< December 11
December 13 >

December 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2015.

Fault(geology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 20#Fault(geology)

Portal:Current events/2006 August

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) 04:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Portal:Current events/August 2006 and Portal:Current events/September 2006 now exist, so the redirects should be retargeted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 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.

Brown Sequard

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) 15:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  2. Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  3. Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  4. Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  5. Charles Edouard Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  6. Charles-Edouard Brown Sequard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  7. Charles Édouard Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  8. Charles-Édouard Brown Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  9. Brown-Séquard → Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete using detailed rational at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred_Candidus_Ferdinand_Windischgratz Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:03, 12 December 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.

Islamic Arab

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.(non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, could just as well go to Arab Islamic Republic as ((R from adjective)) per WP:XY. See #Arab Islam, below. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not, in itself, a legitimate deletion rationale. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
maybe, but he created redirects using thousands of made up words and short phrases with no actual justification, so not much justification is needed to delete his nonsense. ANi vote was these can be deleted on sight if an Admin thinks they will fail RfD. Therefore I'm noting the creator so Admins can apply sppedy G6 if desired. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much justification, yes, but all you said in your rationale was "Delete because Neelix created it" which is zero justification of the redirect itself. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:16, 12 December 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.

Amphibium

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. Since no one wants this kept as is, though, I'm retargeting to Amphibian. --BDD (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is useful as a misspelling redirect - Current target doesn't make sense, and previous target was an unhelpful link to wiktionary. Seems like deletion is the best option Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:05, 12 December 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.

Polakis

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 Pavlos Polakis. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be either retargeted to Pavlos Polakis or turned into a dab page. The Traditionalist (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pavlos Polakis, and probably a hatnote from there to the minor planet list, as the politician is surely more important than the minor planet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pavlos Polakis per ἀνυπόδητος --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 13 December 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.

Heather Simmons

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 15:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a non-notable pageant winner. Not the name of the swimmer it seems. Redlink it? Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 12 December 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.

Margaret Palermo

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) 04:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was a result of an AfD of a self-created autobiographical article that was closed as redirect even though the majority (3 out of 5) of the !votes were "Delete". The subject is not mentioned in the target article and has zero notability. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, given that we have an apparent sockpuppet situation on hand, I have removed my "delete" comment. It would be helpful for the article history to be retained for an SPI investigation. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 12 December 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.

Template:Covert

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) 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:REDLINK "covert" is nowhere near a synonym of "convert". I've marked it as ((R from typo)), but there were only twenty transclusions so it made more sense just to fix them to use ((convert)) directly (as the doc at ((R from typo)) recommends).

This redirect was relatively recently created (9 September 2015) by User:Rich Farmbrough). I guess before its creation its transclusions were red, but there were only twenty, so I fixed them (I presume the instructions at ((R from typo)) trump WP:NOTBROKEN). About half of them were injected after the creation of this redirect. The only few uses left, outside this discussion, are in talk space for a GA review; I don't want to rewrite history by changing them.

I've not used ((rfd-t)) on the redirect, because it is not transcluded anywhere. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_26#Template:J raised by User:Jimp, where redirects to templates are also currently being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:21, 12 December 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.

