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) 16:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Template:Медаль Жукова → Template:Medal of Zhukov  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No reason to have foreign language redirects in template-space; unused. There's a few dozen of these I'll nominate it if looks like there's consensus to delete this. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• This is the name of corresponding template on the Russian Wikipedia. This sort of redirects, which include for example {{ Citar livro}} and {{ Coloré}}, are occasionally created to assist editors when translating pages from other Wikipedias. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is the name of the medal in it's native language, so there's enough connection between the template and the Russian language to justify a Russian language redirect, per WP:RFOREIGN, in my opinion. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 16:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete not in English and highly unlikely to be used by editors and I do not think WP:RFOREIGN applies to templates 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 11:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The only reason for foreign-language templates on the English Wikipedia is when they are basically a wrapper for the English template, taking input from foreign-named parameters and passing them to the English-named equivalents. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per User:🌸 1.Ayana 🌸. 053pvr ( talk) 05:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep per Uanfala and 86.23.109.101. I do not see the harm in maintaining the few dozen such redirects of this that exist, except maybe to stave off the notion that these are acceptable in all cases or should be created akin where possible en masse (but that is unlikely and not a reason to delete). @ Thryduulf: That may not have happened in this case, but was it based on the foreign template?; at the least, Elli, I might suggest being careful and looking into the background of each redirect before you group them all together (maybe smaller groups by situation, or some may be acceptable). That aside, is it implausible that editors might search for a template under the foreign name? —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 07:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Godsy: is it implausible that editors might search for a template under the foreign name? yes. Especially given that any two non-English Wikipedias may use the same name for different templates the only reliable way to find out the name of the English template when you only know/remember the non-English equivalent is to look up that template on the relevant non-English Wikipedia and follow the interwiki links. This also means neither Wikipedia has to know about renames, mergers, etc of templates on other Wikipedias in order to maintain template redirects on their own wiki. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Godsy: the only redirects I would nominate are unused. Elli ( talk | contribs) 18:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep foreign language redirects like this are useful for e.g. if someone was translating articles related to this from Russian Wikipedia. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  How? They have to translate all the article text anyway, and the Russian template redirect working just disguises the need to translate the template call too. If it is left in the article it becomes an unnecessary barrier to non-Russian speakers while providing no benefit. If someone doesn't know the name of the template on the English Wikipedia then they can look at the interwikis from the Russian Wikipedia template or ask someone. Not so applicable to this template, but for any template that takes parameters a redirect that doesn't translate the parameter names offers no benefit over a redlink (other than being potentially harder to identify), a mix of working and non-working templates also makes the job of checking the article unnecessarily harder and any templates that happen to share their name with a different template on any other language wiki could lead to unnecessary confusion. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and others above. No reason to have this template around when it is clearly unused and unnecessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems harmless, and useful for translating articles to English. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:43, 27 March 2021 (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 19:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rep. of the Philippines → Philippines  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This appears to be a pretty useless redirect. The target is the vague overview of the entire country, and this term could be used in many different instances, including several which could be official positions of the government. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Onel5969, I don't know whether you recognised this, but it can also stand for Republic of the Philippines (in which case the target is justified) as well as Representative of the Philippines. It's a question now of what it stands for in most instances. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi J947 - yes I did realize that, it was part of the point I obviously didn't make well enough, about how it could point to several different things, not just the article about the nation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete In addition to being ambiguous, it seems a highly unlikely term for anyone to type, and if they do type something so specific they're probably looking for a more specific meaning of some kind. CMD ( talk) 11:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Representative of the Philippines with hatnote to Republic of the Philippines per argument of "User:J947". Putting a hatnote on "Republic of the Philippines" would be too disruptive. 053pvr ( talk) 05:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Now I'm confused. Are you proposing to make an article at Representative of the Philippines? 053pvr, you can't target a redirect to a red link. —  J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • * House of Representatives of the Philippines. 053pvr ( talk) 01:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. "Rep. of the Philippines" almost always means "Republic of the Philippines", not "Representative of the Philippines" which is not used to refer to Members of the House of Representatives; either they're called ("Foo" being the name of the district) "Foo Congressman" or "Foo Representative" or "Party-list representative". "Representative of the Philippines" may be used for an actual representative of the Philippines in a competition on organization, but that doesn't deserve a redirect. Howard the Duck ( talk) 16:15, 17 March 2021 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Yuri Jardine → 4F case  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, possible BLPCRIME concerns. I think that the redirect should be deleted unless there is consensus to add a mention at the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If there's no explanation at the target, then this is a BLP issue. In particular, a web search turns up several somewhat people named "Yuri Jardine" who are not the one connected to this case, so an unexplained redirect is a BLP problem with respect to them as well. