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 without prejudice against disambiguation page creation. Deryck C. 20:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Service center → Rest area  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In the UK, a "Service centre" might be synonymous with a "rest area." In the US, a "service center" usually is an office, and unless there is a valid generic article, this redirect is misleading and disruptive rather than helpful. PanchoS (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it could also be a place that fixes cars.--67.68.163.252 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguate? A service center could be a gas station or a garage or a place which provides customer service. The one thing it's not going to be is a rest area, though rest areas which are larger complexes might include a service center (of the filling station/garage flavor). Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate a service center is not a rest area, it is a place where you can service an airplane, an FBO or maintenance center-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - global usage. Hatnote if there's an article on the more specific topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the term "service center" seems to be used in multiple ways - if you go to a hardware store, it's where you can get keys made, at a grocery store, it's where you go to buy money orders, at an electronics store, it's where they fix what they sold you when it breaks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This term has a variety of uses, depending on local dialects. It could mean a place where you get your car fixed, it could be a gas station, it could be a rest area, or it could be any number of other things. Therefore, I think a disambiguation page is needed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or disambiguate. Clearly only a single local usage (spelled wrong even) of a much broader range of definitions and meanings. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the term seems like an WP:XY issue, but all possibilities for targets are either briefly-mentioned subtopics of articles' topics or such generalized names for several topics that it works almost seem like a WP:NOTDIC violation to refer to them as a "service center". Best to not create a disambiguation page or a SIA and let Wikipedia's search function help readers. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 11 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 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) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yazidi language → Northern Kurdish  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This used to be an article duplicating Kurdish language but was turned into a redirect.
I'm requesting deletion though, because it is incorrect and harmful. Background is that there's a quite controversial debate going on about whether Yazidis are an ethnoreligious group or a mere Kurdish religious minority. The debate is embedded in a real-life conflict about Kurdish territory and Yazidi autonomy.
In any case, what can be said is that there is no "Yazidi language". Yazidis speak Turkish and/or Kurmanci in Turkey, Armenian and/or Kurmanci in Armenia, Arabic and/or Kurmanci in Syria, Arabic and/or Sorani (Central Kurdish) in Iraq, or other regional and host country languages. PanchoS (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The best result here would probably be a Culture or Language section at Yazidis explaining the situation... --BDD (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nominator's rational Inter&anthro (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and once again there is no Yazidi language, Yazidis speak Kurmanji. P.S. They speak Kurmanji even in Iraq (of course there many of them who learn Sorani too). A child (refugee) from Sinjar in Mardin is speaking in Kurmanji in this video. He mentions Kurmanji in his poem (time: 0.28-0.31):"bi zimanê xwe yê kurmancî bêje zarokê devê gura me" say in your Kurmanji language, I'm a child in mouth of wolves.... Yazidis speak Kurmanji in daily life.--Gomada (talk) 00:24, 19 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 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) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Other alphabets in Morse code → Morse code for non-Latin alphabets  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "other" in this redirect is misleading; not all alphabets are Latin. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since Morse Code was originally defined for English, non-English would be the answer to what "other" means; our article on Morse code even specifies that ISO Morse codes for the ISO Latin alphabet, so we have a concrete definition for "other" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - yeah, "other" redirects are usually dumped for being vague, but at least in this case "other" is very likely to refer to alphabets other than the one which Morse code was developed for, and that is what the target discusses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 16 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 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. (edit conflict) with the relisting! I've closed the AfD as redirect, and absent evidence that it's a compound surname, this remains a partial-title match only. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Compton Cavendish → Henry Compton Cavendish  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

third name+last name to a dab page. Not a helpful Neelix redirect Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment isn't it a double surname? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO, not compound surname, and the target is a useless DAB also created by Neelix for two brothers with somewhat similar names. Going to fix that up. Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the combination of parent's surnames, but can't prove that. Anyway, its a bad redirect and the target is now at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the target will be redirected shortly. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 16 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 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) 11:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanese blockprintings → Woodblock printing in Japan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#Japanese wood-block printings, where I believe there was consensus to delete this item. See that discussion for full details. Here's my brief summary: block printings aren't always woodblock printings, even though there's a lot of overlap, and "blockprintings" is a Neelix-ism, not a real word, and thus an unlikely search term. BDD (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep No, all of those have been kept (as NC). It isn't a real word, but it's fairly plausible some might think it was, as most people understandably find the terminology in this area very confusing (eg your use of "block printings"). In the other debates we all agreed that not all "Japanese prints" are "woodblock prints", but effectively all "Japanese block prints" are "woodblock prints" - the blocks are always wood, unless there are odd eccentrics using linoleum or potatos to make blocks. Confusing, I know. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the points summarised by Johnbod. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:49, 16 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 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 United States women. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• American women → American Woman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retargeting to History of women in the United States. Seriously? This is the primary topic, instead of the current target. All incoming links to American women are intended to target History of women in the United States instead of the album. sst✈^(discuss) 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy retarget to United States women, where Women in the United States targets. The history page is a subtopic linked in that article's lede. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Retarget to United States women, though I wonder if the title of that page should really be Women in the United States like the articles for Women in Russia, Women in China, Women in India, etcetera. I also wouldn't be surprised if someone comes here to suggest retargeting this to American Woman (song), but United States women is clearly the appropriate target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to United States women per the above points. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. "United States" can be an adjectival phrase, of course, but it often sounds awkward. If the other articles are titled "Women in Foo", that one probably should be too. For another issue that this raised, see my RM at Talk:American Woman. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 16 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 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 Immigration law. Thanks for your help guys, I'm considering this one withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Immigration bill → Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what to do with this. There's an attested use of "Immigration bill" at the target in the infobox, but it seems like it'd be a WP:SURPRISE to me. This is just one example of an Immigration bill, and I'm not sure if it's the most prominent one. Other bills such as Arizona SB 1070 and Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 pop up in my searches. I thought about maybe making it into a dab or list, but there is an intriguing retarget option: Immigration reform. It's not a perfect match, but most Immigration bills would be of reform. Broader options might include Immigration law or even Immigration. If it's vague, deletion is also an option. I'll be one step ahead of Si and point out that Immigration Bill is red. Thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Retarget to Immigration law A bill (law) has the potential to become a law so I think the best target would be Immigration law. It's a long stretch but I think it's possible that "bill" and "law" can be confused with one another --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Retarget to Immigration law It should absolutely not go to a single US act. That would be an outrageous breach of WP:GLOBAL, as all English-speaking countries (and most others) have immigration legislation, that is often even more controversial than in the US. Or delete. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Immigration law per Johnbod. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Immigration law per Johnbod. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:51, 16 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 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 move El Planeta (newspaper) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• El Planeta → List of Argentine films of 2000  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of such a film on that page (or on the more full Spanish equivalent). I propose the redirect be deleted, at least until such a mention is added. Rigadoun (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move El Planeta (newspaper) over the redirect. Until and unless there's an article on the film, we've got a topic that can fill that title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film doesn't seem to be notable. Suggest moving El Planeta (newspaper) to El Planeta instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move El Planeta (newspaper) to El Planeta per WP:PTOPIC. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to El Planeta per WP:RTOPIC. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per above; somehow I missed that. One should note that this probably should be a disambiguation page, as there is also an Ecuadorian newspaper (linked at List of newspapers in Ecuador), the flamenco singer El Planeta [de], and an album by Von Magnet. Until those have articles, though, the newspaper is the best occupant. Rigadoun (talk) 17:45, 16 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 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) 14:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Fucaloro → Success Academy Charter Schools  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although Paul Fucaloro is mentioned in several articles about the Success Academy Charter Schools (see, e.g., this article in New York Magazine and this article in the Wall Street Journal), I think this is an unlikely search term (averages 0.5 hits per day over the last 30 days) and the current target makes no mention of him. Therefore, I propose we delete this redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:52, 16 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 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 wrong forum. This is actually a request to move "Chief Minister" to "Chief minister." You can make that request at WP:RM. Contact me if you need assistance. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chief minister → Chief Minister  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect should be the other way round (as title is a common noun) as per Prime Minister vs. Prime minister; in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. Neve-selbert 02:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page move of Prime Minister to Prime minister should be discussed first. It it is agreed, then the redirect will be changed as a natural consequence. Olivier (talk) 10:39, 16 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.