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 disambiguate. I didn't find as much as I thought I would, so feel free to expand upon the dab if there's something I missed. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Azala → History of cartography#Ancient Near East  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Initially a Basque-language redirect to the main page, this now refers to a ancient Babylonian who owned an early clay tablet map. We know nothing else about this person, so it's difficult for me to imagine a reader searching for this and coming out knowing more than they knew when they went in. Furthermore, a search for "Azala" shows a few other usages. I don't think it would be a good candidate for disambiguation, though. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete As vague. I can't pin this entry to an article either. It seems that there are a lot literature and video games that use this name. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. The discussion that led to the current target is at Talk:Main Page/Archive 131#Azala, but it's years out of date. Meanwhile, there seem to be a lot of random things named "Azala", and everything we now about the Babylonian can be summarized in one sentence. I'm willing to bet that the Chrono Trigger character gets the most interest, but it's better to have a dabpage than a confusing redirect or a nonexistent page. It definitely shouldn't be a redirect to the Main Page. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per IP. (I was about to say "retarget to Characters of Chrono Trigger#Ayla", but if there is more than one option, then definitely, especially since this character is so minor that it was put into a different character's section on a list.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per above. Rubbish computer 00:09, 24 August 2015 (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) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Brick Tambalin → Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Brick tambalin → Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RTYPO due to the implausible spelling. The character's name is actually Brick Tamland. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 00:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RTYPO. It would be easy to confuse the character's name with "Brick Tamblyn" - that would be my guess at a phonetic spelling, and the redirects are other plausible possibilities. There's not likely to be another possible targeting option, so keeping is harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per IvanVector, ((R from mispelling)) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 00:10, 24 August 2015 (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 tentative keep, WP:NPASR. According to the discussion below, we can't find reliable sources for a usage of this name to refer to this topic, but it is a plausible descriptive title and no alternative topic has been suggested (so no confusion). On that basis I'm keeping the redirect, but without prejudice against renomination if anyone finds new evidence that this redirect could cause problems. Deryck C. 09:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Homs Governorate offensive (July–August 2015) → Palmyra offensive (July – August 2015)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, Homs governorate spans thousands of kilometers more than Palmyra, already discussed Talk:Palmyra offensive (July – August 2015)#Al-Qaryatayn — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The east part of the Homs Governorate is still part of the Homs Governorate. No doubt some people will use that title when searching for the offensive, so the redirect should be left behind for them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per LightandDark2000. Rubbish computer 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources call it as such and per WP policy we stick to common names (which this isn't). EkoGraf (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per LightandDark2000. For a redirect it doesn't matter whether a name is official or not, or whether it is common or not, all that is important is whether it is a plausible search term that someone will use to find this article and in this case it is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not overly concerned if this phrase doesn't appear in reliable sources. It seems to be a descriptive title (i.e., Wikipedia generated), so I'm more concerned with whether it's accurate and unambiguous. The discussion the nominator links to seems to suggest there was another operation in the Homs Governorate that could be referred to by this name. Is that so? --BDD (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Legislative process → Parliamentary procedure  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK. This may be an WP:ENGVAR issue, but when I hear "legislative process", I definitely think of the process of making laws, not how legislative bodies may act when doing their work. See, for example, the US Congress page on the legislative process. There are a few other redirects to this page in the same vein, but I thought I'd see how discussion on this one goes before proceeding with them. BDD (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 00:30, 17 August 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How many spaces after a period → Sentence spacing  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Rubbish computer 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't reviewed the guidelines noted above, but people will use this phrase on Wikipedia as not everyone will know that the article is called Sentence spacing, and that title is not intuitive. This redirect/question has probably been typed in online search engines hundreds of thousands of times, if not millions, in the western world. It would be a shame if we removed someone's ability to type that question at Wikipedia and find a useful article. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep frequent enough to be useful, which is all a redirect need be. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible search term for an article with a difficult-to-guess title. Siuenti (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wily D and Siuenti. This is an unambiguous search term that directs readers to the content they are looking for. It harms nothing and deleting it will bring no benefits, meaning deletion would harm Wikipedia. It's redirects like this one that help search engines interpret natural language queries. WP:NOTFAQ starts "Wikipedia articles should not read like:", and thus clearly does not apply to redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possible search term, does no harm. Essentially per Siuenti and Thryduulf. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does that justify harming Wikipedia making it harder for people to find our content? Redirects are not articles (otherwise we would be discussing this at AfD not RfD), that guideline does not mention titles at all, and even if it did it talks about encyclopaedic content not guidebooks - this is a pointer to encyclopaedic content and is not a guidebook, instruction manual or anything else the guideline covers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry Thryduulf but I think you are in the minority; consensus does seem to be that WP:NOT covers all aspects of the (reader-facing) Wikipedia, including article titles and redirect titles. In a conversation with you not so long ago (within the last few months) I tried to say that to me this means that generally we should follow WP:TITLE "with obvious exceptions for typos, misspellings, ((R from other language)) and so on" – I am sorry I cannot find that conversation – and rightly you said that there would be so many exceptions that such a guideline/policy would be useless. I've narrowed my opinion now to that at least they should usually be WP:NOUN, which should take in all of those "exceptions". (A misspelling of a noun is still a noun, and so on.)

