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.
✗plicit 23:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Lufti was Spears' manager and she obtained a restraining order against him. He was also the manager for
Courtney Love and she too obtained a restraining order against him. Delete for fairness of the shared notability.
Jay(Talk) 18:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. For
BLP reasons it seems very unlikely we'll get any centralized discussion of Lutfi.
Special:Search/~Sam Lutfi does a better job at showing readers various things he's been involved in than any redirect could.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The last two didn't tag properly so I re-tagged them, but not before I made a mess of things. I think it's all fixed now.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:48, 13 August 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.
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25 § Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development closed as no consensus last month. In that case the question was whether a single sentence saying the department exists was enough to justify a (circular) redirect. Here, this department is not mentioned at the current target nor the suggested alternate one. Delete, and do not re-create unless there's substantial content (either an article or a paragraph or more in some other article) to point to.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 19:40, 13 August 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.
UMTS (telecommunication)
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.
propose deletion, as correctly tagged as "from currently unnecessary disambiguation". The equivalent redirect for the article GSM,
GSM (telecommunication) does not exist either making the current situation inconsequent.
Nightwalker-87 (
talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per my !vote in the section below. It's true that GSM (telecommunication) doesn't exist, but only because no one's thought to make it yet. It would be a valid redirect.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 23:34, 13 August 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.
LTE (telecommunications)
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 per
WP:SNOW.
Thryduulf (
talk) 00:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)reply
propose deletion, as correctly tagged as "from currently unnecessary disambiguation". The main article already holds the sufix "(telecommunication)", so the additional "s" is clearly without any value, as the article would have been proposed already when searching for e.g. the name of the main article.
One additional note @
User:GB fan: Your twofold approach of reverting the original attempt just because of a missing step in the procedure did not appear to be very helpful...
Nightwalker-87 (
talk) 15:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Since you couldn't be bothered to complete the procedure to nominate it for deletion, my revert was helpful to the encyclopedia. The tags you left on the redirects were not helpful in any way. It is standard procedure to remove xFD tags when the discussion had not been created.
~ GB fan 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. As per the
previous RfD, no reason to delete this perfectly valid redirect. In any case, I've also started an RM for
Telecommunication to
Telecommunications. Also, it is not a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, but from incorrect disambiguation. I've corrected the tags. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Paul 012 It's not from an incorrect disambiguation either; rather from an alternative one. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 12:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Eh. Thanks about that. There are really way too many of these rcat templates to keep track of. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 12:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep nothing has changed since the same nominator nominated this for deletion in 2016 and then withdrew the nomination, agreeing that this redirects should be kept.
~ GB fan 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. The search bar isn't our only consideration at RfD. We also need to consider people directly linking to a term, be that a wikilink in an article or a link through some off-wiki interface. Anecdotally, I've heard the term "telecommunications" far more often than "telecommunication", and can easily picture myself linking to the former qualifier rather than the latter. And after all,
redirects are cheap.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 19:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per above.
Winston (
talk) 02:52, 14 August 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.
Serni
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fictional river not mentioned anywhere; seems to be related to
Sernui, which was deleted last summer.
Hog FarmTalk 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, we don't have any hook for this old redirect.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 15:13, 13 August 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.
Nen Lalaith
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
River of Beleriand not major enough to be mentioned anywhere; deletion is probably the best call since we have no content on this subject.
Hog FarmTalk 15:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, I agree, we don't have any remaining need for this old redirect.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 15:13, 13 August 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.
Deviation (film)
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.
Nominate for deletion. These were created when the 2006 film was the only one named 'Deviation' on Wikipedia, that is no longer the case and it isn't the most notable film with that name either.
Mr\Lore 13:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I presume the other film in question is the 2012 film for which you created an article today. Outside of WP, they return a similar amount of hits in Google, and the new article is both too new and too short to allow a quick assessment as to whether it is more notable. The only case for deletion I could see is
WP:XY, though I think a more appropriate fix would be to retarget to Deviation#Other uses (or another subsection if one is created)Deviation#Films.
