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. As was pointed out here, reptilian is not the same as reptilian humanoid. Whether List of reptilian humanoids should be moved is beyond the scope of this rfd. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reptilian humanoid → List of reptilian humanoids (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Reptilian humanoid is an alternate term for reptilians. Should be retargeted to reptilians and List of reptilian humanoids should be moved to List of reptilians. Marcus Qwertyus 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reptilian humanoid is not an alternate term for reptilians. Reptilians are a specific type of reptilian humanoid from conspiracy theories and alien abduction accounts. Reptilian humanoids cover a much wider range, with examples in fiction, mythology and cryptozoology. Listing them as reptilians is not only wrong but implies that the conspiracists, who often say that gods and monsters from mythology of reptilian humanoid appearance are in fact reptilians, are right. Serendi^podous 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• what the hell?? "reptilian" is an adjective refering to being like a reptile, it could also refer to reptiles. What's all this UFO stuff? list of reptilians -- is this the Fringe UFO Wikipedia or something? In the evolutionary history of animals, there have been reptilian mammals and reptilian birds. If you don't believe in evolution, there still have been these things as fossils, so in the biological history of the world then. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reptilians is a plural noun, not an adjective. You're thinking of "reptilian". Serendi^podous 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a human-like reptile and asserting that it is a reptilian humanoid is original research without a source. Please be civil. Marcus Qwertyus 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You aren't going to find many reliable sources on this topic. The easiest thing to to is to google reptilians. You'll see that every single mention of reptilians is UFO or conspiracy related. You can argue that "reptilian humanoids" is not the right generic term for all humanoid beings of reptilian appearance but you cannot argue that reptilians is the right one. Serendi^podous 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is part of a pattern. bird people — the name that is actually used for … well … bird people — has been renamed to list of avian humanoids, a name that isn't used outwith Wikipedia. I notice that in both cases, it's Serendipodous that's done this. These names are daft. Let's have the names that the world actually uses, bird people (used in mythology and science fiction), reptile people (used in mythology and science fiction), and lizard people (used in ufology and mythology), rather than these stilted, idiosyncratic, and contrived names that the world does not use. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't coin the phrase "reptilian humanoid"; Wikipedia's original article on the subject was called "reptilian humanoid" long before I showed up. Unfortunately, the article comprised an unpublished synthesis and, by consensus, was trimmed down to a list, called "List of reptilian humanoids". I changed the title of "Bird people" to "avian humanoids" because "Bird people" reads like a proper name, rather than a description. I feel the same about "reptile people". Serendi^podous 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is Like a lot of people, I hear reptilian and think of ordinary real-life reptiles. Reptilian humanoid is clearly not about ordinary reptiles but about those that resemble humans. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Snow retarget. Mhiji 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Forefront Endpoint Protection → Microsoft Security Essentials (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Microsoft Security Essentials and Microsoft Endpoint Protection are two completely distinct products. Redirecting one to another is an act of deception which results in ultimately misinforming reader. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Microsoft Forefront. Mhiji 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... Yes, that is an acceptable course of action. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 both. They appear to be made up. Miss-spelling rational is only applicable if there is something to misspell. But there is no twentytens article. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Twentyteens → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Twenty teens → 2010s (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible redirects; how does "ten" translate to "teen" (as in "teenager")? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because teen (as in teenagers are aged 13, 14, 15 etc) is a suffix derived from "ten"? and goes back to OE etc according to my reading of the Concise Oxford Dictionary. So 13 can be seen as a slurring of three-ten (in the German language 18 is achtzehn literally eight-ten, whereas the French have it back to front dix-huit). the phrase seems to be in use though not popular. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're reading the Concise OED correctly; the OED confirms it with more details. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The 1910s were the nineteen tens, not the nineteen teens. The 1810s were the eighteen tens, not the eighteen teens. The 2010s are the twenty tens or the two thousand tens. I would strongly discourage redirects from "twenty tens" or "two thousand tens" to 2010s, but at least those make sense. Twentyteens does not even make sense, except if it meant 2013-2019. Ten-, eleven-, and twelve-year-olds are not teenagers, so 2010, 2011, and 2012 can't be part of the twentyteens. All this is aside from the fact that anyone looking for a year or decade would look for it in digits, not words. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you are right, but don't expect everybody else to be. Pageuse statistics indicate people are making htis mistake.--Patton123 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although one of these was in 2010s#Names at one point, it was one editor's opinion, unsupported by reliable, or even unreliable, sources in the real world. It's not actually used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in use eg at the bottom of this columnist piece at ft.com GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page use statistics cited in my comment below indicate thse redirects are use.
• Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. Mhiji 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that link is relevant to the discussion at all.--Patton123 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was "twentyteens" or "twenty teens" are not words/phrases, someone's just made them up. Unless they can be found in reliable sources they should be deleted. Although I hadn't considered they might be there because they are misspellings of "Twenty tens". Although if we did keep them as misspellings, why have a redirect at Twentyteens when there isn't one at Twentytens? Mhiji 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A plausible mistake, pageuse statistics (1, 2) indicate these two were redirects were used 29 and 43 times respectively in December. That means people are typing this in looking for the currect target page, which means they are useful. How anybody could justify deleting them in such circumstances is beyond me.--Patton123 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search function predicts article titles and offers a pull-down list. For all we know, all of the people who got to Twentyteens were aiming for Twentythird Street in the pull-down menu and clicked one-off from their target. We're not doing people any favors creating unlikely redirects, and the fact that they get a few clicks proves nothing given the pull-down list. Anomalocaris (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How do we know what readers entering this name are expecting to find? Most of the in-prose occurrences of this that I can find are simply referring to 20 people in their teenage years. There seems to be a fair argument that this isn't an alternative name of any subject, given that we don't as a general rule do redirects of the form some number+countable. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a misspelling of "twenty tens".--Patton123 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mhiji 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Religion in Detroit → Religion in Detroit (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete as a worthless cross-namespace redirect. The article was created in 2006 at this title and only today was moved to its present title. Nobody's going to search our template mainspace while expecting to get an article, so the age of this redirect isn't a problem. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Snow retarget. Mhiji 03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanese Philosophy → Eastern philosophy (links to redirect • history • stats) 

• Delete. As there is already a Japanese philosophy article, a redirect to Eastern philosophy makes no sense. As well, to change the redirect target to Japanese philosophy seems unnecessary considering how the wiki software tends to ignore capitals.~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Slightly different capitalisation is a great reason to have redirects. Deleting, rather than changing the target to "Japanese philosophy", would not help the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Nyttend.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Nyttend. Is it alright if I go ahead and retarget it, or should I wait for consensus?~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]