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 22:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and the ip editor. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Implausible. 053pvr ( talk) 05:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - concerns of defamation. Bearian ( talk) 14:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - BLP concerns, neither target or original article gain much from the mention of the name. Mujinga ( talk) 09:32, 18 March 2021 (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 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Inappropriate non-english redirects per WP:FORRED. Nothing particularly Spanish/French/Portuguese about the concept of Meteorology 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-English redirects from a since-blocked editor. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (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 List of disasters#Natural disasters. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• List of weather-related disasters → Meteorology  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The current target of this redirect is clearly inappropriate as there is no list of weather-related disasters in the article, but I found two possible targets. Natural disaster#Meteorological disasters lists various types of disasters, while List of natural disasters by death toll lists various events. Which one should this target? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to List of natural disasters by death toll, which contains weather related disasters as well as some others. The current target is not useful, and I think that readers searching for this are more likely to want a list of incidents than a list of types of disasters. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to List of disasters#Natural disasters where the reader can find lists related to specific types of weather event or the broader list of natural disasters by death toll. Neither is more likely to be useful than the other so we should not presume. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per "User:Thryduulf". 053pvr ( talk) 05:17, 13 March 2021 (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 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• MUSEA (Music School of Eastern Africa) (disambiguation) → Musea (disambiguation)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not only is this redirect totally implausible, consisting of an initialism disambiguated by its expanded form with an additional "(disambiguation)" appended (even though the title does not seem to be ambiguous); this is not even mentioned at the target. A mention may be added per List of university and college schools of music, but this redirect should be deleted. I also think Music School of Eastern Africa should better not be created, as the list does not provide any further information and the redlink there encourages article creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - MUSEA (Music School of Eastern Africa) on its own would almost certainly be an implausible redirect, let alone the nominated one. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. MUSEA (Music School of Eastern Africa) doesn't exist and therefore isn't ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Implausible. 053pvr ( talk) 05:16, 13 March 2021 (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 WDQ to Wikidata, retarget PIC to New York Public Library#Website and digital holdings , delete FNZA. While there were a fair amount of editors who professed neutrality for redirects other than WDQ, among those who did opine about PIC or FNZA there apppears to be a rough consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• FNZA (identifier) → d:Q99484217  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• PIC (identifier) → d:Q23892012  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• WDQ (identifier) → d:Q43649390  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The plain soft redirect template, i.e. {{ soft redirect}}, is not used in the mainspace ( WP:SOFTSIS). I heavily caution against retaining these soft redirects to Wikidata: and suggest deleting them along the lines of WP:NOTDIR. These seemingly do little for readers and might confuse or surprise them (the format of Wikidata may seem foreign to what they are expecting etc.). However, if these are deemed appropriate, then a new specialized soft redirect template is due to excise these occurrences of the plain soft redirect template from the mainspace ({{ Wikidata redirect}} is a redirect category). I would be happy to handle that aspect if it is determined that these should be kept. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. These have numerous incoming links due to Module:Authority control; other redirects there target appropriate mainspace articles. I can't see any suitable target article for Find New Zealand Artists. Retarget PIC to New York Public Library consistent with Photographers' Identities Catalog. Retarget WQI (Wikidata Q identifier) to Wikidata. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• I first saw AnomieBOT III placing {{ soft redirect}} on WDQ (identifier) here; I assumed it was configured properly, and propagated that change to the 2 other #Rs listed above. I have no problem replacing {{ soft redirect}} with #REDIRECT [[:d:Q43649390]], as originally intended prior to AnomieBOT III.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • That won't actually redirect, which is why {{ soft redirect}} exists in the first place. If {{ soft redirect}} should not be used in some instance, feel free to replace it with the appropriate specialized template, or turn it into an appropriate stub article, or delete it. Anomie ⚔ 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Anomie: The appropriate specialized soft redirect template does not exist at this time (i.e. there are no other soft redirects to Wikidata in the mainspace besides the ones listed here at this time), but I would be happy to create it should it be deemed that any of these should be retained as soft redirects (tried to say that in the nomination but it may not have came across clearly). —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 07:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Support creation of of an appropriate template.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• The reason these 3 #Rs exist is not against WP:NOTDIR - they are but 3 exceptions to the "<ID> (identifier)" Module:Authority control #R convention, whose #Rs were created by Matthiaspaul & myself.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 
• The general purpose of these "(identifier) redirects" instead of direct links is to reduce the clutter at "What links here" and improve reverse lookup capabilities. They are used by citation templates, authority control templates, catalog lookup link templates, infoboxes and various other templates, and they should point to the corresponding Wikipedia page explaining the identifier. They should only be used in conjunction with identifiers, not for "normal" links to the target page.

