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 History of Manchuria that contains relevant information. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Korean History in Manchuria → Manchuria (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No good target can be found. - TheChampionMan1234 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about History of Manchuria? Why not retarget there? Korea borders Manchuria: there have been kingdoms that have had territory in both, and some Koreans do live there still. Ansh666 23:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Manchuria as per Ansh. That article mentions Korea bottom to top. Is there a reason I don't see to not redirect it there? —mako๛ 01:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of Manchuria as above. Makes much more sense. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2014 (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 no consensus, after over two months of listing. Since the topic is somewhat referred to at the target article, the status quo is tolerable. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replacement parameter → List of DOS commands (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

PRODed with the reason "I cannot find this topic in the directed article at all". The term indeed does not appear verbatim at the target, though to be fair there is a mention of "replaceable parameters (aka replacement variables or batch file parameters %1, %2, %3, %4, %5, %6, %7, %8, %9, and %0)". But this variability in terminology suggests that this is not really an established term, and perhaps a redirect is not warranted here (WP:RFD#DEL #8 "obscure synonym").

For the record, if this is kept, it should not be marked ((R with possibilities)); such a trivial topic does not warrant an article, and whether this content is in-scope is already questionable. We have no articles about , $2 and $3 in Unix shells either and not just by accident.

(Apologies for the verbosity.) — Keφr 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: apparently it is not obscure at all. I agree that this is not an ((R with possibilities)), or at least the topic should evolve from its parrent article first. I am not sure that current target is appropriate, but I can't find anything better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that is some argument for keeping, though that article seems to refer to environment variables in general. — Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article basically shows that this wording is used in this context. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Evaluation strategy#Call by name Microsoft is far from the only user of this term, and from what I can tell all it means is that, in an interpretive language, the text value of the parameter is dropped into the expression and then interpreted in place as part of the whole. It is perhaps not exactly what they had in mind in Algol 60 but at any rate the appropriate target is somewhere either in this article or in Parameter (computer programming). Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I don't see the term being used in that article. Can you point us to a source, where it is being used in this context? (I do see your point that someone could adopt an "ad-hoc" usage of the term for this concept, but that's different from being used in the literature over a long time.) There are other semantically related articles like f.e. argv, but I could not find the term being used for this purpose in the literature either. If we can establish alternative meanings, changing the redirect into a disambiguation page would be the proper route to go. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Microsoft and IBM seem to be consistent to name these parameters either replacement parameters or replaceable parameters, whereas Digital Research, Novell and Caldera consistently use(d) the term replacement variables and JP Software (a maker of various powerful alternative command-line processors, and therefore also "authorative" in this regard) consistently calls them batch file parameters. So, while there is no single term used by all, the companies who implemented this feature in their operating systems and/or shells were at least consistent in their own usage over ca. three decades. I do think this warrants a redirect to catch the term. Ideally, it should go to an article about batch file processing in DOS, OS/2 and Windows, but since there does not appear to be a suitable article at present, I parked it in the SHIFT batch command section, which, over time, will become an article of its own and then certainly discuss these parameters in somewhat better details. Another link target could be a generic article also explaining similar parameters in Unix shells. If specifically the term "replacement parameter" would be used also in other contexts, the redirect could become a disamgiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article about batch file processing is called, quite unsurprisingly, Batch file. What makes it unsuitable? — Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in general, except for that it does not even mention these parameters at present (unless I'd have overlooked it). Otherwise, I would consider it a better target for the redirect than the SHIFT section in the list of DOS commands. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added a short section about these parameters (subject for expansion) to the batch file article and retargetted the redirect accordingly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the computer science/programmer community as a whole that is authoritative. One can easily search on the term and see it being used outside the context of MS's products. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, searching the web I only found this term being used in conjunction with the PHP preg_replace function and (but this appears to be more by chance than as a deliberately chosen term) SQL query user parameters. I could not find it used anywhere (except for in its batch parameter meaning) in Wikipedia. In either case, if the term needs to be disambiguated, because it will be used in other articles for other purposes in the future, we can simply change it into a disambiguation page then, like we normally do. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: There is no consensus to delete, but where it should point is not so clear. The disambiguation suggestion may also be worthy of further comment

