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 Etymology of tea. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

General topic that isn't language specific. - TheChampionMan1234 00:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tried some targets such as cha (a DAB), but none seems useful. Si Trew (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to history of tea, where specific East Asian affinity is described -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and I was going to support that, but 茶 (or anything similar) is not at the target. A quick search found me this tea house in Japan, "cha2.co.jp", so perhaps my transliteration "cha" is not way out and it 'is so written there, literally. But since cha,a DAB, doesn't have any reference to tea, something is a little anomalous here. dictionary.com lists "cha" as being noun, british, coined c. 1950, to mean Mandarin tea (also "chaw", another DAB that doesn't list it). Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, tea originated in China, retarget is fine, perhaps to etymology of tea where the character is mentioned. Siuenti (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarget to etymology of tea per Siuenti. Si Trew (talk) 13:09, 22 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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commonwealth flags → Flags of the Interregnum (British Isles) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Disambiguate the Commonwealth has had two flags per Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, and there are multiple flags at the current target. The term "Commonwealth flags" is usually meant to refer to the flags of the members of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth itself (such as shown on flagpoles in a Commonwealth conference). The article Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations has their flags. 70.51.46.146 (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per nominator. The singular Commonwealth flag correctly redirects to the Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, but the plural is more ambiguous and a good title for a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Retarget to Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. It just made me think, I have not actually heard any policy whether Scotland, if it leaves the United Kingdom today, intends to be part of the Commonwealth. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • off-topic. Your comment made me realise I hadn't either, so I googled it. The question seems to have arisen in August 2013 and the SNP/independence campaigners are clear they want to continue as members. The consensus at the time seemed to be that membership would not be automatic, but largely a formality - only rUK would likely have any cause to object and it seems that the most they could realistically do would be to delay a decision until the next CHOGM (2015 Malta or 2017 Vanuatu), but there is no precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Woo hoo. My pension should be in Malta by then, so I could perhaps bribe them with drinks. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 18 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. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commonwealth Flag → Flags of the Interregnum (British Isles) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Retarget to Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations, as that is commonly known as the Commonwealth Flag, and the flag of the entity commonly known as the Commonwealth. Alternately disambiguate if this isn't retargetted. There are/have been many commonwealths. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget per nominator, the flag of the commonwealth of nations is clearly the primary topic here. A hatnote can be provided to the current target, or to Commonwealth flags if that is disambiguated as proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that the sentence case Commonwealth flag already redirects to the proposed target. I don't think this is a case where different capitalisations having different targets is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and the reasons Thry states; alt caps should go to same target unless there is a pressing reason otherwise, and "flags" plural surely is better to distinguish than just literally one bit of difference between "F" and "f". My inclination to add ((R from alternate capitalization)) seems pointless, though I am hard pressed to think why I am arguing with myself about that. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 18 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 per WP:CRYSTAL, and salted due to repeated recreation. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhoom 4 → Dhoom (film series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Meaningless redirect. Not links to any "possible sequel" section. UBStalk 06:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was originally transcluded on tomorrow's log page (September 19), but it's still several hours before it's 19 September anywhere in the world, and over 12 until it's then in UTC which is what matters. Thryduulf (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh:, I didn't notice this and I was awake all night (at UTC+2, but basically all night anyway, gnoming). No harm done, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We haven't Dhoom 1, but we have Dhoom 2 and Dhoom 3. Those are articles (not redirects) that both their opening lede sentences say respectively ("English: Blast 2") (and "English: Blast 3") (also have "confused" tags for Doom 2 and Doom 3). So I guess this is just WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Title already registered by Yash Raj with lead actor Salman Khan