Until recently, all these redirects actually resolved to Wikipedia pages, and this should definitely remain the default in order to not undermine the idea. In rare cases, where an identifier redirect needs to be created although we don't yet have a good target page in Wikipedia, I think, we can extend the idea and let it temporarily point to the corresponding Wikidata entry, but this should remain the exception.

"WDQ (identifier)" should be changed back to point to our Wikipedia article on Wikidata.

-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget These should never have been made into Wikidata interwiki links to begin with. I rectified two of them with: 1007122341 and 1007123617. I am not sure where to target FNZA (identifier) as Find New Zealand Artists is a joint project of Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki and Christchurch Art Gallery. I suppose we could leave it redlinked but I have not seen redirects to a missing article much. As always, someone could stub out the article to rectify the redlink. As a final option besides a new WP:SSRT, we could delete FNZA (identifier) and do a partial revert of 1006930837 returning things to how they were before Tom.Reding pushed things in this direction. — Uzume ( talk) 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  A redirect to a redlink will be deleted under WP:CSD#G8 sooner or later, so that's not a long-term solution. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I suspected that might not work. — Uzume ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget WDQ (identifier) to (the Wikipedia article on) Wikidata. Retarget PIC (identifier) to New York Public Library#Website_and_digital_holdings. Delete FNZA (identifier) because there is no article on the thing it is referring to. (I don't see what the problem with Module:Authority control linking to it despite it being red is, that is no different from any other link to a subject that doesn't have an article). These redirects linking to Wikidata is a clear perversion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 204#New RFC on linking to Wikidata. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • "clear perversion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 204#New RFC on linking to Wikidata"? {{ Authority control}} does not reside in the body of any article, and neither should this #R.
    Also, in lieu of a Wikipedia article, Find New Zealand Artists (Q99484217) is much more informative than a red link.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  00:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete FNZA (identifier) to encourage creation of an article. Redlinks identify that an article does not exist but should, and I don't see why this one would be an exception. Of course, once Find New Zealand Artists is created, it should link there. It does appear the other two have already been resolved. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment How about we get Module:Authority control to refer directly to Find New Zealand Artists? This creates the correct red links and for now we can delete FNZA (identifier). We really only use the "(identifier)" redirects to avoid Special:WhatLinksHere noise but that does not seem much applicable for a page that does not exist. Things can be updated to move back to FNZA (identifier) once Find New Zealand Artists exists. The other option would be a partial revert of 1006930837 so that the module refers to an interwiki link to Wikidata. Regardless, I do not think it is proper or even much useful to employ "(identifier)" redirects when a local article target does not exist. — Uzume ( talk) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget WDQ (identifier) to article Wikidata. Neutral on the rest. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I did a bit of a search, and I honestly can't find any secondary coverage of the FNZA database (best source was a press release). I am not sure how helpful a redlink is going to be in this instance since I doubt an article is going to be made any time soon. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  If a redlink is deemed unhelpful, Module:Authority control could easily be edited to not provide any link at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - To clarify, I support the deletion of FNZA (identifier). If it is kept ({{ soft redirect}} is not used in the mainspace), it will trigger the creation of a a new specialized soft redirect template for redirects to wikidata. I have concerns that the existence of such a template will lead to the idea that such redirects are acceptable sometimes, e.g. against certain notions. There are currently no redirects to wikidata in the mainspace; is sending readers there something the community wishes to endorse? —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 17:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Godsy: To be honest, we might just consider having a catch-all sister project soft redirect template for {{ Wikispecies redirect}} and Wikidata. We only have one Wikispecies soft redirect, and the template isn't the most popular (see also: here and here). It could say something generic and explain that the target page isn't actually an article but still may contain useful information on a sister website. Just a thought there. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  Of course, it would also have to explain that this soft redirect is only used in exceptional circumstances and per consensus. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ MJL: I like the idea of warning text of sorts on the template that "explains that the target page is not actually an article but still may contain useful information on a sister site." However, I prefer seperate templates. It keeps the coding simple & easily editable and does not require auto-detection or an extra parameter to specify which site (easier on those applying the templates who are not familiar with it and even me because that is something I monitor and often end up fixing). —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Godsy: In that case, then I think we'll need a new Wikidata template. I drew something up for you to see what I propose in practice. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 19:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ MJL: Yeah; I based the ones for wikibooks, wikispecies, and commons off the ones that existed prior to that. More than happy to sort out the specifics with you, if this redirect ends up being kept. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Godsy: we already have {{ Wikidata redirect}} which is in the same vein as {{ Wiktionary redirect}} etc (though it is currently also used on hard redirects, which I'm working on changing). The wording could realistically be changed to indicate Wikidata as the only target, but... yeah, not sure if we should do that. But there is no need for a new template here. Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Elli: {{ Wikidata redirect}} isn't meant for this use case though. It's more of a type of WP:RCAT than a soft redirect template. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 03:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ MJL: it's meant for both and is named like a soft redirect template. I think the rcat and soft redirect functionality should be split, personally (you can see various discussions about this on the talk). Elli ( talk | contribs) 04:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Elli: I am familiar with the rcat template. I could not quite follow what you are getting at; from what I could glean, I seemingly disagree in many regards. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 15:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  Isn't it premature to discuss how to implement a hypothetical keep closure before the discussion is closed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  At this length, you're making a fair point (hence, my hesitance to discuss certain matters further at this time in reply above). My intention was merely to mention that, regardless of what happens, this will not remain a plain {{ soft redirect}} and the potential repercussive waves that such a new specialized template might cause. Nothing more, nothing less; certainly did not imagine it turning into this big of an exchange. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 12:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Probably not going to be used by anyone. 053pvr ( talk) 05:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ 053pvr: Did you read the discussion above? These redirects are used in the {{ Authority control}} template and are linked to in thousands of articles - "PIC (identifier)" has over 6,000 incoming links. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Then Speedy Keep. 053pvr ( talk) 03:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ 053pvr: Please read discussions before you comment—and then only do so if you understand the discussion enough to comprehend its nuances. It is clear you have not done so. WP:SPEEDYKEEP is not appropriate for this discussion. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Oh my god. 053pvr ( talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ 053pvr: Please explain. Which WP:SKCRIT has been met? -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Doing anything to one on these redirects would cause too much damage. 053pvr ( talk) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
            • @ 053pvr: How would retargeting these to an appropriate local target (which is what many people in the discussion above are proposing) cause any damage, and why would a discussion with lots of input from multiple people over the last three weeks now qualify for speedy keeping? This style of redirect is used to avoid making a mess of the "What links here" section of articles, because {{ Authority control}} has made hundreds of thousands of links to various identifier systems. You really need to slow down and read these discussions carefully, especially for complex cases like above. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Retarget to some local target. Someone really needs to just close this as no consensus, because there will not be consensus. 053pvr ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget PIC (identifier) to New York Public Library#Website and digital holdings for consistency with Photographers' Identities Catalog per above.

Retarget WDQ (identifier) to Wikidata per above.

