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) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Other primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley → List of schools in Dudley  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not clear on what "primary schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley" it is meant to exclude. Delete as confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unlikely search term. Exists only because there was a page with that title which I moved to a more appropriate name some years ago. --RFBailey (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not serve the purpose of redirects. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 9 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) 04:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Milton's Walk → Christ's Pieces  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:G8 redirect loop, WP:REDLINK. The only instance is in the target, which has a couple of sentences about it in section "History". A search will find that. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove the circular link from the target. That is not a G8 loop; a loop would be if Christ's Pieces were also a redirect to this redirect. The article explains what Milton's Walk is, so we should keep this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Ivanvector. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 15 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. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• North American Football League → North American Soccer Football League  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a North American league and it's called Soccer here, not Football. Therefore it shouldn't redirect to a soccer article. Crash Underride 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 15 December 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Weak keep or retarget. It's an alternative name for the North American Soccer Football League, which says so in the first sentence of the lede.

But, there are 32 links in mainspace to this redirect, most seemingly incorrect (some piped as "NAFL", but NAFL itself is a DAB at which this is an entry). We could, perhaps, add this to the DAB at American Football League (disambiguation) and retarget to that, instead. That's WP:NOTPERFECT, but maybe better. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to set index to list lists of North American football leagues, and the largest pro leagues in North America, plus the football conferences/aossciations/federations; and "gridiron football" (Canadian, and America, football, which would collectively be "North America") -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whither Mexico? We have Mexican football league system, there might be something better. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you interpret the term "North American football" to mean "gridiron football", then leagues that play that would be listed. "Gridiron football" consists of two sports, "Canadian Football" and "American Football" (this does not mean the country "Canada" or "US"), there is no variant called "Mexican Football", Mexicans play Canadian Football or American Football, in this context. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper title for such an article would be North American football leagues, with lower case f and an s. There is only one possible target with a capital F and no s, making North American Soccer Football League the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to which it should be redirected. TDL (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as valid target. GiantSnowman 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No policy based reason given for deletion. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. WP:STRONGNAT suggests we should use North American usage for the article title, but it certainly does not say that redirects from all other English variants should be deleted. Per reliable sources in the article, this is a name used to refer to the league and as per WP:OTHERNAMES it should be redirected. Deleting it would impede the ability of readers who speak other dialects to use the encyclopedia, with no benefits. Should we delete the redirect from the alternate name United States Football Association simply because no one calls it football in the US in 2015? Also, COMMONNAME is not inherited. Even if the primary term for the sport is soccer, it is entirely possible for proper nouns involving the sport to use other variants. TDL (talk) 05:20, 9 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. I find a stronger argument for keeping these redirects instead of deleting them. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 04:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SciFi Dine In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• SciFi Dine In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• SciFi Dine-In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• SciFi Dine-In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci Fi Dine-In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci Fi Dine-In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci-Fi Dine In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci-Fi Dine In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci Fi Dine In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci Fi Dine In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci-Fi Dine-In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All partial title matches with various uses of dash that the search engine ignores. Do not help the reader. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about the ones that are just "Sci-Fi Dine-In", but I wouldn't call the "Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater" forms PTMs. The restaurant could easily be referred to by the latter term alone. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - again more redirect spam, hyphens are not factored in searching —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors have said this this week. Does that mean that a search for "two by four" is considered the same search as "two-by-four"? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I searched just Sci-Fi Dine-In and found what looks like an official use of just that term [1]Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:RPURPOSE. These are various alternative names and forms that help readers find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These seem to be legitimate names, though we really didn't need all of the variants established. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They seem harmless, even if I wouldn't have personally created them. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'em all It only serves to *confuse* searches. That is the opposite of what redirect are supposed to do. Try writing "Sci-Fi Dine In" on the search box: you'll get a assortment of these redirects and nothing else. So these serve to hide secondary hits - that could be what the reader is looking for - and serve to trick the reader ionto thinking there are multiple pages about the subjet; while not helping at all to find their target, which is the first - or so - item on the search - Nabla (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the secondary hits you're referring to? Is there anything else that could conceivably be a "Sci-Fi Dine-In?" At least with search results, redirects don't normally show up unless it's an exact match (right now, due to the RFD banner, that's not the case). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:06, 8 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, default to keep. Deryck C. 14:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sci-Fi Dine-In → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Sci-Fi Dine-In Restaurant → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Sci-Fi Dine-In Theatre → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Sci-Fi Dine-In Theatre Restaurant → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant → Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These use "The" against policy. Just a few of the maybe 40 redirects he created to his article. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most. WP:THE proscribes definite articles in article titles, not redirects. Keep unless it can be demonstrated that they're harmful, misleading, or unlikely search terms. I'm unsure about the first item—see my comment in the following section. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that WP:THE and others are restricted to article titles, I don't see why WP:COMMONSENSE can't extend them to apply to redirects that are not "corrective" (((R from misspelling))s, ((R from incorrect punctuation)). Even with e.g. ((R from other name))s and ((R from other language))s etc, surely we would expect the title to meet WP:TITLE except in the one particular for which it has been made a redirect (e.g. it's not English, it's not the common name). Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - the is useless as a search term as it's ignored by Google. This is pure redirect spam. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per WP:RPURPOSE. These are various alternative names and forms that help readers find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete'm all It only serves to *confuse* searches. That is the opposite of what redirect are supposed to do - Nabla (talk) 23:42, 7 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 all but one. Since the nominator's statement refers to 64 items and the collapsed box lists 61, I assume some of the more reasonable variations have already been removed. Deryck has helpfully broken this down into groups, of which I find consensus to delete all but those that have "Payne*". However, those that use a plural form of gray/grey seem frivolous, as well as misleading—the article is about a specific shade, not a range or group of them. Though it may seem like a supervote, I'm invoking this discussion to delete them as well. That leaves Paynes gray alone as a keep. Now let's put all this past us. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Blackishgray[edit]

Similar to another color where most say delete, we have 64 variations on this color name, many invented words or that could refer to other colors. See [2] Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is two sets of redirects, they should be listed separately, for 'black-grey' and for 'Payne Grey' -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all Gray-black, black-grey forms to a new disambiguation page that lists Shades of white, Shades of grey and Shades of black as the targets, since in a monochromatic color scheme, that is all the same thing. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would call the page Shades of black and white or Shades of monochrome; but turning any of the redirects into a dab page would also work. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the Pain/Payne/variant redirects as I don't see why you nominated them. ((R from alternate spelling)) and ((R from misspelling)) covers those; and there are less than 20. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the whole group because they were created together. I don't think they should all be deleted, we need to sort out retarget, delete etc Legacypac (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to shades of gray, which also covers shades of black (they are the same). These are mostly reasonable searches for someone who wants to find, say, slate gray, but doesn't know what it is called. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - it's not possible to quantify gray this way, "blackish gray" is literally just gray. You might as well say "blackishdark" or "clearishtransparent" or "light white". Interestingly, Drmies already deleted blackishgray, he shouldn't have stopped there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be surprised at the various stupid names colorists uses for colors they invent and then market and sell, that use oxymoronic naming. However, "black" is used as a synonym for dark, so it isn't all that oxymoronic using the weird poetic forms found in English for various terms. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you delete Paynes gray and similar? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Paynes gray has already been retargeted, so consider that done. The other variations listed here (all of them) are pointless, we're not a colour catalogue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "-pain-" redirects as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no mention of this spelling at the target. We don't have Panes grey, Pane's Gray, Paine's Grey and so on just because "Pain", "Pane", "Payne" and "Paine" are homonyms; WP:NOTDIC. It does however seem to be used in RS as Paine's Gray, Paine's grey, and combinations (and I assume that means the same colour).

