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 List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Panamagate → Panama Papers  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From what I gather, "Panamagate" and "Panama Papers" are actually two distinct controversies. The first news reports of the "Panamagate" controversy, which specifically surrounds Maltese minister Konrad Mizzi, were released early March 2016: [1][2][3]. The broader "Panama Papers" controversy was first covered in papers (according to the current article's lead) on April 3, just recently, and it implicates far more politicians than just Mizzi. To prevent confusion, this redirect should be deleted or retargeted to a more appropriate article if one exists. Retarget to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics. Mz7 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC), revised 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• keep. You gather it wrongly. "Panamagate" happened in several countries, under exact same name. At the moment the term is described only in the Panama Papers page, hence it is a valid redirect. In the future, in the course of events, we quite possibly will have Panamagate (Malta), Panamagate (Russia), Panamagate (Ukraine), to name a few. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for now at least. By redirecting it to Panama Papers, we are likely to lead our readers into thinking the two are the same thing. I recognise Panamagate is used to refer to the Panama Papers in other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia. I'm open to it being redirected to something which is about the Maltese political scandal last month or if Panamagate does become a common term for the Panama Papers. Jolly Ω Janner 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question. Where is the content that was on that page before? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Create a disambiguation page with several entries that meet MOS:DABMENTION until articles are created (somewhat per Altenmann.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• my suggestion is: 1) make two cells in List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics: Panamagate (March 2016) event (to cover Konrad Mizzi event, using above sources from user Mz7 (article text can be restored from [4]), and Panamagate (April 2016) event (to cover Panama Papers); 2) make redirects: Panamagate (March 2016) to List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics and Panamagate (April 2016) to Panama Papers pages respectively; 3) make Panamagate a disambiguation page, like it was suggested above by user Steel1943 with links to Panamagate (March 2016) and Panamagate (April 2016), and maybe new links for country-specific articles from Panama Papers event if they will be made in future. 37.229.198.55 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. These appear to be two different things and I could not find any RS evidence (or much non-RS for that matter) that "Panamagate" is the same thing – or closely enough related to – the Panama Papers. The Examiner (Malta Today) has a headline with it "From Panamagate to Panama Papers", but then doesn't use the word in the body text; anyway, the headline implies they are distinct things. If so, the link to Panama Papers needs removing from the list article, of course. Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment I would agree with the suggestion to re-redirect it to the "List of -gates" article. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be okay with retargeting to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Politics as well, since now we have a direct mention of this title there. Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Politics (or if it can be directed to just the Panamagate section even better). I've added some info on the Malta scandal as well, but couldn't figure out how to split cells within a row. Jolly Ω Janner 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Red grey → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This Neelix redirect fails WP:RFD#D2 because seal brown does not have a shade of red in it. I also nominate these Neelix redirects for the same reason:

• Redgrey → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Red gray → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Redgray → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Gray red → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Grayred → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Grey red → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Greyred → Seal brown  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment. None but the first redirect has been tagged. @MrLinkinPark333: can you do that please? I thought we'd had these before but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete all per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment Is there a way I can point the nominations to April 5th? If i nominate them now, they go to April 6th due to Wikipedia's server time. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @MrLinkinPark333: just copy and paste from the top nom's note. There are Spans around each here so the templste defaulted section link will be fine. The date's embedded in the template instance. There's no need to notify the creator since that's done for the first one. I'd have done it myself but am on a tablet at the moment and hard to do copy paste, sorry. Si Trew (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @SimonTrew: Okay, no worries. I've tagged all of the above. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I've added a link (above) to the previous discussion, for reddish-grey and others. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per previous discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Armed conflict → War  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Armed conflicts → War  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hmm ... This redirects' target War states that the article's subject is the "state of armed conflict" but doesn't state that "war" and "armed conflict" are the same. Are these redirects accurate, or should the redirects be deleted per WP:REDLINK? Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. It should be obvious to readers that "armed conflict" and "a state of armed conflict" are the same thing. -- Beland (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, they are indeed synonymous. GAB^Hello! 23:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment in the Suez Crisis, Eden said "We are not at war with Egypt. We are in a state of armed conflict". [5]. To him at least there was a distinction - a legal, political one. This is perhaps ambiguous, not all armed conflicts are wars in a formal sense (a shootout, for example). There are related artcles that use the term in their definitions, such as battle. Maybe DAB it. The question is why would someone use "armed conflict" instead of "war"? Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment armed combat -> combat. violent conflict -> war). I think, need to double check. Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The distinction between a declared and undeclared war is not important enough to merit two articles the size of war. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to turn armed conflict into a disambiguation between war and undeclared war, since we actually have an article on that and that might be what a speaker means by "armed conflict". I'll note the Uppsala Conflict Data Program uses "armed conflict" as a more general term, and classifies them as "war" if they produce more than 1,000 deaths per year. -- Beland (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Si Trew, hmm ... Shouldn't Armed combat actually target Battle? (Wow, more to nominate, I guess.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Have can will worms. I thought I might get some clue by looking at unarmed combat, but that is an R to hand-to-hand combat which says in the second sentence of the lede "While the phrase "hand-to-hand" appears to refer to unarmed combat, the term is generic and may include use of striking weapons"; so we have an R to an article which covers some kinds of both armed and unarmed combat, which is slicing it rather diagonally. (Not all unarmed combat is hand-to-hand combat, and vice versa; I'm leaving aside the riddles about fighting with hands but no arms. Well, nearly.) Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've listed it, at April 6's log. Si Trew (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Don't delete. I'm mildly in favor of keeping the current title, but I wouldn't oppose disambiguation. Deletion would be a bad idea, because we shouldn't encourage the creation of an article at this title. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I've dropped a note at WT:MILHIST. Si Trew (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Armed conflict is on the DAB at Conflict (as the second entry). WP:DABPIPE [sic] strongly discourages that, but I'm hesitant to change it while we're discussing this. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed that to point to War directly. -- Beland (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The redirect from Unarmed combat to h2h combat is a poor one, as has already been pointed out. Not on board with redirect from armed combat to battle. All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares. Otherwise, support the suggestion to disambig for war and undeclared war. The distinction can be important. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as is. The nomination is attempting to draw a distinction without a difference. There is no potential for confusion on the part of our readers and no better target for the redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, as I agree with Beland and GAB. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. Deryck C. 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Force XXI → Transformation of the United States Army  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Force XXI Army → United States Army  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "Force XXI" doesn't seem to be mentioned at either target except as a source in an external link. This subject probably had something to do with the United States Army, but neither target articles helps specify what this is. However, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (a possible related subject) exists, and Force 21, an unrelated subject, exists. Steel1943 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Disambiguate - The term "Force XXI" appears to have three distinct meanings: A)a video game, B)a communications technology project, and C)a U.S. Army wide modernization initiative (see "Force XXI: Redesigning the Army Through Warfighting Experiments"). All of the them, I think, do merit Wikipedia pages and shouldn't be confused with each other. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Dabify the first, with links to Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below and Force 21 (video game); move Force 21 to Force 21 (video game), retargeting the base title to the dab, and delete Force XXI Army. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. There is majority support for deletion. Arguments include the subjectivity of the title. Multiple alternative proposals were discussed but none gained as much support as outright deletion. Deryck C. 11:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Major wars → List of ongoing armed conflicts  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wars aren't limited to ongoing ones. However, I'm unsure of a retargeting option for this because I cannot find any type of criteria for what type of war would be termed a "major" war. So, this redirect might fail WP:NPOV (I'm not sure.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Most of the sources List of ongoing armed conflicts uses put the dividing line between a "minor conflict" vs. war or "major conflict" at 1000 deaths per year. The page currently uses the term "Major wars" and used to have a section header (but that's now List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#10.2C000.2B_deaths_in_current_or_past_year). If we changed that to "Deadliest wars" it would be slightly more objective, given that there are other ways to measure the subjective importance of a conflict than deaths per year, if that's what "major" is taken to indicate. I think Major wars should be a disambiguation page that lists both List of ongoing armed conflicts in case you mean current major wars, or List of wars by death toll in case you meant major-est wars of all time, and that leaves room for future links to "List of wars by amount of territory conquered" or whatever other metrics Wikipedia might come up with. -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, having just found Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects I think this falls well within what is tolerated for redirect POV, though I still think a disambiguation page would be an improvement. -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to List of wars by death toll, List of military conflicts spanning multiple wars or World war maybe? I'm not sure what exact criteria a "major" war would have, but these seem to be the only standalone lists that lists some important wars.