Delete FNZA (identifier), and modify the template to stop the creation of redirect links as we have no appropriate local target. Perhaps use something like {{ Abbr}} to create a rollover explanation of the initialism instead? 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget WDQ (identifier) to Wikidata so that it works as it should in {{ cite Q}} (the use of which in some articles is how I found this discussion). No opinion on the others. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:20, 19 March 2021 (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 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Builder works → engineering  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I can't figure out the connection between this redirect and it's target. To me it seems that this should be targeting something like Construction, but I don't think it's a particularly plausible search term to get there either 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep or retarget to Construction. "Builder's work" or "Builders's work" is a Britishism for constructing buildings or machinery. Wikipedia doesn't actually have either of those as redirects, but it should. The nominated redirect is just a variant of those more standard search terms, so there's nothing wrong it. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 14:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm familiar with the phrase "Building works" meaning construction, but I've never come across "Builder works" before and I wouldn't associate it with engineering. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm a native speaker of British English and I've never heard this phrase (unlike "building works"). Google results for the exact phrase are a mix of a couple of specific companies, "builder's works" and partial matches for phrases a like "a builder works on...". Thryduulf ( talk) 12:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Implausible search term. 053pvr ( talk) 05:11, 13 March 2021 (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 19:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Implausible double typo redirect, has both a spacing error and missing c from hydraulics. I just retargeted Industrial Hydraulics to Hydraulic machinery which seemed like a better target to me, but I don't think this typo redirect is worth keeping. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is not worth having since the correct version exists. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Quite implausible; 76 page views in the last 6 years. I usually delete these contemporaneous with the move from the bad title, if rather implausible like this one, and since I wasn't yet an admin at the time of this move, tag for deletion. I have no memory of this ministerial move from 15 years ago, of course, but not doing so was likely just an oversight.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget. It's an {{ R with old history}} at this point and pretty harmless to keep around. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The page history for the article is in the correctly spelled Industrial Hydraulics redirect, this one only contains a redirect. The article was at this misspelled title for 5 mins in 2006 so I don't think it's a valuable "R from move" either 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 19:18, 10 March 2021 (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 delete. WP:G7 — Bagumba ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Baroody (surname) (disambiguation) → Baroody  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Baroody (surname) has been moved to Baroody and is no longer a disambiguation page, so this redirect is not needed (and is awkward). Leschnei ( talk) 12:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I don't really understand why @ Rodw: created it: maybe you could WP:G7 it? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• I don't know how (let alone why) I did this. I presume it must have been a miss click using DisamAssist (for which I apologise) & I am happy for it to be deleted.— Rod ^talk 13:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  DisamAssist creates these redirects automatically once you run it on a disambiguation page (which is not always helpul). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:29, 10 March 2021 (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 19:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Spruce Text List → Apple Inc.#1997–2007: Return to profitability  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This is supposed to be targeting Spruce Technologies, as the name of a DVD subtitling technology that they released, but the article on Spruce Technology was merged into the apple aticle in 2010 following an AfD nomination. As it stands this technology isn't mentioned by name anywhere in the encyclopedia 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable software. 053pvr ( talk) 05:05, 13 March 2021 (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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Grafikkort → Video card  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:FORRED. Nothing Swedish about a video card. There is a Swedish language article in the page history, but it would be A2 / A10 speedy deletable if restored 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This should have been deleted in 2008 instead of being redirected. In any case, graphics cards are indeed not especially Swedish, so this is not needed on the English Wikipedia. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 13:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Swedish search term. Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Hey mid ( contribs) 15:33, 10 March 2021 (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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:FORRED. Nothing French/German about evaporation 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Foreign terms for a concept that has no particular affinity for any language. In addition, the creator is globally banned, though this wasn't a creation in violation of their ban. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:32, 10 March 2021 (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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• ジングル (ラジオ) → Jingle  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:FORRED. No connection between the concept of a jingle and the Japanese language. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Foreign term for a concept that has no particular affinity for the Japanese language. In addition, the redirect creator is globally banned , though this wasn't a creation in violation of their ban. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. 053pvr ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2021 (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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Fågelsång → Bird vocalization  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

WP:FORRED. Nothing particularly Swedish about birdsong 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Foreign term for a concept that has no particular affinity for any language. In addition, the redirect creator is globally banned, though this wasn't a creation in violation of their ban. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 13:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I concur as a Swedish speaker. Glades12 ( talk) 19:53, 11 March 2021 (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 Nest#Other uses. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• The Nest (stadium) → Croydon Common Athletic Ground  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Should dab or delete as ambiguous between Croydon Common Athletic Ground and The Nest (football ground)- both were used between the world wars, and no evidence either would be the primary topic that people are looking for Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to The Nest, a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• I support this, if I'd found that dab page before nominating, would have just speedy redirected it there. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Retarget as suggested, as ambiguous. Giant Snowman 12:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per above comments. 053pvr ( talk) 05:02, 13 March 2021 (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 19:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Fringer → Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Astaire and Rogers were never referred to as Fringer. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This inhibits Search for other valid uses. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:01, 10 March 2021 (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.