. 23.236.124.150 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 4 October 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) 15:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The creator of this redirect has created many foreign language redirects to Portugal, see [1] I can't obviously nominate all of them. - TheChampionMan1234 05:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well you ca (nominate them all individually). It would seem to me sensible to group them. However I know other editors disagree (or did in the past) and argued that each redirect must be discussed seperately – I was not part of that consensus, but have to live with it. I may be thinking of AfD, I dunno – but there is I believe a feeling that each must be discussed separately. I would say, try it and see! You'll probably then be grumbled at for flooding RfD (and I would be the head of that queue!) So you are in a bit of a double bind. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouping is not prohibited, indeed it is encouraged in some cases, but it needs to be done with some thought. Only similar redirects should be grouped (they need to have the same rationale, normally the same target and/or be of the same format, and where it is unlikely that people will have different opinions about them, and groups shouldn't be too large (no more than about 10-20 at once I'd say). It is also often advisable to spread the nominations over several days to avoid overwhelming a single day at RfD. In this case, grouping similar languages is probably the way to go (don't include Spanish and Navajo in the same nomination for example). It is important though that every redirect that is nominated is individually tagged for RfD - if you are nominating many at once (as groups or otherwise) it is fine to ask for an AWB user to help you, just note it in your nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought? Are we talking about the same Wikipedia :) "Don't get it right, just get it written" - James Thurber, Fables for our Time. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per The Champ. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 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) 15:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see Special:Contributions/68.72.116.165 and also user talk:68.72.116.165. This user has appeared to have created may redirects from Romanized Korean. I know this because I can see the "rollback" button on my contributions page. I think I have discussed this at a previous RfD but I cant find it. - TheChampionMan1234 04:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per The Champ. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 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) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• West Corea → Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• East Corea → Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

West Korea and East Korea were already deleted, this is just an alternative spelling. See discussion at Symbols of Corea - TheChampionMan1234 04:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a lot of "Corea"n redirects that should probably go, I don't know why that would be considered a reasonable alternative spelling. (Kanada and Kameroon aren't redirects, for example). For some, I could see Cornea or corona] could be better assumptions as ((R from typo)) them. <FeebleJoke>Your west cornea is in your left eye and your east cornea the right.</FeebleJoke> Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Corea" is a plausible misspelling of "Korea" because they would be pronounced the same way. BTW Kanada (disambiguation) mentions "Canada". Siuenti (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew of the DAB: I only said Kanada wasn't a redirect (which it ain't). But Kanada and Canada are completely separate subjects – so I am not sure if that helps or hinders our decision here.

Comment'. The root of all of these is presumably the DAB at "Corea" which I don't think anyone has mentioned in these various discussions? That's been pretty stable (The Champ edited it on 1 July this year, to change "an alternate spelling" to "a misspelling", but since then just bots and other tidywork). With this edit on 16 September an IP ed changed an entry at Corea from Correa to Corea, which was not helpful but has stayed. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as West Korea and East Korea. Siuenti (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC) (belated signature)[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Portland School of Art → Maine College of Art (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The target is a school in Portland, Maine. That is not where I expected it to be (in Portland, Oregon). The target is marked for neutrality issues. I found this while doing the AfD delisting for Pok Pok, for which I think my fears for WP:PROMO seem unfounded (we can speedily close the RfD entry here now, I think). Perhaps I am biased but I would tend to think of either Portland Bill or Portland, Oregon, though I have never seen either. Portland is a DAB(the two US names listed first and second, with poor old England limping in third as usual). The target itself is tagged with neutrality issues. I can't put my finger on it but it just seems a bit of a WP:SURPRISE to me. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. The current target is appropriate (this was the institution's name between 1972 and 1992), but a quick search finds also Art Institute of Portland, Pacific Northwest College of Art, Oregon College of Art and Craft and maybe Portland Institute for Contemporary Art. Thryduulf (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguate per Thyduulf. Yeah, I found those on my search. Seems a sensible way to go. The talk at the target grumbles about it being WP:NPOV for over two years – but I don't think that's our problem. I tried various essays/guidelines listed at WP:SCHOOL (in particular WP:NHS) but I think this falls outside their boundaries. Si Trew (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. With this edit I have changed your titles into section headings. I presume you didn't add any detail after the entries for Oregon schools since basically the titles are self-explanatory? Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, and I'm not aware that any of those institutions have used this exact title (although I didn't look very hard). Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 18 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.