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. Ruslik_Zero 18:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Adult bio → Template:Infobox adult biography (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Male adult bio → Template:Infobox adult biography (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Female adult bio → Template:Infobox adult biography (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Template:Cyclist infobox → Template:Infobox cyclist (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

It doesn't follow the ((Infobox xxxxx)) scheme. Most likely all Wikipedia editors are now familiar with this scheme and this template will remain unused. Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recycle this is an old old artifact. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  

Joined similar nominations. The vote by Rich Farmbrough was for the last entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this doesn't help readers and forms bad habits of editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 24 March 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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer → Template:Infobox college football player (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unused in mainspace, only 3 uses in user space (2 of them I bypassed), seems unlikely to be used now we have a nicer name to use. Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: quirky, unneeded. Each of this would be enough for deletion of redirect in template space. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 24 March 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Infoboxes → Category:Infobox templates (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Cross-name redirect. WP:Infobox redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes while this one to a category. I suggest retarget or delete Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes: singular and plural form of the same word should point to the same location. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely good re-target. Alternatively we should have a help page, but for now this is better. Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 27 March 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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox football biography 2 → Template:Infobox football biography (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No reason to have a redirect that adds a "2" after the infobox's name. Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has been transitionng gfor a long time. Time to finish it off. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: If in case this will be deleted, There will be 190 pages that will need to be changed, thankfully none are articles, but user pages.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:31, 25 March 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 speedy delete. Creator and single author agreed in deletion Magioladitis (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Otherplaces2 → Template:Other places (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Orphan, unused and unnecessary. Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support time we got rid of these relics. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 24 March 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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Other places2 → Template:Other places (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Orphan, unused and unneccessary Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete potentially confusing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete: it serves no purpose at all, which is enough to get it deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:08, 24 March 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously RFD'd in 2007, still no actual mention of the term, or the related "fap", on this page, or anywhere. i removed "fap" from the disambiguation page for this reason. if after 5 years no reference to the term outside of unreliable sources can be found, what do we do? i know its a common search term, but it at least must be mentioned in the article on masturbation to allow for a redirect, right? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to wiktionary:fapping: the subject is a slang term, so dictionary result would be appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Retarget to dab page. Masturbation has a very large number of synonyms, the majority of which (including "jack off" and "jill off") are not mentioned in the article. Instead the thesaurus entry at Wiktionary is linked to, and "fap" is included there, linking to it's entry at wikt:fap. One minute on google books found uses in reliable sources [1][2], and had I spent longer I'm sure I would have found more. Given all this, I don't see any reason for it's exclusion from the disambiguation page. None of the Google searches (web, books, groups and news) I've done show there to be a primary topic for "fapping", although masturbation comes the closest. So, restore the entry on the dab page and retarget this title to it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone types "fapping" into the search box, where should they be taken, to educate them? It seems to me that the existing arrangement will pretty much immediately clue them in on the meaning of the word. On the other hand if they simply can't spell the longer word, then they are also being taken to the right place. Hence keep. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep per Rich Farmbrough. Are we in doubt that (1) this term means "masturbation"? (2) this is a widespread term? If not, and we know the meaning of it, it should redirect to the proper place, since this is a synonym for that. And "fap" should be restored to the disambiguation page. Why should we be unhelpful? WP:NOTCENSORED. These are not articles, so I don't see why we need article-type references to be added to redirect pages. And disambiguation pages don't have references anyways. WP:NOTPAPER/WP:CHEAP there's not really a point in deleting it otherwise. Do you want to turn every article into a dictionary page, listing every single synonym, every form the synonym comes in, just to create a redirect from an obvious and well known synonym? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So far as I know we don't really have a strong consensus on what to do with minor vulgar synonyms for subjects. To be honest I'd ((wi)) this and let people find their way back if required; the term is more interesting as a word than fo what it represents. The same goes for another thousand synonyms of the same type. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer the question posed in the nomination, no a term does not have to be used in a target article to support a redirect (though it usually should). For this particular slang term, I think the redirect to "masturbation" is slightly better than a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. ((Wi)) is for titles where we don't think there is a reasonable chance of an article on the subject ever exceeding a mere dictionary definition. Clearly we have a larger article on the subject, just at a different name. And while I agree with Chris that sometimes the details of the word (origin, etymology, usage, etc) are more interesting than the topic, I don't quite see it here. Keep. Rossami (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sure someone who looks up fapping on wikipedia would rather see an article about masturbation then a definition of the word, that's just my opinion though. JayJay^{Talk to me} 14:53, 25 March 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 with no prejudice to someone writing an article. Thryduulf (talk)

• 46, XX/XY → XY sex-determination system (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. "46, XX/XY" would be a mosaic with some cells being XX and some being XY, which is a notable subject. The current redirect is misleading and should be deleted. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless someone writes a stub. Unless then the readers are better served by being redirected to the closest available article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed XX/XY could also mean "XX compared and contrasted with XY" Seems like a good tartget. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • Including the "46" and the comma at the beginning does not seem plausible. Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also reason 10. I also think that it is more likely that an article will be written if this is a redlink. Double sharp (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article won't be written until someone cares about that. If even you don't, then this name will remain unused for indefinitely long period of time and the readers coming across would be left puzzled. The gross total of such deletion is damage to Wikipedia, not benefit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't be both implausible search term and plausible article name, choose one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an implausible search term if the reader is looking for the XY sex-determination system. It is a plausible search term if the reader is looking for the mosaic. Therefore the article should be written about the mosaic. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, it makes no sense to have a link to this page from ((Chromosomal abnormalities)) with the current redirect. The XY sex-determination system is not a chromosomal abnormality. The 46, XX/XY mosaic is a chromosomal abnormality. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 27 March 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.