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment. This surely is redundant. What else would a parameter do other than have the symbol being replaced by what it stands for? I thought that was the definition of a parameter, more or less. Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2014 (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 Resolved. (Nothing else to see here, really.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Battle of Harstings → Chemistry (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This does not make sense. - TheChampionMan1234 07:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Talk:Battle of Hastings, I think that's what normally happens. Otherwise, yeah, makes no sense at all. Ansh666 08:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged with ((Talk page of redirect)). I think that should take care of it. - Eureka Lott 20:07, 10 September 2014 (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 disambiguated. As it is no longer a redirect it is now out of scope for this page. Anyone who wishes is free to nominate the dab page for deletion at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• English words that change meaning with accents → wikt:Appendix:English words with diacritics (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The target has a different scope than the subject title suggests. While the list has some words that match the description, they aren't the focus of it or especially highlighted. Not helpful for the reader. Fram (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment the page title is not very clear as "accents" here could mean several different things, see Accent#Speech and language. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on scope: Well, the reason I pointed this phrase at the target was that it was the only page that actually had the information I was looking for. The best internal link, English terms with diacritical marks, doesn't have this information. If there's a better external link, feel free to suggest it. Maybe the best solution is to split the Wiktionary page into sections and point the soft redirect at the section that now has only the information of interest...just implemented that change; is that better? -- Beland (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on ambiguity: I changed the redirect into a disambiguation page that also points to Heteronym (linguistics). I think that covers everything someone who types this as a search term might be looking for? -- Beland (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone 6S → IPhone 6 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This does not direct users to the information they are looking for, furthermore its too early to create this redirect. - TheChampionMan1234 07:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a search for "iphone 6S" out of habit when I meant to search for the 6+. I seem to remember it not bringing up the iPhone 6 page at all, only some other unrelated pages that had the word iPhone in them. I created the redirect so that people would at least get to the iPhone 6 page, since at least some of them could be confusing the name of the phone for the simple plural of 6. So I don't see what you mean by either of the things you mention in the deletion statement. It does direct users to the information at least some of them are looking for, and it is certainly not too early to create a redirect since the names of the phones are set in stone now. —Soap— 12:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to IPhone 6 Plus or delete. WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind to why it should be deleted. But, on the other hand, someone could be using this term to look up the "advanced" model. However, since these iPhone redirects come up all the time during the year before September, might be best to delete AND salt this title until a proper article draft can be created at Draft:IPhone 6S around September 2015. (Seriously, this pattern is so common that I'm starting to think that all iPhone titles with previously-used naming conventions should just be given creation protection until a draft with references is created.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. We don't know if this version will even be released --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel. WP:CRYSTAL, surely? Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2014 (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 Longsword. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Long swordsman → Age of Empires (video game) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I don't think this redirect makes a lot of sense (longswordsmen in general have little to do with a single video game title), and I think it would be better off retargeted somewhere. I'm not sure where, though - somewhere like Swordsmanship (where Swordsman redirects) or Longsword? Ansh666 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term is so ambiguous that a disambiguation page wouldn't even help. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Swordsmanship, on the chance that someone looks up the word at all. bd2412 T 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Retarget to Longsword --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with that also. bd2412 T 15:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. Surely "Longswordsman" would be better (one word), but it's quite a fine balance between Longsword and Swordsmanship. Certainly either is better than the current target, but to choose which is a bit of a double-edged sword... Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment perhaps a dab between the two terms would cut it? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would consider the swordsman to be a subtopic of the sword (without whom, there is no swordsman), and not an ambiguous concept. bd2412 T 01:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Is it useful to make a parallel with Longbow and Bowman? Longbowman is blue, for example; and is an R to Longbow; Bowman is a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the other hand, Musket and Musketeer are distinct articles; bombard and bombardier are both DABs. I don't know really which way to fall, but to me the target is obviously far too specific for this R. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note. I have put a talk at WT:MILHIST directing back to here. They might have some ideas. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jin Richeng → Kim Il-sung (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No affinity for Romanized Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Champ. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Target is a disambiguation page. I don't see the connection (although it has unusual diacritics), and would create Lui (disambiguation) as a redirect target. bd2412 T 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom Delete per my following comment. It's not clear why the redirect targets its current target, and it doesn't seem like there are any topics current on Wikipedia that use these specific diacritics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search for "Lúí" brings up some pages that indicate that this is an Irish name derived from "Lug", but I can see no connection with any specific "Lugaid". bd2412 T 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as per BD2412. —mako๛ 01:52, 11 September 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ハワイ → Hawaii (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No affinity for Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see Japanese in Hawaii, especially the last paragraph. Ansh666 06:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems that there's a substantial number of Japanese people on the islands.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — There are a lot of Japanese people, and a lot of Japanese, in Hawaii. Tons of affinity. —mako๛ 01:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and certainly not a translation dictionary. (And yes, I understand the katakana). For if not, let us use the Hawaiian alphabet here at EN:WP. But we wouldn't get very far, because as the old joke goes, the Hawaiian alphabet only has 20 letters, because they don't do anything after T. It may belong in Japanese Wikipedia or Hawaiian Wikipedia or both; but does not belong in English Wikipedia. It hinders a search for Hawaiian or Japanese people using an external search engine if their results list the English Wikipedia prominently. Si Trew (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects don't show up in search engine results. Searching for this in Google (for example) gives a ton of pages in Japanese, including the ja-wiki one. Ansh666 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • THey do on mine. And they show up on Wikipedia's search engine. Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (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 VA (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Victor Alpha → Virginia (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to VA (disambiguation) "victor-alpha" is phonetic-alphabet-speak ; or delete if not retargetted. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per 70.51.201.202. —mako๛ 01:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2014 (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.