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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:҈ → User:Wordless symbol (links to redirect • history • stats)
• User talk:҈ → User talk:Wordless symbol (links to redirect • history • stats)
• User:҈/monobook.css → User:Wordless symbol/monobook.css (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unnecessary redirects leftover from renames and pagemoves with little incoming links. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, documents user renaming and pagemove, does absolutely zero harm. —Кузьма^討論 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per kusma (sorry I didn't spell it out, I don't have a Cyrillic keyboard anymore!). It's always a good idea to keep redirects from renames/pagemoves — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The account was recreated after the rename. If it can be confirmed that this was done by the owner of the renamed account, it can stay (but consensus to keep here should still allow speedy deletion if the user requests it). Peter E. James (talk) 07:05, 9 May 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 retarget to Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:~ → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • history • stats) 

It would make more sense for this to redirect to Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts (the same as WP:TILDE does), because it is a more convenient page to redirect to - considering the use of the tilde in signing posts, and the fact that there are no current WP:[insert single character here] redirects to the page on signatures, unlike the "what wikipedia is not" page. gz³³ (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts per nom's rationale. Also, I fail to see how this should redirect to WP:NOT in my experience, a tilde isn't used to mean "is not", it's used instead of ≈ or is used to mean "is congruent to". — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget While this is commonly used in programming languages to denote bitwise NOT, I think the reference is probably too obscure for general audiences. And WP:NOT is plenty short enough already, I don't see much need for further abbreviation. Given that tildes are most commonly encountered on-wiki in the context of signatures, the proposed new target is quite sensible. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:05, 6 May 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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Brontobit → Units of information (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Brontobits → Units of information (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Brontobytes → Units of information (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete Cf. Brontobyte's AfD. The unit is not well-defined, has not had significant use, and is not mentioned on the redirect target article. Cybercobra (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amended nomination to include related redirects. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Brontobits and Brontobytes. No useful history, created by a now-blocked user whose only purpose was attempting to astroturf these nonsensical terms into the encyclopedia yet again. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brontobyte (2nd nomination). —Кузьма^討論 09:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per AfD#2. 65.94.45.230 (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why salt per AfD#2? The close specifically said no salting necessary yet — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Brontobyte and Brontobyte should redirect to Non-SI unit prefixes#Unofficial prefixes. The words are neologisms, but this one has been used occasionally and is mentioned in the article. The only opposition to a redirect at the AFD is based on non-SI prefixes not being worth mentioning, but a page exists and these can redirect to it. Peter E. James (talk) 06:58, 9 May 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 no consensus to delete. Whether to leave it as is, retarget it, or convert it to something that isn't a redirect is left to the normal editorial process. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rump steak → Round steak (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Rump steak is not round steak, it is from a different part of the beef, as can be clearly seen from the charts at Category:Cuts of beef. DuncanHill (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The diagrams at Category:Cuts of beef are not definitive. Other diagrams (and there are many) show the Rump as occupying the top half of what that diagram shows as the American Round. See, for example, this page which includes diagrams from authorities such as the American Angus Association and the Good Eats research team or this page which draws from the same now-deleted page that was originally posted by the California Dept of Food and Agriculture but does a better job of listing aliases. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those charts are not of British cuts. We really need a dab page listing the different usages in different countries. The rump steak of Britain is completely different from the round steak of America. DuncanHill (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection. What would be the appropriate target article about the British cut? Rossami (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hasn't been written yet. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this doesn't strike me as a deletion case. If the two concepts are different, somebody needs to split the article and write a new one in place of the redirect. As long as no article dedicated to "rump steak" as opposed to "round steak" exists, the redirect does no harm, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is misleading and was based on a misconception. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting debate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if you turn it into a set index, you can point to a redlink article for the British cut. 65.94.45.230 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 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

• Iranian papak → Babak Khorramdin (links to redirect • history • stats) 

False citation created, this redirect was added on that basis but it is original research - it was cited but the cite does not mention anything of the sort. Google finds zero hits for "Iranian papak"... Ogress _smash! 22:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it isnt original research.in Britannica says iranian papak clearly.[1].Iroony (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your cite indicates that in Iranian, it appears as "Papak", not "Iranian Papak". Ogress _smash! 12:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting debate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Papak is an alternative spelling of Babak; Iran is the current name of the country where he lived. Combining the two into a weird redirect makes no sense. Sideways713 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 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 retarget to One Nation. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• One Nation (UK) → Our Nation (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I created this article a number of years ago under the wrong name after accidentaly misreading a source, I have subsequently moved the article to the proper name but this redirect remains despite the group never actually being called "One Nation". As such I feel that it should be deleted as unhelpful. Keresaspa (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading and potentially confusing.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to One Nation (but remove the entry for this party from the disambiguation page if the name is incorrect). It could refer to One nation conservatism or One Nation (band), and a redirect makes it less likely that the title will be used for another article. Peter E. James (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds a reasonable idea - I've gone ahead and removed the entry from One Nation as you suggested. Keresaspa (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]