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. No prejudice against recreation as a dab. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Project Unity → University of Manchester  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I came to this 9-year-old redirect through a link about the Laotian Civil War, so it's much broader than the redirect suggests. Also, it isn't mentioned at all in the target. I suggest that we delete it. ansh666 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC) ansh666 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate there are many Unity projects -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do they have articles? Please give some examples. ansh666 07:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SAS (software) covers one, Unity: The Latin Tribute to Michael Jackson covers another, Operation Sourisak Montry VIII details a particular batallion of Project Unity in battle. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think those are too obscure to create a disambiguation page. The first has only one mention with barely any detail of...something, I'm not even sure what it is; the second has alternate title "The Unity Project" which is at least moderately plausible as a redirect target; and the 3-4 Laotian Civil War articles that mention the term don't even bother to explain what it is. ansh666 07:10, 14 April 2016 (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. Deryck C. 17:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Little Marco → Marco Rubio  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Keep Similar to #Lyin' Ted below, this properly tagged redirect from a non-neutral political epithet will help readers who come across the term without proper context. (Nominating as a courtesy to editors who objected on my talk page.) BDD (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as we would any other intentional insult to a WP:BLP. These are not notorious or lasting nicknames (yet, if ever) and Wikipedia is perpetuating this insult between living politicians in the middle of a campaign. Wikipedia is helping generate notoriety. If they come into common and widespread use after the election, then they are notable enough to be saved as redirects. Scr★pIron^IV 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an attack page - we should not be creating redirects for every insult Trump dreams up about someone. This is not Trumpinsultopedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because it's a pejorative (those are explicitly allowed at Wikipedia) but because I can't find any evidence that this common phrase is at all notable or linked to the target by other than a transitory mention. If someone can present evidence that the phrase is commonly used in this specific context, I will reconsider. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Marco Rubio presidential campaign, 2016, which is where criticism of Marco during the campaign should be. wp:NOTCENSORED widespread coverage of this label. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Marco" is not mentioned there, so that would just as much be hearsay. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to source, since it is so widely reported -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I completely agree that redirects don't have to be neutral. That's not the point. The problem is that this is not in any way, shape, or form a significant political labeling with legs, receiving the news coverage outside of a flash-in-the-pan thing. This is more of a matter of a disposable meme than anything. I'd also like to point out that we don't have any redirects based on Mr. Trump's supposedly long, hard fingers (Long fingers, Hard fingers, etc) and that verbiage has gotten way more media attention. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2016 (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) 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Technopolitics → wiktionary:technopolitical  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally a Neelix redirect, it was speedied and then recreated as a Wiktionary redirect. The problem I have is that there isn't a Wiktionary entry on "technopolitics," it instead redirects to "technopolitical." I think Wiktionary redirects should only be redirected to an entry on that exact title, otherwise there's potential for confusion. I don't believe this to be a word frequently searched for on Wikipedia, so I think it should be deleted, WP:R#D8 should cover it. If we want an alternative to deletion, the closest subject I could find was Technopoly. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of a long string of Neelix invented words to a single target. It should have stayed deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly retarget to Technoculture which in the second sentence of the lede says "it refers to the interactions between, and politics of, technology and culture". Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. Despite the comment in the Technoculture article, culture and politics are different things. Wiktionary has separate entries for every grammatical variant. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not (and should not) follow that same pattern, so I don't see a problem with soft-redirects to Wiktionary going to a grammatical-variant title as long as the concept is the same. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. As Rossami points out, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The problem with soft-redirects is that it makes it seem so. I presume the consensus is still to have that distinction, otherwise it would not have been made, or Wiktionary would have been subsumed into Wikipedia. If we are to "window" every unencyclopaeidic word to Wiktionary, we might as well do it in the search engine and be done with it. What a soft redirect says is "we don't have anything about this". Which is what a redlink says, but more consisely: WP:Competence is required by readers as much as editors. The advantage of a redlink is that one doesn't have to load a useless page on a slow device just to be told that. What a blue link does is hold out the candy and snatch it away. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2016 (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. Yes there's been a good debate but the supermajority means that the closer doesn't really have any other option... Deryck C. 17:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Batman and Superman → Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not necessarily have to refer to the film. SSTflyer 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - We should have a new page that mentions the various media involving the two superheroes, which includes not just the 2016 film but also works such as Superman/Batman: Public Enemies as well as Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DC Comics since they are the owners of both characters and the original source of the concepts. It's a bit general, though so I can also see the argument to disambiguate with more targeted content. