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) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohio State Highway 70 → Interstate 70 in Ohio (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No state highway exists in Ohio, not on Google maps. JJ98 (Talk) 18:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Even if it exists or existed, there may be nothing preventing "state highway 70" from being a completely different road from either a "US 70" or "I-70" in the same state. Texas State Highway 66 was not U.S. Route 66 in Texas, for instance. Occasionally chunks of decommissioned highway from the US Highway system are dumped into state highway systems with the same numbering, but only after the federal-style numbering has been removed. K7L (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Interstate highways, along with U.S. highways, are usually state-maintained and in the eyes of most state DOTs are considered state highways. In Pennsylvania, for example, Interstate 70 is considered State Route 70, U.S. Route 30 is considered State Route 30, and Pennsylvania Route 18 is considered State Route 18 by PennDOT. I-70 in Ohio is likely considered State Route 70 by ODOT and someone may view I-70 in OH as being "State Highway 70". Redirects are cheap anyway. Dough4872 00:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Texas State Highway 66 is state maintained. U.S. Route 66 in Texas is also state-maintained (as Interstate 40 in Texas or its associated "business" loops and service roads now that US66 has been relegated to fiction). That doesn't change the fact that these are two different roads in two different parts of the state which had the same base number. The I- or US- is a necessary disambiguator. Some states avoid numbering intrastate routes in a manner that overlaps I- or US- highway, but not all do this. K7L (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true in some states such as TX, others treat I, US, and state as one system and do not allow duplication. OH is one of those states. Dough4872 00:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dough4872. It's perfectly fine as it is. TCN7JM 00:13, 31 May 2013 (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. Consensus is that this is not a BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Susan Nelles → Toronto Hospital Murders (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

WP:BLP violation. Susan Nelles redirects to Toronto Hospital Murders. A court of competent jurisdiction has found this nurse not guilty as the only evidence presented to link her to the deaths was a claim that she happened to be on duty when many of the deaths occurred. K7L (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm... which is exactly what the Toronto Hospital Murders article states. So what BLP violation is occurring here? Dl2000 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since there is nothing in the article to suggest that she was a killer and makes it clear that the charges were dropped. I don't see a BLP issue here.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems perfectly reasonable per WP:BLP1E (or WP:BIO1E, depending on her current status). --BDD (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (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. The retarget location, however, did not get much discussion. Complicating the decision, an anonymous editor retargeted the redirect to Super Mario 3D World during the discussion. No evidence has been presented that "Super Mario Universe" is an alternate name for any one game. The concept of a fictional "universe" however is widely held. Using that interpretation, I am going to retarget to Super Mario (series) which appears to me to be the most general article and the most likely to match a reader's expectation about the "Super Mario universe". (That would also make it a capitalization variant.) Please consider the specific choice of target to be an ordinary-editor decision which can be subsequently debated on the respective Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Mario Universe → Super Mario Galaxy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Does anyone actually call the game by this alternate name?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the stats consistently show 20-30 uses each month so the answer to the nominator's question would appear to be "yes, they do". Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe retarget at [[Super Mario (series)#Settings]]?--Pacostein (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Pacostein. It's misleading to suggest that there's a game by this name, but as a search term, it could plausibly refer to the fictional universe of the Mario franchise. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (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) 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• XHTEB-TV → XHDTV-TV (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

As far as I am aware, XHDTV-TV has never used the call sign XHTEB-TV (officially or unofficially)… and neither has anyone else, for that matter, to the best of my knowledge. (This redirect is a remnant of a reversed page move, which itself resulted from since-reverted edits.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dubious as to XHTEB's existence; it's not in COFETEL's infrastructure lists.[1] It may be worth checking whether XHTEB ever existed as a rebroadcaster of XHDTV, as often a repeater or satellite station will be redirected to its parent station (WSKA → WSKG-TV or WNPI-DT → WPBS-DT, for instance). I'm not sure where to look for this info as COFETEL lists the ownership of each currently-active transmitter but not the content (Televisa and Azteca both own multiple México City stations with huge repeater chains for each). XHTEB does not currently exist but I have no idea if it previously existed. An online search turns up es:XHDTV-TV (where it was inserted by an IP here) and a few off-topic listings for pornographic website XTube. K7L (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and possibly hoaxical. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2013 (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.