ComplexRational (
talk) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page Deviation#Other usesDeviation#Films per ComplexRational, as is the usual course of action for cases like this. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC), updated 12:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Revert move per Shhh and procedurally close. Since the article has been draftified, there is no longer any redirect ambiguity for RfD to resolve. If the draft is ever moved back to mainspace, IMO it would be fine for someone to
WP:BOLDly retarget these two redirects to the DAB as was discussed here.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 17:30, 15 August 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.
Leanne Dunic (writer, musician)
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.
✗plicit 12:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No mention of Dunic at the target, and given the stub's length it seems very unlikely that any addition of content would be
WP:DUE (assuming that Dunic is an author published by this imprint). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 11:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Apparently the page creator created an article too soon and wanted to reverse course, but redirected the page to the publisher instead of blanking, which would have qualified it for G7. I believe deletion agrees with creator's intent. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:30, 13 August 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.
Propose deletion. "Vratislavia" is the Latin spelling of "Wrocław". However, Latin is not, and was never spoken in Wrocław, so the redirect fails
WP:FORRED.
122.60.197.214 (
talk) 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per the article: The city was first recognized in the 10th century as Vratislavia. Furthermore, residents are called Vratislavians, so someone could hear that term and assume a Vratislavian is from Vratislavia.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The deletion argument is invalid and mistaken, too: Latin was may be not spoken but fairly commonly written in official documents of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for quite a long time.
Lembit Staan (
talk) 19:01, 13 August 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.
XXR
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.
Not mentioned at the target, an internet search primarily returned results of a tire brand by this name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: XXR is an abbreviation of the Chinese-language term xiǎo xiān ròu. I've added that transcription to the article so that the connection is a bit clearer. I'm not sure whether this abbreviation is commonly used enough to make the redirect worthwhile. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It is still hard to connect the abbreviation with the transcription added. Retarget to
ISO 3166#Codes beginning with "X" where it says that XXR stands for the imaginary country Redland.
Jay(Talk) 05:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambig per draft by BDD.
Jay(Talk) 06:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and let the search engine handle it. When I google the initialism I get to page 3 before seeing any results that aren't for XXR Racing Wheels, and those other results are for other industrial products, none of them notable.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course you're not going to see any results for a Chinese language abbreviation on the English language Google. Has anyone done a search in Chinese language Google?
Mlb96 (
talk) 05:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I searched for "XXR" on google.com.hk and still predominantly got results about tire sizes. Not sure if there's a better site for Chinese internet searches. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Why would I not, if it's a valid search? I get results about language codes if I search for ZH, for example.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate I've drafted one. (I also moved the current target to
Little fresh meat per
WP:NCCAPS.) I found one more usage, and all three seem marginal but acceptable for a disambiguation page. --
BDD (
talk) 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per BDD. The search engine, in its current state, is inadequate in directing readers to the current target. feminist
(+) 06:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, with thanks to BDD for getting the disambiguation page started. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 10:47, 29 August 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.
Lundein
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.
Retarget to Etymology of London. Someone entering a spelling this obscure is more likely to want to know about the word itself than the city. For the occasional time traveler who was looking for the city,
London is linked as the fourth word and a hatnote could be added to
Anglo-Saxon London if desired.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to etymology per Tamzin.
Jay(Talk) 05:52, 13 August 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.
Lundene
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.
Seems like an unlikely search term. London was never called this exact spelling as far as I can see.
Rubbish computerPing me or leave a message on my
talk page 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget per my !vote in the above section. While this term isn't mentioned at that target, Lunden is. (And this does seem to be a valid spelling; see London Stone.)--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to etymology per Tamzin as a misspelling of Lundein.
Jay(Talk) 06:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Worth noting that this variant predates the standardization of spelling in English.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
In the The Saxon Stories set in 9th and 10th centuries England, Bernard Cornwell uses the name Lundene. I don't know if it refers to a fictional city, or to London.