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. In addition to above, I also found Superman/Batman, The Batman/Superman Hour, The Superman/Batman Adventures, and even Superman and Batman versus Aliens and Predator. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate, as above. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig: There are all kinds of comics and such to which this can refer, that pre-date the film.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This doesn't look like a great candidate for disambiguation, since many of these wouldn't actually be called simply "Batman and Superman". However, I'm positive there's an encyclopedic article to be had about crossovers between them generally we decide to call them. I'm notifying WikiProject Comics and registering a WP:REDLINK weak delete for myself. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig - I agree that a full article could probably be created for this, but until it is, this should give users an option. The page's history shows that a small number of people (usually single digit) visit it daily. It is worth noting, I think, that it redirected to a subsection about a crossover film between the two characters since its creation in 2007 until it was changed to the film's article in 2015. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dismbiguate following CoffeeWithMarkets and Tavix. Emperor (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily disambiguate.Why does this get relisted for further comment when every !vote bar one (from User:Rossami) in the first round was to disambiguate it? The only reason it wasn't, I imagine, is that nobody wanted to do so themselves because they were involved in the discussion: because all of them have made draft DABs before to be considered at RfD, so it is not for their want or effort. Let's just do it now and close this: I would do it myself but I am not a Batman fan, so one of the others would be better to do it, and we can just speedily close it as done. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bar two; User:BDD went for delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2016 (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet and hatnote. Deryck C. 13:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:INTERNET → Wikipedia:Notability (web)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. The internet and world wide web are not the same thing, as described in our own articles about those subjects. I am aware that those terms are often erroneously used interchangeably due to confusion, but redirects like this only serve to promote such confusion. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It confused the heck out of me. Even after seeing the redirect target here, I still reflexively clicked Wikipedia:INTERNET to see where the heck it redirected to. Somehow my brain just didn't want to parse that it pointed to WP:Notability xyz. Alsee (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a short-cut to Wikipedia:Notability (web) that has quite a number of uses, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper). Sure the web is not the Internet, see this week's Signpost, but the vast majority of stuff "on the Internet" is either web-based or can be accessed using a web front-end.
  It's not our job to police the back room use of terms, though we might strive for such accuracy in content pages.
  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • This is an encyclopaedia, the purpose of which is to present facts, not misinformation, however it's presented. This redirect implies the internet and the web are the same thing, which they are not, as you have said yourself. Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet and hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify with links to the current target and Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not an encyclopedia article title, it's a Wikipedia maintenance page so our standards for confusion are looser. That said, I can see the potential for Tavix's alternate target. I think the history of usage argues against retargeting and a disambiguation page with only two links is less than ideal. Hatnotes may be useful, though. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. This is confusing, but it's also something that can be a useful shortcut for something more appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. Hatnote seems to cover all the bases --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix and hatnote. I'm not concerned with the difference between the web and the internet—this just doesn't go where you'd expect. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was confused at the outset with the nominating remarks. Just because the Internet and the World Wide Web are not the same thing does not mean that WP:INTERNET and WP:WORLDWIDEWEB are not the same thing. So after that I am still totally lost. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Tavix - The previous one although technically makes sense is still stupid....., Retargeting to the wikiproject's much better. –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet and hatnote as per the above comments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2016 (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 both per WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D10. The deletion arguments are by far the stronger. This is an encyclopaedic concept that requires at least some content of substance at any target if not its own page. Just Chilling (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Popularize Mandarin → Standard Chinese  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Popularize mandarin → Standard Chinese  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was discussed before, but we didn't consider alternative targets really (and we didn't consider Popularize mandarin, so it was a good job we decided to keep). Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't popularize mandarin be included in this nomination, instead of the other? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's included in the batch immediately below. I shepherded this one out because it had been discussed before. Mandarin Chinese was a redirect before 30 March 2013 when Wikipedia:Mandarin (language) was moved over it (how long for, I don't know: there was no histmerge) so the previous discussion wouldn't have included that possibility. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect targeted to Standard Chinese. The Mandarin that is being popularized is the standard, not the language group. —  AjaxSmack  13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Create disambiguation page I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but when I first saw this I thought of Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign. Presumably it could also refer to Chinese schools or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the last discussion until and unless a better article specifically about the Chinese government's policy is available. The Singapore campaign is similar but not, I think, the same. Rossami (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: "Popularize mandarin" was originally listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#Standard Mandarin language. I have moved it here as several people objected to it listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. This phrase can equally refer to Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign, China's Tuipuji Campaign, or any general attempt to popularize the language. Until such a time when a specifi bit of prose about the China's "Popularize Mandarin" campaign is written in the target article, we should not have this redirect, because the current situation leaves readers feeling confused. Deryck C. 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deryck. That was sort of my inclination anyway, but I don't know too much about the subject and am happy to defer to him. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. "Popularize" is only in the target in a reference (11, as I write) with title "State Councilor urges more efforts to popularize Chinese language"; "Popularise" nowhere. I could think it might be valid for Promotion of Mandarin or somesuch, but I can't find anything likely. Official Mandarin is red, too. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Si Trew. Making a disambig page for non-title matches probably wouldn't be a good idea. ansh666 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, retarget to Varieties_of_Chinese#Language_policy, it's probably mentioned there in untranslated form and it's unlikely someone searching for it would be looking for anything else. ansh666 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Deryck Chan, hopefully he can verify whether this is actually related or not. ansh666 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That section is a general list of government campaigns to promote Mandarin over other Chinese languages. As these redirects imply a specific campaign to "Popularize Mandarin", I still prefer deleting them. Deryck C. 11:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Deryck. Is there a notable specific program or organization called Popularize Mandarin or series of Popularize products such as Popularize Cantonese? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's apparently a policy by the PRC government promoting the use of Standard Chinese. It doesn't have an article, but is mentioned in some places. ansh666 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deryck Chan.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DeryckC. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2016 (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. 20:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić) → Zamagna  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense disambiguation. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 31#House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How exactly is this "nonsense"? According to the content at the Zamagna title, it is about a noble house and both "Zamanjić" and "Džamanjić" are alternative transliterations of the serbo-croatian name. Moreover, keep to preserve history. Rossami (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a nonsense disambiguation; there is no other House of Zamajić, and even if there were, this would not be the way to disambiguate it. House of Džamanjić is already directing to this target. Deleting a page does not delete its history, but anyway the history consists of four bot retargets for double redirects, so there is no creative content in the history. Stats for the last 30 days show exactly 0 hits including this discussion (although a few of the bars are a couple of pixels deep showing 0 hits) so I don't trust those at all – although perhaps they mark bot hits? In March there were 2 hits. Si Trew (talk)
    • Say what? This isn't disambiguation at all. It's a straightforward redirect from an alternative transliteration. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without being too pedantic, (something in brackets after a title) is usually a disambiguation of the title. Of course there are classes of exceptions which I needn't explain to you, but this does not fall into one of those classes. Si Trew (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to me plausible search terms (transliterations, as mentioned earlier in the discussion) would be House of Zamanjić and House of Džamanjić with the same target, a hybrid is unlikely to be searched for. Hit logs mentioned above would corroborate this. C679 13:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tag as unprintworthy, but a construction like "Zamanjić (Džamanjić)" is plausible in the wild. Unlike the item linked in the nomination, which includes three forms of the name and two types of punctuation, I can just imagine this one used as a search term. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - yeah it's wrong but it's harmless and unambiguous. WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Si Trew and C679. Keeping the bracketed term implies a disambiguation that isn't there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (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. Weighing up the arguments in the discussion below, the derogatory nature of the nickname outweighs the media significance of it, so on balance it is better not to have this redirect. Deryck C. 18:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lyin' Ted → Ted Cruz  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D3. Offensive nickname that Donald Trump uses (though Trump spells it "L-Y-E-N... with a big... apostrophe") for Sen. Cruz. Not mentioned on target page or presidential campaign page. Politrukki (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See WP:RNEUTRAL. I accordingly created the redirect with ((R from non-neutral name)). I'll also note that the usage has gone beyond Trump and his surrogates, such as a Kasich super PAC. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Sen. Cruz called Donald Trump a "sniveling coward", the incident received international coverage in RS. However, I don't think we should redirect "Sniveling coward" to "Donald Trump" unless the target article mentions incident like this.
