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 both. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (Be3) → USS McAnn (DE-179) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Brazilian destroyer escort Bracui (Be4) → USS Reybold (DE-177) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The titles need changing as Bauru is Be4 and Bracui was Be3. But better would be Bauru (D 18/U 28/Be 4) and Bracui (D 23/U 31/Be 3) Davidships (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The titles may be technically incorrect but they point the reader to the proper article where the correct information is presented. Many redirects are from incorrect titles - that's the entire point of ((R from misspelling)) for example. Tag these two with ((unprintworthy)) and go ahead and create new redirect that have the correct titles. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget that the category page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cannon_class_destroyer_escorts_of_the_Brazilian_Navy is currently just plain wrong because of this. Davidships (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't require deletion of the page to fix. That just requires someone to remove the category tags from the redirects. In fact, I'll take care of that now. Rossami (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much Rossami. I didn't think it would need a deletion, but I certainly didn't know how to do it! Davidships (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (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 Spud (disambiguation). — ξ^xplicit 22:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Spudz → Tottenham Hotspur F.C. (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I think this redirect should be deleted because there is nothing in the article to suggest that the Tottenham Hotspurs are referred to as Spuds or Spudz. ~Crazytales (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tempted to say "delete as overlooked-vandalism" but the creator's contribution history is too thin to confirm that assessment. I can find no reliable evidence that connects these too concepts. There is a cleaning product called "Spudz" but it does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Perhaps retarget to Spuds MacKenzie (I thought the dog's name was spelled with a "z" in the first place so it would be a plausible typo). Failing that, delete. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about retargeting to Spud (disambiguation) ? ~Crazytales (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. Retarget to the disambiguation page makes sense to me, especially if that page is updated with a reference to the pejorative below. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't vandalism. "Spuds" is used as a very mildly derogatory rendering of the club's nickname "Spurs" - I think most often by Gooners. See this Google Groups search for example uses - the "s" spelling is more common, but the "z" spelling does occur [1]. I can't find anything in reliable sources, but given the context in which the term is used that really doesn't surprise me (the most likely place for it to be I guess would be fanzines and matchday programmes, but they don't seem to get archived online anywhere that Google knows about). My recommendation is thus keep or retarget, with a very weak preference for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (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 disambiguation page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Call My Name (song) → Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It's an unnecessary and wrong disambiguation article. The official one is "Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song)", because several other articles on wikipedia are called "Call My Name", therefore Cheryl Cole is needed in order to disambiguate. "Call My Name (song)" should be deleted to avoid confusion. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the Call My Name disambiguation page and tag with ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). This is a very likely search for anyone who knows one of the songs but not the others. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, because "what they said". --V2Blast (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2012 (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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandel (nut) → Almond (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The term "Mandel" does not occur in the almond article. Dweller (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The only use of mandel in the sense of almond is in Mandel bread, afaik, but I am not a native speaker. Other than that it is just the german word for almond. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ((r from other language)). Also, Benoit Almondbread? ~Crazytales (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As almond already has a mass of foreign language wikilinks, why is this redirect useful? Which German-speaker is going to search Wikipedia for "Mandel (nut)", as opposed to de:Mandel or Almond? --Dweller (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google returns a reasonable number of english-language references to "mandel" in combination with "nut". While the word origin is German, it is not in exclusive use by german speakers and it is by no means obvious to a casual reader that the word is german (so they would never know to check de:Mandel instead). The redirect appears to have been created in good faith and is not in the way of any other content. Tag with ((r from other language)) sounds like a good idea, though. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be because of the Jewish food "Mandel"s, which are a type of soup nut? --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2012 (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.