Template:J

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 deprecate, and eventually delete. This redirect has clearly proven useful to some, but there's consensus that its opaque, ambiguous name makes it problematic. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intended purpose of this redirect was to provide a shorthand for ((nowrap|...)). Yes, ((j|...)) is shorter but it makes the markup so much more obscure. The megre gain in brevity is not worth the loss of clarity. ((J)) has been around for about five years and hasn't caught on, gaining just over a thousand transclusions as compared to over 400 thousand transclusions for ((nowrap)). I suggest ((j)) be replaced by ((nowrap)) and then deleted. Jimp 01:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimp rightly started a conversation at Template talk:J#deprecate and delete, and perhaps the discussion would be better continued there to get consensus: I realise part of the reason for listing here at RfD is to give it a wider audience, but nothing in the RfD guidance really says it need come here (WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD point 4 deals exclusively with retargets.) That's probably a deficiency in the RfD guidance, though, and I don't want to get all WP:BURO.
Perhaps it would be better to replace the R with a ((deprecated template)). But even if deleted, I don't think salting is necessary or desirable; we don't tend to do that pre-emptively. The template has already been fully-protected since July 2011 (here) as in the class of Wikipedia:high-risk templates with no evidence of prior vandalism. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely deprecate and then replace it first as was suggested on the talk page. I brought it here on the suggestion of another user, though, I didn't see it as really necessary. Old pages get broken all the time, I can't see the advantage in keeping a whole bunch of rubbish to maintain historical versions; in some cases it may be worth keeping a redirect but here I'd say the clean up outweighs the cost. I mean, take this rationale to its extreme and barely anything will get deleted leaving us with a myriad of poorly named, poorly maintained and poorly written templates for users to wade through. Jimp 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, taken literally together with "ït may break external links" it means we can never change anything; the only way to solve that would be to specify version numbers on links, which would have its own disadvantages! (If applied more widely it would also mean we could never delete a page, for example, or move it without leaving a redirect.) I agree with the maintenance headache that then ensues; in fact I think template redirects should generally be discouraged. We have been taught sicne the year dot that in computer programming we should use meaningful names (and templates are a form of computer programming). I've scrubbed my !vote above. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now Template:Join doesn't exist either? I read the docs wrong, you say? ((join)) was never created, there's just a note in the docs that j stands for "join". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that there are a whole bunch of shortcuts out there that may seem "too ambiguous" to some editors. Ambiguity doesn't matter to editors who use this template and others like it, because what matters where shortcuts are concerned is brevity (save those keystrokes)!  Paine  17:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity isn't the problem with this shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some those other shortcuts are also problematic. Other ones exist so we should keep this one is a pretty weak argument. Saving keystrokes at the expense of clarity is hardly a good thing. It's not all about those who use this shortcut; we've got to consider editors who come after and have to deal with the incomprehensible state that the mark up was left in. Jimp 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a bot that does it? (I don't run with the CfD crowd, I don't know) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If a bot takes care of the transclusions before this RFD is over, consider my !vote one for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
me too. Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bot could do it but with only about eleven hundred pages it would be an easy enough job with AWB. Jimp 09:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't mind how it's done (I've just manually edited about five hundred redirects to categorize them, but I have never got the hang of these new fangled tool things). Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Concatenation" is precisely what "join" is – a "primitive notion" that relies on "intuition", which isn't always interpreted the same way by different editors. That should be okay for a useful template-shortcut redirect like this that is transcluded more than a thousand times by different editors. Useful redirects should not be deleted.  Paine  19:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but this isn't a concatenation template. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is! It concatenates/joins two words together so there will be no line break between them, only a non-breaking space. This shortcut is well on its way to becoming a high-use template, which means it's already a medium-use template and becoming more and more useful day by day.  