I assume you were referring to rule #3 of WP:RNEUTRAL? R3 uses "Attorneygate" as an example, but there are cruzial differences between "Attorneygate" and "Lyin' Ted":

1. "Lyin' Ted" is, as far as I can tell, always directly attributed to Trump (or recently pro-Kasich super PAC and so on). "Attorneygate" for example in here or here is said in source's voice.
2. "Attorneygate" target, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, is not a BLP. Hence simply using a word "Attorneygate" is not defamation against the persons involved in that article. Ted Cruz obviously is a BLP. WP:BLP says All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. I'm afraid we fail to follow WP:BLP if contentious redirect title like this is not – at least – mentioned in the target article. Politrukki (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sniveling coward" was used as a description, not a proper name. Plenty of people have been called sniveling cowards. If, for some reason, many people named Ted were called "Lyin' Ted" in certain circumstances, this might be similarly problematic. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Politrukki; Wikipedia should avoid the appearance of agreeing with one or more politicians who criticize one or more other politicians; could revisit if the term becomes as widespread as Tricky Dick. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. Wikipedia documenting the prominent usage of an insulting term used by political opponents of a particular person is different from Wikipedia inventing the insult, and the former is true here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ted Lyons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per BDD, Ivanvector. GAB^Hello! 23:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We went through eight years of President Bush with various goofy sayings being made up and getting a smattering of notice, didn't we? Every silly utterance doesn't necessarily merit a redirect or page. If this had anything like the reasonable notice and coverage of, say, "Tricky Dick" then that would be one thing... but that's not what's here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not discussed the target, and it's not a widespread term either, so any discussion of it at the target would probably be inappropriate. MelanieLamont (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As BDD notes, the pejorative nature of the redirect is irrelevant. Redirects are deliberately not held to the same standards of neutrality as article content. The relevant question here is notability - how common is this particular phrase. I find little evidence that this phrase is in significant use unique to this context. Delete unless better evidence of prominence is presented. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pejorative nature should still be taken into account. There's a difference between "non-neutral redirects", such as the examples of Climategate, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, Attorneygate listed at WP:RNEUTRAL, and a straight up attack on a BLP, which is the case here. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 since this is only a term used in the current POTUS campaign, due to the Ben Carson and Marco Rubio vote-stealing complaints -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTCENSORED it has been used by several 2016 candidates, used prominently in the news, so should point to his 2016 campaign as criticism of him. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think there's a difference between "non-neutral" redirects such as as the examples listed at WP:RNEUTRAL (Climategate, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, Attorneygate) and one that is a straight-up attack on a BLP. I'm also reserved as to the usefulness of this redirect, since "Lyin' Ted" is always used in the context of Ted Cruz, so it's highly unlikely someone knows about "Lyin' Ted" but not Ted Cruz. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but readers, especially those not very familiar with American politics, may see a reference to "Lyin' Ted", and this redirect will quickly inform them of who is being referred to. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Little Marco, another Trump-insult-turned-attack-page also exists and redirects to Marco Rubio. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should similarly redirect to his 2016 POTUS campaign article. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This term isn't going anywhere but up. This Esquire article calls it the "most durable" of Trump's insults. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an attack page - it serves no purpose. Anyone dumb enough to search this term without knowing it refers to Ted Cruz does not need Wikipedia to help them along in finding the Ted Cruz page. Do we have Small hands Thrump? Slick Willy is surprisingly a dab. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Tricky Dick is a redirect. These are classic ((R from non-neutral name))s. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as we would any other intentional insult to a WP:BLP. Tricky Dick and Slick Willy are more problematic, as they are longstanding and nationally known. Reporting those decades old nicknames is different from what we are doing here. In the case of Lyin' Ted and Little Marco Wikipedia is perpetuating an insult between living people, and adding to its notoriety. Wait for them to become synonymous with their respective targets, and if they do become part of the lexicon of American politics, then we add these redirects. Scr★pIron^IV 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to keep the insults, they should be targeted at Donald Trump along with mexican rapists and blood coming out of her whatever for he is the person known for saying these things. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a side note, but we do have a series of "Rape in [country]" articles, and a Category:Rape in Mexico. If a corresponding article were created, Mexican rapists might well redirect there. As for the other item you mention, First Republican Party presidential debate, August 2015 in Cleveland, Ohio would be the best target if there were discussion of the phrase there. That article should have more on the aftermath of the debate, though I don't know whether or not if that should include what you referred to. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - I don't think any Trump insults should be targeting the people insulted by Trump. This is not Trumpedia or the Trump Urban Dictionary of insults. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete. To further the Tricky Dick analogy, the difference in my mind between that and the nominated redirect is that there is a sourced discussion of Tricky Dick at Richard Nixon, and there isn't any mention of "Lyin' Ted" to be found on Wikipedia. I've been watching this closely to see if someone would add anything, and I'm quite surprised that there isn't a mention anywhere. A sourced mention would bring "legitimacy" to the redirect, and will give those looking for information about the insult some actual information. Until then, it's going to disappoint those looking for the origin of the nickname, for example. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be quite conservative when adding information; I take the stance that we have to argue the redirect as it exists at the time rather than what it could be, otherwise we're trying to hit a moving target. That's partly laziness, but I even had what I thought would be a rather uncontroversial rcat for misspelling at Ouevre reverted without explanation, so I hesitate to dip my toe in this hot water. Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (changed !vote from above) - yeah, it's a one-off, media didn't really pick up on it, and Cruz really isn't notable enough that any random insult is going to have lasting prominence (the Tricky Dick case). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media uses this all the time. How is it not picking up on it? -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2016 (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 a consensus to retarget but no clear consensus for what that best alternate may be. Unfortunately, I don't see much chance that further discussion here will lead to an obvious choice. Since this is a "non-delete" decision, I'm going to close the debate with a recommendation that anyone who feels strongly about a particular retarget should be bold and do it. Disagreements can be sorted out on Talk. Rossami (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pubic region → Hypogastrium  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The hypogastrium or hypogastric region is not the same as the pubic region, but instead lies above the pubic region. This redirect is an error.   Bfpage |leave a message  09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up pubic region in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

@Bfpage: well it seems that there is a pubic region – and certainly the term is used in plenty of articles. But what is it? Do we not have a good candidate for a retarget?

Pubis is a DAB with pubic bone and mons pubis as entries; pelvic region is a redirect to pelvis. Genital area redirects to sex organ; but genital region and pubic area are red. I am aware that pubes also grow on areas other than what we non-anatomists call the naughty bits (-> intimate part), so perhaps there is no accurate target? Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pubic hair pipes the target as "Pubic region" in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. It redirected to Pubic hair from 9 May 2003 to 18 November 2006. Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's pretty weird that we don't have somewhere to send this. "Pubic" is most often (in the WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense, not necessarily in technical literature) used in reference to humans, and we already have a weak tradition of preferring the human-focused target article in such cases or questionable ones (vs. very general ones like Brain). So, I'm thinking this should go somewhere human, as should public area, while genital region should follow genitals, pudenda, etc., to sex organ. If we don't think of or create a human target for the pubic ones, I guess redirect them to sex organ. A related problem is that pudendum inexplicably goes to vulva (a human article), when the term is not human-specific, nor female-specific, and should follow its plural to sex organ.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: your pubic region may be a public area (-> public space) but my pubic area ain't. Not sure if you just typo'd that, or meant something else. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crotch, maybe? Maybe too broad. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• List of human anatomical regions just defines it as "encompassing the area above the genitals", which could be the torso or upper body (-> thorax or many other things, so that is not much help except perhaps to add weight to SMcC's feeling that in common use this is mainly human. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as Genital area does to Sex organ. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to List of human anatomical regions, which seems to give two similar but different definitions for the phrase. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. That seems to be the best option.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:35, 23 April 2016 (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) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Árvore da Vida → Kabbalah  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Arvore da Vida → Kabbalah  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are Portuguese for ‘Tree of Life’. pt:Árvore da Vida lists many trees of life, not just Tree of life (Kabbalah). If one of those trees is specifically Portuguese, which I doubt, these redirects should be retargeted there; otherwise, they should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. pt:Árvore_da_Vida is a DAB, the entries on which Transwiki to Tree of Life (biblical), Tree of life (Kabbalah), Phylogenetic tree and a redirect pt:Árvore-da-vida to Thuja (in both PT and EN at same title). The botanical sense could possibly be regargeted there. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could retarget to Tree of life (disambiguation) as ((R from other language|pt)) but WikiData would only allow us to tidy up one of them; and presumably tying up the two DABS directly is better. For some reason I can't do that and it doesn't help that Wikidata presents pages to me in a combination of Portuguese, Hungarian and English. Sheesh. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What, concisely, do you propose? Gorobay (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. I propose WikiData linking the Portuguese DAB at pt:Árvore_da_Vida to the English one at Tree of life (disambiguation). That is just a sensible thing to do that does not impact these R's in themselves; there is by no means a one-to-one correspondence on those DABs but the topics in common (including Kabbalah) are on both. We can then retarget both to the DAB as [((R from other language|pt)) (or delete them as WP:RFOREIGN). We could retarget them both to Tree of life (Kabbalah); but that makes little sense to me. Si Trew (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that no one can think of any suitable target, so I maintain my !vote of delete. @SimonTrew: you can already fix the interwikis on Wikidata; the issue you found is independent of deleting this redirect. Gorobay (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorobay: I could only fix one of the two even if I boldly did so, but two are listed here. BRD and wee are D so so boldly to fix either is moot. I handed out the suggestions in case consensus was to do one or the other or both. Si Trew (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2016 (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 Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:BO → User:Deiz/Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect to a userspace essay that has been in the userspace for almost a decade. However, the usefulness of this redirect is quite questionable: out of all the less-than 20 incoming links to this shortcut, the only one where it was attempted to be used in a context other than referring to it as a two-letter shortcut on a two-letter shortcut table is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur, but it was obviously erroneously linked to since the link there was intended for WP:BIO. With that being said, Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard is probably a more appropriate target for this shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2016 (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) 18:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• MorroWindHelp → The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible old redirect that's only half-way on topic to start with, as the article it redirs to isn't a game-guide or otherwise fitting the 'help' part of the title (that'd be outside Wikipedia's scope and all that).

Between the camelcasing and the needlessly capitalized W, this is neither something that's likely to be useful within articles nor the first search term for folks looking for Morrowind—unless they already know the game's called Morrowind in which case they don't even need this redirect. "What links here" shows no in-wiki links; with not even 60 hits in 90 days, there almost certainly isn't anything (beyond google search) linking to it outside wiki, either.

Should probably be deleted, because it isn't useful but may cause confusion about the actual article's scope. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing. Sounds like a game file --09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenticel (talk • contribs)
• Keep - old enough to be a ((R from CamelCase)), we normally keep those. Even though the former article definitely fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CamelCase, it hasn't been necessary since January 2002. This was created more recently than that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of the redirect's target is not "Morrowind Help", etc. The article formerly in the redirect's history is an instruction manual for installing the game. The redirect is misleading and its former content is unencyclopedic. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "confusing" nature of the title is an artifact of the old CamelCase naming conventions. A redirect this old is highly likely to have external links. The reasons offered for deletion are not, in my opinion, sufficient to outweigh the evils of linkrot. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not for getting "help" on a game. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:47, 13 April 2016 (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. 13:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nasb-cover.jpg → File:New American Standard Bible cover.jpg  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Orphaned, ambiguous redirect to a file FASTILY 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since "NASB" can pertain to the Bible version and several institutions --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not orphaned (it's used in lots of old revisions of New American Standard Bible). There's no need to create lots of red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. Old revisions don't count in determining if a page is orphaned, or almost nothing ever would be! --BDD (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect's name doesn't violate any aspect of WP:FNC. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (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.