I think to achieve consensus on these we should discuss it at WT:RFD so that we need not all endless repeat arguments. In general, I am with User:Steel1943's and User:Ivanvector's sentiments for these; obviously each must be argued on its merits but I think we have consensus – not unanimous but with a healthy majority – that we should not multiply redirects unnecessarily: doing so, in my opinion, hinders not helps a search. With no hard evidence, it seems to me that the search engine suppresses duplicate redirects, so having extra terms does not help someone realise the article is not what they want before clicking through it (except of course the brief excerpt from the lede of the target): in that sense, a "harmelss" redirect is actually harmful by suppressing possible less-results that may be what someone is searching for.

Suggesting targets at RfD is a bit of a guessing game, which is one reason I enjoy it. I have no knowledge of the search engine tactics though but wouldn't be surprised if it ignored question-clauses at the starts of search terms anyway: which would weaken or negate some of my arguments above. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my concerns would be assuaged by explicitly tagging these sorts of redirects with ((R unprintworthy)), or creating an rcat like ((R from frequently asked question)) that would tag unprintworthy within the code. Beyond that, I just don't like them, but that's not a deletion rationale. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would make sense, except it's not very WP:RNEUTRAL to decide what a frequently asked question is, unless WP has stats on what search terms people try that come up red (i.e. search engine results not an article or via a redirect to it). Were we to do so, I'd favour the ((R from question)) form (specifically not "frequently asked"); in the first place we could redirect that through ((R from unprintworthy)) until we established, by consensus, the use of a Category:Redirects from questions or some such. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have those stats, sort of: WP:TOPRED. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Comment. Searching for the WP:ENGVAR "How many spaces after a full stop" has as my first result Wikipedia:Manual of Style (redirect WP:DOUBLE SPACE) although oűnly by clicking through the redirect would one actually get to the section. Second result is to Template:Sfn, which I use sometimes. Either way this would be a WP:CNR were it to be a redirect. So this is kinda "suppressing" a CNR search (from reader to editor space, moreover), if that makes sense. But of course it depends which namespaces people search on, etc. I'd be interested to know what others get. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table → Periodic table  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my point at #How internet use affects humans. --Rubbish computer 12:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that NOTFAQ does not say anything relevant here, and Steel1943's answer is incoherent, can you explain why you want to delete this useful redirect ? WilyD 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilyD: WP:WWIN doesn't just apply to one particular namespace. Even if we, incorrectly in my opinion, view it that way based on "Wikipedia articles should not read like" (even though it is preceded by "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook."); Redirects are most simply alternative article titles, and no where in WP:RPURPOSE does it say they should be question format to navigate. That aside the combination explosion that would result from phrasing every title, section title, or piece of info from an article that people might be looking for in this manner in a "How", "What", "Where", etc. form would be insane.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rob and my comments in the discussion about about the redirect to sentence spacing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but probably refine to Periodic_table#Grouping_methods. I usually don't prefer "how" redirects but this one is plausible --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is neither a question nor an answer, NOTFAQ in unambiguously inapplicable. Perhaps you're looking for a different redirect? WilyD 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is in fact entirely possible that I inserted the comment in the wrong discussion. I've noted before that I occasionally click "edit" corresponding to a discussion which has moved as more discussions are added to the page. I think I probably meant what I said here, though, prior to striking it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What if extraterrestrials come to Earth → Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an obvious rephrasing of the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Speculative.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. Since deleting the redirect would not change whether Wikipedia "as a whole" answered the question, deleting the redirect would not affect whether Wikipedia is (or, as in this case, is not) acting as an FAQ. WilyD 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WilyD and my comments in the discussion about about the redirect to sentence spacing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. Harmless redirect, deleting it will not improve Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 12:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please see my comments on the discussion about spaces after a period which thoroughly rebut this argument. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2015 (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 as there the general sentiment is that neither plausible target would satisfy majority consensus. I'm closing this as delete, without prejudice against list creation. Deryck C. 13:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• French prince → Prince du sang  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although the target article is associated mostly with France, I'm not sure this redirect works. Fils de France is also categorized in Category:Princes. A List of French princes might well be too unwieldy, but perhaps Category:French princes would provide a place to start. So maybe delete per WP:REDLINK, or just as a "novel or obscure synonym". --BDD (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Fils de France is a better target than Prince du sang, but I'm not sure that this covers everything. Searching the Prince article for the word "France" I found additional relevant material at Prince#Non-dyanstic princes, Prince#The title of prince in other traditions and languages, and there is also Prince étranger. I can certainly see that there would be merit in an article discussing all this, so a redlink may be best. I'm still thinking though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Fils de France is a more special, limited class, while Prince du sang is a general, wider class that may include the Fils de France. Fils de France applies only to the sons of the King or the Dauphin, while Prince du sang applies to all legitimate male descendants of the Kings of France, thereby embracing also the Fils de France in that definition. To redirect this to Fils de France would leave out the Princes du sang, even though they are also French princes according to the Salic law. Reigen (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think a List of notable French princes article might actually be a good idea, all things considered. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of French princes would be the preferred title—see WP:LISTNAME. That said, I doubt there would be a French prince who wasn't notable anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fils de France - there appears to be only one French hereditary rank with "prince" in the title, and that is Prince du sang (not counting Prince étranger which doesn't seem to be a hereditary rank, per se, at least not one with significance to the royal family). However in English prince generally means any male member of the royal family other than the sovereign (sons and grandsons of the king), so assuming an English reader is searching this, we would also have to include Dauphin of France (the French heir apparent) and Fils de France (other sons of the king and the dauphin), who would all be princes in English heraldry. I think that retargeting this based on the English definition is right, but we should add something at Fils de France explaining what a Prince du sang is - not a hatnote but an explanation, I think. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is already explained there, under the heading "Styles". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this. Why should the term adopt an English-monarchy perspective? Better retain the word in the original sense; in France, the operation of the Salic law meant that the line of recognized princes stretched not only to the sons and grandsons of kings (fils de France), but also to more distant male-line descendants (princes du sang). Reigen (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2015 (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 Tap per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The tap → Tshe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect makes no sense. —Keφr 11:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 14:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Tap per WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak retarget to Tap. This was originally a redirect to Spinal Tap (band), but in July 2013 was retargetted to Ћ (a redirect to the present target) by user:Matty.007 for a reason I am unable to determine - the Ћ character occurs only in the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet and I don't know of a connection between Spinal Tap and Serbian. The current version of the band's article does not contain the phrase "The Tap" (nor did it in December 2006 when the redirect was created) so I'd not recommend restoring it to that version. Google doesn't offer anything useful (principally just various pubs called "The Tap Room" or similar) and restricting it to Wikipedia doesn't provide any obvious targets either, so retargetting to Tap per Steel is possibly the best option. I wont lose any sleep if it gets deleted though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ћ. —Keφr 06:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, "Ћ is the Serbian Cyrillic character Tshe, which has been nicknamed "The Tap" by Australian restaurateur Paul Mathis,[1] and used by him as a symbol for the English word 'the.'". That makes sense now. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to tap per above. Rubbish computer 00:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to tap -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to tap CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - almost certainly what the reader is looking for. WilyD 10:50, 26 August 2015 (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. Deryck C. 13:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Practical skills → Training  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The subject of the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and the connection between the redirect and the target is a bit vague. I'm thinking that this may be a candidate for retargetting to Skill, but I have a little reservation for that since the word "practical" in this redirect could stand out as a WP:NEUTRAL violation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this appears to be a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 07:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rubbish computer. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I get the feeling that there's probably a better target out there, but I can't think of it. Right now, there seems to be no harm, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2015 (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.