The form does seem to exist in the wild both with and without the apostrophe, and with both spellings of "Grey"/"Gray". It looks like "Grey"/"Gray" is almost always written with an initial cap, but Oxford Dictionaries has it in lower case. So those variants are reasonable. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clearing up the groups, Deryck. I think the first two groups should be deleted. It's a bit of an WP:XY case because it could equally be shades of grey and shades of black (which aren't the same thing, surprisingly enough). No current opinion on the other two groups. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'delete all, except, maybe, "pains gray" or some other not so similar to the original yet likely search term. Most of them only make searching harder - Nabla (talk) 00:40, 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. I think that's about all we can say after over a month of listing. As I've remarked before, paraphrasing Rumsfeld, you make a close with the discussion you have, not the discussion you'd want to have. Ivanvector makes a good point, though the keep voters have valid arguments as well. Does the lack of responses to Ivanvector's argument show that it was unassailable, that it was unconvincing, or that editors just didn't care? I suspect a bit of Neelix fatigue, and these are small potatoes among his works. Speaking of fatigue and works, time to slap on a bunch of ((old RfD))s... --BDD (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for The World, the Flesh, and the Devil[edit]

Nominating 123 redirects that versions of this phrase, including punctuation and word order differences [3]. They all point to one article even though there are books etc listed here The_world,_the_flesh,_and_the_devil_(disambiguation). Requesting someone with tools to ax most of them. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or keep many of them. This is one single instance (out of 80,000) where Neelix is not engaging in mere mindless wordplay but rather inputting search terms, capitalization, and word order that the average person might input. Even the dab page doesn't have the mid-phrase uppercase letters, so typing them into the search field won't trigger the correct page (I don't think) if the person wants the origin phrase or the dab page. If I'm wrong here feel free to correct me or enlighten me. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget but do not delete. Point them at the theological article or the disambiguation page, but let them remain, if they are correct grammatically and spelled properly, and proper-caps/allcaps/camelcaps/small-capped/title-case/sentence-case, and in English or Latin. Those that are not should be listed separately and proposed later. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Special:Search gives me, reasonably prominently, Mortification (theology) and Flesh (theology). Seems reasonable to me to keep the DAB. The DAB's hatnoted at the target, as it should be. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except The World, the Flesh and the Devil, Mundus, caro et diabolus, and any that stats show are highly used; delete all of the rest. Hear me out here. All of these capitalization variants point to the article already, so if these redirects did not exist then readers would get to where we're pointing them anyway since the search tool is not case sensitive. Were these redirects deleted, someone typing variations into the search box would be presented with search results with this article high on the page, along with other highly relevant information and competing usages. Currently, someone intending to find one of the published works who starts typing the title into the search box (assuming Javascript is enabled) ends up with a confusing list of variations of this title which all point to this target, whereas if these were deleted they would see the thing they're looking for. So per WP:RFD#D1, these make it needlessly difficult to use the search engine - they are a net liability because they don't add any functionality the software doesn't already provide, but they do limit other functionality. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. We should probably invoke WP:RFD#D1 more, as unnecessary case (etc.) redirects do make search unnecessasrily difficult. Time was when the search engine was not (always) case-insensitive, so some of these may have been helpful when created, but are harmful now.

That being said, I think we should reverse the redirect The World, the Flesh and the Devil and its target at The world, the flesh, and the devil (disambiguation) since all the entries at the DAB have initial caps and none uses the Oxford comma. I can knock up an encylopaedic stub for the expression itself and we can keep the DAB for the publications. Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do that, would the stub be any different from the current target, The world, the flesh, and the devil? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it wouldn't be; I had got a bit confused with what content we had where: which is why I think reversing the DAB and distinguishing on WP:DIFFCAPS would be useful. (I think to distinguish just by the Oxford comma is way too subtle, but for example we haven't The world, the flesh and the devil, The world, the flesh and the devil (disambiguation), The world, the flesh and the Devil or The world, the flesh and the Devil (disambiguation))Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the search engine should be smarter and not pollute the list with multiple redirects to the same target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

It isn't, though. It does seem to do some filtering but there are some duplicates, I guess that could be from the Rfd tags on some of the redirects. The top-menu search box is not so smart, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the dumb search finds most of the variations on this titles, and dumb as it is it can not figure they are redirects. We must change the sea... en... Wait! If the search engine finds the variations of the title, why do we need the redirects in the first place?... - Nabla (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @SimonTrew: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "reverse the redirect" or "reverse the dab". Are you suggesting The World, the Flesh and the Devil should retarget to The world, the flesh, and the devil (disambiguation)? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all, reason in comment above - Nabla (talk) 00:37, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Next Australian federal election/Current pendulum → Pre-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is a WP:SUBPAGE violation and an implausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. Is this for the "next" election or the "current" one? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 8 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 Speedy Keep. This isn't going anywhere, I see the nominators logic, but it is flawed. (non-admin closure) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Islam faith → Islam  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As the page was deleted and wasn't previously used as a redirect, I think also the redirect page could be deleted. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nothing wrong with this redirect being used. Valid search term. JMHamo (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People may search for this term, so it's useful as a redirect.  Seagull123  Φ  21:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible search term. Jewish Faith currently redirects to Judaism and Christian faith redirects to Christianity, so we should keep this as well. Also, WP:CHEAP applies here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - perfectly reasonable redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the page was originally written as an inappropriate spam for a particular singer's song. As such it was worthy of deletion. But the phrase is also a perfectly valid search term to serve as a redirect, so that is what was done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 10 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 Keep It Comin'. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (There You Go) Tellin' Me No Again → The Best of Keith Sweat: Make You Sweat  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The song was included in two albums released in 1991. Shall it retarget to New Jack City (soundtrack) or Keep It Comin'? George Ho (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Keep It Comin' as that is ostensibly the album on which this song first appeared; the other two are compilations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Keep It Comin' since that appears to be the single's proper 'parent album' CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:07, 15 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Taker → Eminent domain  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I came across this redirect just now and found it a bit strange. It was created as a redirect in August 2005 as a redirect to Mark Calaway, a professional wrestler. In October 2006, it was changed to a redirect to his ring name, The Undertaker. Whether "Taker" is a common nickname for The Undertaker I do not know, but it stayed like that until March 2012, when an IP changed it to a redirect to "taking", which a bot then fixed as a double redirect to eminent domain. I can't see the generic word "taker" being an apprporiate redirect for the wrestler or the specific legal term "eminent domain", so I am wondering whether it should be deleted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking is also a problem redirect. Both "taker" and "taking" should not redirect to eminent domain. They should redirect to acquisition -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "taker" and "taking" to acquisition -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good suggestion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per IP70.. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget "taker" to acquisition. However, we should not retarget "taking" away from eminent domain. "Taking" is a term of art in the law that refers to the compulsory seizure of property by the government (see, e.g., the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause). I think any remaining confusion can be resolved by placing a hatnote at the top of the article for eminent domain. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up comment: I've thought this through a little further, and I think I should strike my earlier vote. I have published articles that discuss Takings in United States constitutional law, so my opinion on this matter may be a bit biased. Therefore, it's probably best if I sit this one out. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both per 70.51. The view that eminent domain is uniquely synonymous with "taking" seems POV to me, proper though it may be. Better to retarget to the dab, and list eminent domain there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting it as an ordinary English word would be OK, or a ((Wiktionary redirect)) to wikt:taker. Or a disambiguation including Acquisition, Eminent domain, Undertaker and The Undertaker. All of these are a big stretch for a redirect though, so I would not choose a WP:primary topic for this everyday word. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we include Takers, we'd get Takers (a film) and the Houston Takers. I'd support a disambiguation here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That explains why "Taker" is a common nickname for The Undertaker; the latter name was unpopular with the players and fans alike. LOL. Houston Takers should be merged into Houston Red Storm. Hey, you learn something everyday. I didn't know there was a new ABA, but I remember the old league of Julius Erving. Takers is missing a hatnote for the basketball team. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose in keeping with the current target, this makes me think of the conservative/libertarian idea of society as "makers and takers" (cf. Makers and Takers). I'm not sure this idea is addressed elsewhere, though, and I don't think the book would be a good place to retarget—the idea is not original to that book. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, to make my stance official. I've drafted a dab below the redirect for you all to check out. I almost got carried away with the see also section, there's a surprising number of PTMs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per Tavix --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• on Taxiv' dab. I'm resisting the urge to discuss whether "the 1%" are really the "makers" or the "takers" – I think that depends on one's POV! Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 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 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) 14:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Forthcoming Sugababes Album → Sugababes  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seeing as this group is on hiatus, there's not a "forthcoming" album. Delete as confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cause what else you gonna do Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 9 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.