination.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 15:17, 28 July 2020 (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 The Twelve. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• The Twelve (Bible) → Twelve Minor Prophets  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

In the Old Testament, this refers to the twelve minor prophets (in Judaism, sometimes combined into one book). In the New Testament, this refers to the Twelve Disciples of Jesus. I don't think one of these can be made as primary topic over the other. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment The Twelve redirects to Apostles. If "The Twelve" without qualification redirects to a biblical topic, then I see no reason why "The Twelve (Bible)" should lead elsewhere. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I think they're both ambiguous, and the other one should probably be bundled into this discussion. They're both biblical topics that are referred to as The Twelve. One's more prominent from a Jewish perspective, and the other's more prominent from a Christian perspective. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to The Twelve (disambiguation) as {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Apostles. Going off of both the leads to both of the articles and my experiences, "The Twelve" is a reasonably common name for the apostles, but the Twelve Minor Prophets are more commonly listed as just "The Minor Prophets" ("The Twelve" isn't listed in the lead there, if at all). Looking at direct biblical quotes, it appears to be mostly split between "the twelve" referring to the apostles, and "the twelve tribes (of Israel)". LittlePuppers ( talk) 01:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close. The result of Talk:The Twelve (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 July 2020 will affect this discussion, and it, though posted later, should be decided first. I would encourage relisting once that pagemove discussion is complete. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to The Twelve (disambiguation) or The Twelve, if the dab is moved to primary as it should be. ( t · c) buidhe 04:12, 30 July 2020 (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.