Jay(Talk) 10:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Did he make up the name because it sounded like a pre-London name, or is it really called with this spelling in other sources? If Lundene exists only in the world of The Saxon Stories, then it needs to be redirected accordingly.
Jay(Talk) 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
However, the earliest extant list of Canterbury's London properties, which has been dated to between 1098 and 1108, does refer to a property given to the cathedral by a man named "Eadwaker æt lundene stane" ("Eadwaker at London Stone"). — London Stone § Middle Ages--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It's odd that for a stone with so much historical importance, there is no mention of Lundene or the stone in
Etymology of London.
Jay(Talk) 05:07, 20 August 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.
Αἴαξ
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
Ajax.
Target/retarget all to DAB page
Ajax. Both figures are significant in Greek mythology, and the qualifier is necessary to distinguish them; the name on its own is ambiguous. Compare
James the Great and
James the Less in Christianity.
Narky Blert (
talk) 08:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I would have said that "Ajax" under any spelling usually means Telamonian Ajax—Great Ajax, unless a qualifier is used, or the context is ambiguous—but if used without context, it wouldn't likely refer to Ajax the Less.
P Aculeius (
talk) 10:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
(Re)targetAjax the Great. We have a few thousand years of references to the two Ajaxes to know which one is of Greater significance.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll be honest, I have no clue why I !voted this way. There's no reason for this not to target its romanization. (Re)target to Ajax per above and below.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget first redirect to
Ajax and keep second one. Both words are Greek spellings of the name "Ajax" and they do not specifically refer to
Ajax the Great.
122.60.197.214 (
talk) 06:09, 13 August 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.
River Flows In You
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.
deletion. This redirect duplicates "River Flows in You", which redirects to the Yiruma album. No need for a second link to redirect to the artist.
Mistakefinder (
talk) 07:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget as avoided double redirect per 61.239. Any editor is free to turn the properly-capitalized title into a dab if there's grounds for one, and then this can be retargeted per standard course.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 02:11, 25 August 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.
✗plicit 23:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Lufti was Spears' manager and she obtained a restraining order against him. He was also the manager for
Courtney Love and she too obtained a restraining order against him. Delete for fairness of the shared notability.
Jay(Talk) 18:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. For
BLP reasons it seems very unlikely we'll get any centralized discussion of Lutfi.
Special:Search/~Sam Lutfi does a better job at showing readers various things he's been involved in than any redirect could.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
The last two didn't tag properly so I re-tagged them, but not before I made a mess of things. I think it's all fixed now.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:48, 13 August 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.
South Carolina Department of Archives and History
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25 § Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development closed as no consensus last month. In that case the question was whether a single sentence saying the department exists was enough to justify a (circular) redirect. Here, this department is not mentioned at the current target nor the suggested alternate one. Delete, and do not re-create unless there's substantial content (either an article or a paragraph or more in some other article) to point to.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 19:40, 13 August 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.
UMTS (telecommunication)
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.
propose deletion, as correctly tagged as "from currently unnecessary disambiguation". The equivalent redirect for the article GSM,
GSM (telecommunication) does not exist either making the current situation inconsequent.
Nightwalker-87 (
talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per my !vote in the section below. It's true that GSM (telecommunication) doesn't exist, but only because no one's thought to make it yet. It would be a valid redirect.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 23:34, 13 August 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.
LTE (telecommunications)
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 per
WP:SNOW.
Thryduulf (
talk) 00:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)reply
propose deletion, as correctly tagged as "from currently unnecessary disambiguation". The main article already holds the sufix "(telecommunication)", so the additional "s" is clearly without any value, as the article would have been proposed already when searching for e.g. the name of the main article.
One additional note @
User:GB fan: Your twofold approach of reverting the original attempt just because of a missing step in the procedure did not appear to be very helpful...
Nightwalker-87 (
talk) 15:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Since you couldn't be bothered to complete the procedure to nominate it for deletion, my revert was helpful to the encyclopedia. The tags you left on the redirects were not helpful in any way. It is standard procedure to remove xFD tags when the discussion had not been created.