Paine  22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's used more than a thousand times, sure, 1108 pages. This is actually a pretty small number really. Is it used by several editors? I doubt it. It'd be a small handful at best but I wouldn't be surprised at all if each transclusion was the work of a single user. Jimp 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your speculations about how many users trumps K5 and the fact that high-use templates are defined as 2,000 to 100,000 transclusions? 1,100+ transclusions places Template:J more than half-way there. If that does not prove this shortcut's usefulness, then what else will?  Paine  02:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the purpose of this definition of "high-use template". The intention was to determine when to put up a specific warning about how to go about editing the template. A far better measure of the volume of use in this context would be to compare it to the over 400 thousand pages ((nowrap)) is transcribed onto. From this perspective, we're looking at less than 0.3% of the transclusions of ((nowrap)) going through ((j)). This cannot be described as anything but exceedingly low use. Jimp 03:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "join" makes no sense with this template, and "j" even less so. If the only thing that matters to you is brevity, then may I suggest creating a shortcut that actually makes sense? I noticed that ((nw)) is available, create that and start using it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please rethink this, Tavix, because "j" for "join" makes every bit as much sense now as it did to the editor who created it. Be prosperous! Paine  18:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. In my mind, a template with "join" would mean to concatenate something, which isn't happening here. I really don't see what the issue is. I'd much rather promote a shortcut that makes sense, like ((nw)) than this. This is a collaborative project, so we need hold clarity above brevity, and I've offered a compromise that I believe accomplishes both. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, because such a point is moot when we consider that editors are completely ignoring WP:RFD#K5 as proven by its transclusion count. This is a useful template to those who use it – those who care nothing about clarity when they're busy trying to finish and move on to other edits. Those in this collaborative project who want to work with templates like this can either use the template directly or use the shortcut. This template shortcut is stipulated as a shortcut on the /doc page and other editors may use it or ignore it as it suits them. That option should not be removed at leisure.  Paine  21:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, consider "those who care nothing about clarity" when their busy trying to go and stuff other pages up. Such editors should slow down and take the time to edit in such a way as others can understand what they've done. Saving a few keystrokes and leaving a mess is hardly what we should be encouraging. Jimp 23:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What mess? Editors are not stupid, Jimp. If they can save over 80% of their keystrokes, then that is what matters to editors who use this template. No muss, no fuss, just sane and good editing practice.  Paine  03:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are not stupid", well, that would be debatable but it's not a debate worth having since this has nothing to do with stupidity but clarity and simplicity. Where are you getting this 80% figure from? We're only talking a few keystrokes here and there. Using obscure and illogical mark up is anything but sane and good editing practice. Jimp 03:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! I just noticed your question (apparently drowning in this sea of useful-shortcut malplaced hatred). When an editor chooses to apply a shortcut like this instead of the target, there is a saving of keystrokes. In this case it is one letter, "j", vs. six letters, "nowrap", a savings of 5 over 6 strokes or about 83%. Eleven hundred translusions just means that more than 900 keystrokes were eliminated by use of this shortcut. Over time, that's a lot of unstroked keys! and that's just one shortcut of many hundreds of thousands of others just like it. Happy holidays! Paine  18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the percentage goes down when you consider all the rest that the editor will be typing. In fact it becomes quite negligible. Jimp 02:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jimp, but that sounds like the same ill-conceived logic you used to begin this nomination. Please focus – it's the only way. Happy holidays! Paine  04:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: I can see plausible WP:RFD#D2, WP:RFD#D5, and WP:RFD#D8 rationales for deleting this, the spirit of which is asserted above in certain points to certain extents. That aside: "A redirect is a page that has no content itself but sends the reader to another page, usually an article or section of an article." the first sentence from Wikipedia:Redirect; WP:R (WP:R#KEEP etc.) is mainly written with the article namespace in mind, it is a bit different when it comes to the pages in other namespaces ("behind the curtain" if you will), that don't aid readers in navigation. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this trouble is due to the listing of such things here rather than at TFD. This is really more of a TFD issue than a RFD one. I only put it here because this is where it officially belongs. Personally I'd change this rule and have redirects to templates discussed at TFD rather than RFD. Anyhow, you'd probably be wondering what my point is by now ... or maybe you'll have guessed. RFD#K5 says the following.

Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

This is clearly referring to such things as redirects to articles, portals, help pages, etc. There is no browsing involved when a template or module is redirected to another. So, I cannot accept the accusation that I'm ignoring the usefulness of instructions since this one obviously does not apply in the context of redirects within the template space. Moreover, as mentioned above, taking RFD#K5 to its logical conclusion would mean that just about nothing gets deleted so why have an RFD at all? Jimp 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) See below... K5 applies to all namespaces until it says it doesn't. Be prosperous! Paine  02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read D2, D5 and D8 again – they all pretty much refer mainly to mainspace redirects. There is nothing at K5 to tell us that it is for mainspace redirects only nor mainly. In fact, K5 applies across all namespaces and rather than being an aid to navigation, it is a template shortcut, which is mainly used to aid editors and reduce their workload by requiring fewer keystrokes to get the job done. It is K5, and it trumps all. Be prosperous! Paine  02:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect everything to be spelt out explicitly. On reading K5 it is clear that it is referring to browsing whereas this is a mark up issue. As Godsy and I have pointed out, K5 cannot be considered to apply to the template namespace. Pointing out that D2, D5 and D8 seem to apply to redirects to articles only adds strength to the point that RFD as a forum is a poor place to discuss redirects within the template space. I don't agree that the megre reduction in workload for the small fanbase of this redirect is a valid argument given the fact that it actually increases the workload for subsequent editors who have to deal with confusing and illogical mark up. Jimp 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... really it's a case of WP:ASTONISH. Although that talks of "readers" and "articles", I think it reasonable to transpose it to talk of "template users" and "templates": more people usually transclude a template than edit it. It is better, I think, to use only one name (or an obvious synonym for it, such as Template:no wrap) rather than have cryptic abbreviations such as this, saving an amazing five key strokes, about the same number as is required to sign a post.
That being said, an example picked purely at random (ahem), ((convert)) has redirects Template:con (and that's not a concatenation, either) and Template:Covert (what's so secret?) and those perhaps are equally as astonishing. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've listed the redirect Template:Covert here. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Shortcuts are called that for a reason. It is truly pissing in the wind to go after all the wonderful and useful shortcuts on Wikipedia. The sad truth is that there are thousands of redirects out there that really need to be deleted, and people are picking out useful shortcuts and wasting everybody's time at RfD. If an editor likes and uses a shortcut, and it's deleted, they'll just make another one that's perhaps even more cryptic. Go after the giants, please, and leave the little imps and elves alone. PS left by  Paine  20:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: With that interpretation and description of K5 as presented above (which seems to ignore all other reasonings): WP:RFD might as well be nominated for deletion, and the criteria for speedy deletion in the redirect namespace (i.e. R2 and R3) should be deprecated, as every redirect created in good faith would meet the bar of someone finding it useful. That extreme statement to illustrate a point aside: due to jovial collaboration in the past, I've contemplated your opinion more than normal, but I still fundamentally disagree on the matter. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I love that you disagree with me, Godsy, I do. Usefulness is really just one of many criteria, as you know. The point here is that regardless of what other editors may think, there is no (quick) way of knowing how many users are involved in this template's 1,100+ transclusions. If there are several, and their useful shortcut is deleted, then deleters will have caused the creation of several new shortcuts those editors will make to the same target where now there are fewer shortcuts. Most shortcuts are cryptic and are not designed to help future editors easily read markup. You can't expect everything to be spelt out explicitly. — Jimp (the nom.) That has been true from the beginning, which just means that there are a huge number of them out there, and the deletion of a useful shortcut will merely generate more cryptic shortcuts, especially when the deleted shortcut is used by more than one editor. I've had this discussion before about other similar useful shortcuts, so I know I'm just spittin' into the wind here. However, it is my humble opinion that if editors want to delete useful shortcuts, they're just spittin' into the wind like I am. Good thing Superman isn't around because ya'll would be tuggin' on his freakin' cape, too. Well, I'm gonna go pull some masks off some old lone rangers, so ya'll mess around with whatever you want. Happy holidays! Paine  07:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I approve of those Jim Croce references . "there is no (quick) way of knowing how many users are involved in this template's 1,100+ transclusions" [now amended] technically we could answer that question by delving into the page histories, but alas, there are many more productive things to do with the amount of time that would take.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, bottom line is that there's no telling how many new redirects may be made to replace this one if it's deleted. It's a good thing redirects are cheap, isn't it.  Paine  18:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Could you close it as deprecate? That'd probably be the best solution to the problem until/unless someone fixes the transclusions. -- Tavix (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: You could put it in the TfD holding cell with an explanation that its transclusions need to be replaced. Over there we generally close the discussion and then do the cleanup, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 20 December 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.

Henrich Pette Institute

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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect is a misspelled lemma, only 1 link links to the Redirect. Compare also the history of the target article. marilyn.hanson (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by the history you mean this move of 6 February 2008 by User:Tikiwont. Whatever linked there, doesn't when I just checked: no links outside this discussion. Stats average about 2 every 3 days (over 90 days). Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:19, 12 December 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 force awakened

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, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no chance anyone would spell the title those ways if they are looking for article on the latest Star Wars movie. I mean I never call The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, "the king returns", so these seems like just a pointless redirects. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all of the same reasonings as Blaze The Movie Fan Officialjjones (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:16, 12 December 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.

Harry potter magic spell challenge

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) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable game that isn't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a handheld memory game that was crated by Tiger Electronics. There is not much in sourcing outside of product guides or eBay actions but it is sill mentioned at Simon (game)#Clones.--67.68.208.55 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget there although the grammar is a bit squiffy and we haven't Harry Potter Magic Spell Challenge with the initial caps; no need to compound the felony. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 01:15, 12 December 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.
More