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) 15:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Air France Flight 107 → Air France Flight 178 ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]
• 1953 Barcelonnette Air France Lockheed Constellation accident → Air France Flight 178  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]
• 1953 Air France Lockheed Constellation Barcelonnette accident → Air France Flight 178  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete the redirect, because the flight number (and year) used was incorrect and will lead to (further) confusion. Frank Geerlings ( talk) 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hmm, maybe the latter 2 are OK if I change them to point them to the 178 article instead. The first link should probably still go. Sorry for the confusion. — Frank Geerlings ( talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, those were double redirects. It looks like you've fixed them, though. -- BDD ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete "Air France Flight 107" - I can find no information (that didn't originate on Wikipedia) that AF178 was in any way connected with a flight number of "107". Thryduulf ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete it was created in error and has no connection and an unlikely search term for Flight 178. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Airlines do change flight numbers, either for operational reasons or when a flight crashes.But not very often. AF107 according to FlightStatus.com is currently in flight (as I write) from Guangzhou to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport so these are simply not the same thing. Si Trew ( talk) 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm sure some aviation buffs can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe flight numbers get regularly reused. My guess is that they might "retire" some that end in tragedy, but perhaps not. -- BDD ( talk) 22:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not an aviation buff, but you don't need correcting. Unless a number becomes particularly associated with a specific route or specific event in the public consciousness (most often due to tragedy) then numbers chop and change whenever required or desired by the airline. Even ending in tragedy is no guarantee that the number will be forever retired - strong association of flight number and accident is primarily a US media thing (although as in many things UK usage is increasingly following American) and memories fade over time. e.g. British Airways flight 9 is presently en route from London to Bangkok, in 1982 it was a stopping flight from London to Aukland. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Flight numbers actually are incredibly stable. Obviously airlines change routes and so on, introduce new ones and remove unprofitable things, but e.g. BA152/153 from London Heathrow to Cairo and back has had the same flight number for at least thirty years (when I travelled on it) simply because it is the law of least resistance there is no need to change it. So they tend to get changed only when a flight crashes (the airlines somehow think that people will be put off by booking a flight with the same number as the Miracle on the Hudson or whatever) or for operational reasons when routes are changed. Bus numbers are the same, they last forever. I think the 19 in London has been going for about 100 years now. They are incredibly stable. Si Trew ( talk) 12:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC) reply

To correct or augment myself: British Airways used 001 and 002 always for Concorde (there and back) but have never reused those numbers, I think. I never travelled on Concorde myself – I don't use public transport. Si Trew ( talk) 12:39, 19 April 2014 (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 Wikipedia:Welcome. Only one commentator suggested deletion per WP:XNR but avoiding an inexperienced editor stumbling into project space is clearly outweighed by the link breaking that would result from deletion. The other editors favour keeping in some form and, including the nominator, !vote 4-2 for the retarget which also seems the logical action. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 19:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Welcome to Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Introduction ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Should this go to Wikipedia:Welcome instead? I think so. The ChampionMan 1234 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:XNR that seems a very unlikely thing for someone to type in. Redirect from content-space to something to do with the functioning of Wikipedia should not be stumbled upon by readers who will never edit. Any links to those pages should come though the substitution welcome templates; for readers, we already have the article Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 07:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - hundreds of incoming links. Harmless and not new. All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC). reply
  
• Keep That's quite a lot of incoming links. I don't like to keep CNRs, but it's clear that this one used to be part of a formalized welcoming process. Would breaking those links cause massive harm? No, probably not, but it would probably cause some. -- BDD ( talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Retarget per John Vandenberg below. This could be fixed with a bot run so no historic links would be broken (and talk page notifications not triggered). However, it's questionable whether altering the historic record in such a fashion in order to tidy the namespace would present much of a benefit. The term is unlikely to be searched for, so I don't envisage it causing any problems by continuing to exist. — Scott • talk 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Changed to retarget. — Scott • talk 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Wikipedia, which is a great introduction and has a selfref at the top to Wikipedia:About which is a good entry point for new readers and editors alike. fwiw, the majority of the incoming links are substed versions of {{ Welcome}} from pre 2006. The intended recipient has long since visited the link if they wished to do so. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 20:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per John Vandenberg, Scott, and Rich Farmbrough (who didn't !vote retarget but from his valid argument I would say retarget and it was useful for him to say it). Anything that helps readers to find information is useful. Si Trew ( talk) 02:13, 16 April 2014 (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. ( NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Contact (1997 film) → Contact ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Redirect created from page move to Contact (1997 US film), allegedly to disambiguate from The Contact (1997 South Korean film). Titles are different, so no disambig needed ("Contact" vs "The Contact"). uKER ( talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per consensus to do similar disambiguation as shown at Spy (disambiguation)#Film - The Spy (2012 South Korean film) versus Spy (2012 Russian film). Steel1943 ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a typical {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- BDD ( talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tag per BDD. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• redirect to Contact (1997 US film), and put a hatnote. WP:TWODABS - Christian75 ( talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I would be fine with moving the US film to this title, but if we're going to treat this term as ambiguous, it should go to a dab. -- BDD ( talk) 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm opposed to this. Doing this would cause possible confusion on the disambiguation page. Also, as far as I know, I did not think it was standard practice to try to determine a primary topic for a term that has a disambiguator. (If someone can prove me wrong with an example, please do; I would at least like to know if this has been done before.) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep this and The Contact (1997 film) should point to the disambiguation page. {{ R from partial disambiguation}} -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:54, 24 April 2014 (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) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Γαμέτης → Gamete ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay ( talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Gorobay. Si Trew ( talk) 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete No particular ties to Greek, WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:02, 20 April 2014 (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) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Αντινομος → Antinomianism ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete. This does not appear to be a real Greek word, and even if it were, antinomianism is not particularly Greek. Gorobay ( talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. My Favourite Search Engine brought up a couple of Greek songs on YouTube, this article at third, and then oddlyh a translation site that (not My Favourite Search Engine dot translate) that thought it was Hebrew, very oddly since patently it is not Hebrew. If anything we could redirect it to Antimony but I don't see the point, that would be misleading. Si Trew ( talk) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No particular ties to Greek, being an Protestant term is also not related to Greek Orthodox. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 23:03, 20 April 2014 (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 Racing#Sprint finish. -- BDD ( talk) 15:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Sprint finish → Sprint (running) ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Confusing redirect. "Sprint finish" usually refers to sprinting at the end of a long-distance race, whereas this redirects to an article on short-distance running. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Interesting case. "Spring (running)" could just as easily refer to sprinting (i.e., the act) as "the" sprint (i.e., the type of competition), but the article is on the latter. If we had an article on the former, it would be a good place to target, and a logical place to discuss sprint finishes. But they aren't only used in running either. It seems like we should be able to find a place to retarget, but I'm leaning delete. -- BDD ( talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• This is my fault. I intended to re-frame the sprint (running) article as one covering not just sprint races, but sprint running in general. I've started this change now. Still, sprint finishes are present in sprint cycling, speed skating etc. I think this should be redirected to sprint (disambiguation). SFB 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• CommentDelete. Seems a good call from Sillyfolkboy. I have been grumbling lately about things changing fast under your feet, but I didn't expect it to get this literal. Si Trew ( talk) 03:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. "sprint finish" is frequently used to refer to the end of a cycling stage, or the end of a cross-country skiing race. -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • UPDATE RETARGET per Sillyfolkboy to Racing#Sprint finish -- 65.94.77.36 ( talk) 05:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Given the use in different contexts I suspect there is the potential for an article about this, and nowhere I can find to sensibly redirect to in the meanwhile. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Excellent point. I give you Racing#Sprint finish! SFB 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Very good work. Retarget to Racing#Sprint finish. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Sillyfolkboy. John Maynard Keynes once said when challenged over some point said "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?" [1] Si Trew ( talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (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.