~ GB fan 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. As per the
previous RfD, no reason to delete this perfectly valid redirect. In any case, I've also started an RM for
Telecommunication to
Telecommunications. Also, it is not a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation, but from incorrect disambiguation. I've corrected the tags. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Paul 012 It's not from an incorrect disambiguation either; rather from an alternative one. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 12:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Eh. Thanks about that. There are really way too many of these rcat templates to keep track of. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 12:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep nothing has changed since the same nominator nominated this for deletion in 2016 and then withdrew the nomination, agreeing that this redirects should be kept.
~ GB fan 18:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. The search bar isn't our only consideration at RfD. We also need to consider people directly linking to a term, be that a wikilink in an article or a link through some off-wiki interface. Anecdotally, I've heard the term "telecommunications" far more often than "telecommunication", and can easily picture myself linking to the former qualifier rather than the latter. And after all,
redirects are cheap.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 19:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per above.
Winston (
talk) 02:52, 14 August 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.
Serni
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fictional river not mentioned anywhere; seems to be related to
Sernui, which was deleted last summer.
Hog FarmTalk 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, we don't have any hook for this old redirect.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 15:13, 13 August 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.
Nen Lalaith
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.
✗plicit 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
River of Beleriand not major enough to be mentioned anywhere; deletion is probably the best call since we have no content on this subject.
Hog FarmTalk 15:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, I agree, we don't have any remaining need for this old redirect.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 15:13, 13 August 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.
Deviation (film)
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.
Nominate for deletion. These were created when the 2006 film was the only one named 'Deviation' on Wikipedia, that is no longer the case and it isn't the most notable film with that name either.
Mr\Lore 13:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I presume the other film in question is the 2012 film for which you created an article today. Outside of WP, they return a similar amount of hits in Google, and the new article is both too new and too short to allow a quick assessment as to whether it is more notable. The only case for deletion I could see is
WP:XY, though I think a more appropriate fix would be to retarget to Deviation#Other uses (or another subsection if one is created)Deviation#Films.
ComplexRational (
talk) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page Deviation#Other usesDeviation#Films per ComplexRational, as is the usual course of action for cases like this. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC), updated 12:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Revert move per Shhh and procedurally close. Since the article has been draftified, there is no longer any redirect ambiguity for RfD to resolve. If the draft is ever moved back to mainspace, IMO it would be fine for someone to
WP:BOLDly retarget these two redirects to the DAB as was discussed here.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 17:30, 15 August 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.
Leanne Dunic (writer, musician)
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.
✗plicit 12:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)reply
No mention of Dunic at the target, and given the stub's length it seems very unlikely that any addition of content would be
WP:DUE (assuming that Dunic is an author published by this imprint). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 11:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Apparently the page creator created an article too soon and wanted to reverse course, but redirected the page to the publisher instead of blanking, which would have qualified it for G7. I believe deletion agrees with creator's intent. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:30, 13 August 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.
Propose deletion. "Vratislavia" is the Latin spelling of "Wrocław". However, Latin is not, and was never spoken in Wrocław, so the redirect fails
WP:FORRED.
122.60.197.214 (
talk) 06:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per the article: The city was first recognized in the 10th century as Vratislavia. Furthermore, residents are called Vratislavians, so someone could hear that term and assume a Vratislavian is from Vratislavia.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The deletion argument is invalid and mistaken, too: Latin was may be not spoken but fairly commonly written in official documents of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for quite a long time.
Lembit Staan (
talk) 19:01, 13 August 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.
XXR
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.
Not mentioned at the target, an internet search primarily returned results of a tire brand by this name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: XXR is an abbreviation of the Chinese-language term xiǎo xiān ròu. I've added that transcription to the article so that the connection is a bit clearer. I'm not sure whether this abbreviation is commonly used enough to make the redirect worthwhile. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It is still hard to connect the abbreviation with the transcription added. Retarget to
ISO 3166#Codes beginning with "X" where it says that XXR stands for the imaginary country Redland.
Jay(Talk) 05:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambig per draft by BDD.
Jay(Talk) 06:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and let the search engine handle it. When I google the initialism I get to page 3 before seeing any results that aren't for XXR Racing Wheels, and those other results are for other industrial products, none of them notable.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course you're not going to see any results for a Chinese language abbreviation on the English language Google. Has anyone done a search in Chinese language Google?
Mlb96 (
talk) 05:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I searched for "XXR" on google.com.hk and still predominantly got results about tire sizes. Not sure if there's a better site for Chinese internet searches. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Why would I not, if it's a valid search? I get results about language codes if I search for ZH, for example.
Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate I've drafted one. (I also moved the current target to
Little fresh meat per
WP:NCCAPS.) I found one more usage, and all three seem marginal but acceptable for a disambiguation page. --
BDD (
talk) 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per BDD. The search engine, in its current state, is inadequate in directing readers to the current target. feminist
(+) 06:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, with thanks to BDD for getting the disambiguation page started. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 10:47, 29 August 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.
Lundein
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.
Retarget to Etymology of London. Someone entering a spelling this obscure is more likely to want to know about the word itself than the city. For the occasional time traveler who was looking for the city,
London is linked as the fourth word and a hatnote could be added to
Anglo-Saxon London if desired.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to etymology per Tamzin.
Jay(Talk) 05:52, 13 August 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.
Lundene
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.
Seems like an unlikely search term. London was never called this exact spelling as far as I can see.
Rubbish computerPing me or leave a message on my
talk page 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget per my !vote in the above section. While this term isn't mentioned at that target, Lunden is. (And this does seem to be a valid spelling; see London Stone.)--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to etymology per Tamzin as a misspelling of Lundein.
Jay(Talk) 06:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Worth noting that this variant predates the standardization of spelling in English.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
In the The Saxon Stories set in 9th and 10th centuries England, Bernard Cornwell uses the name Lundene. I don't know if it refers to a fictional city, or to London.
Jay(Talk) 10:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Did he make up the name because it sounded like a pre-London name, or is it really called with this spelling in other sources? If Lundene exists only in the world of The Saxon Stories, then it needs to be redirected accordingly.
Jay(Talk) 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
However, the earliest extant list of Canterbury's London properties, which has been dated to between 1098 and 1108, does refer to a property given to the cathedral by a man named "Eadwaker æt lundene stane" ("Eadwaker at London Stone"). — London Stone § Middle Ages--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It's odd that for a stone with so much historical importance, there is no mention of Lundene or the stone in
Etymology of London.
Jay(Talk) 05:07, 20 August 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.
Αἴαξ
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
Ajax.
Target/retarget all to DAB page
Ajax. Both figures are significant in Greek mythology, and the qualifier is necessary to distinguish them; the name on its own is ambiguous. Compare
James the Great and
James the Less in Christianity.
Narky Blert (
talk) 08:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I would have said that "Ajax" under any spelling usually means Telamonian Ajax—Great Ajax, unless a qualifier is used, or the context is ambiguous—but if used without context, it wouldn't likely refer to Ajax the Less.
P Aculeius (
talk) 10:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
(Re)targetAjax the Great. We have a few thousand years of references to the two Ajaxes to know which one is of Greater significance.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll be honest, I have no clue why I !voted this way. There's no reason for this not to target its romanization. (Re)target to Ajax per above and below.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 18:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget first redirect to
Ajax and keep second one. Both words are Greek spellings of the name "Ajax" and they do not specifically refer to
Ajax the Great.
122.60.197.214 (
talk) 06:09, 13 August 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.
River Flows In You
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.
deletion. This redirect duplicates "River Flows in You", which redirects to the Yiruma album. No need for a second link to redirect to the artist.
Mistakefinder (
talk) 07:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget as avoided double redirect per 61.239. Any editor is free to turn the properly-capitalized title into a dab if there's grounds for one, and then this can be retargeted per standard course.--
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 02:11, 25 August 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.