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• create a dab at redlink major war and retarget this to it as ((R from plural)). As the above suggestions show, it is ambiguous. Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with creating a dab as per above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per the nomination. I also cannot find any definitive criteria for defining a war or other armed conflict as "major" and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to invent that definition. Various sources given in the lists suggest criteria based on cumulative death toll or death rate (as suggested above), while others suggest that "major war" is the same as total war, while still others suggest that any identifiable conflict where government resources are deployed is a major war. Many external lists have no criteria at all. The conclusion is that "major" is just a WP:PEACOCK descriptor here, and this is no different from any other undefined descriptive redirect to war or some list, like if we had popular wars or bad wars or wet wars or justified wars. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Ivanvector's right, might as well let the search engine do it. We don't have minor wars, although we do have miner wars. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak delete Hopelessly subjective. Failing that, I prefer a retarget to one of Prisencolin's suggestions. Not a good candidate for a dab. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actual wars → List of ongoing armed conflicts  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For one, the redirect is inaccurate since there are also wars/armed conflicts that are no longer ongoing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a weird thing for a user to type in. Would they be looking for real-world wars as opposed to fictional wars? In that case, this is the wrong target. Maybe User:M4gnum0n actually did type this in and was looking for ongoing wars, but the edit summary makes me think it was speculative. I'm not opposed to a delete outcome for this one, but I'm open to assertions it should be a disambiguation page if people really are typing this in. -- Beland (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we have virtual war and phoney war in opposition, but the first at least is a real war and a bit of a misnomer, it's not as if it's a computer game, but it's a real life misnomer not a Wikipedia one. Real war is red. I guess this use of "actual" to mean "current" is a bit of a false friend so perhaps it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Or D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• List of Refernce Tables → Portal:Contents/Lists  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Besides the fact that this is a WP:CNR, it is also both misspelled and doesn't seem to target what the redirect's name claims that it targets. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nominator comment: Turns out that List of reference tables targets Portal:Contents/Lists as well, but I'm choosing not to group it with this one since the nominated redirect has the even more confusing spelling issue (which is confusing enough since the nomimated redirect is a WP:CNR.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What does "reference table" even mean here? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @BDD: The only clues I could find to answer you question in the least are this page move, and the very odd edit history of Reference tables. Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete, CNR. Might just as well go to Category:Lists or Category:Lists of lists. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. "List of..." is where the content existed before the Portal-space was created. And while this is a typo, it's an innocent one that's been around since 2003. The cross-namespace argument does not apply to redirect to the Portal space. We expect those to work. Rossami (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The word "portal" is nowhere in the page WP:CNR targets. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a confusing redirect that is also misspelled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. The emerging consensus is that mainspace → Portal should be allowed, and it is okay to use "current" because the target uses it. Deryck C. 09:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Current computer and video game events → Portal:Video games  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Current computer and video games events → Portal:Video games  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possibly-misleading WP:CNRs since the target is not a page in the article namespace about events. Also, at this point, most, if not all, other "Current ... events" redirects that targeted pages in the "Portal:" namespace have been deleted. Please see the referenced previous RFD discussion for further information; most "Current ... events" redirects listed there have since been deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per the prior RfD decision. WP:CNR does not apply to redirects to the Portal-space. The very point of portal pages is to replace (and more efficiently manage) those interminable list pages. But knowing the "Portal:something" grammar is not something that we expect new readers to know. Redirects help those readers find the content they want. There is no good reason it harder for those readers. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The word "portal" is nowhere in the page WP:CNR targets. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal space is exempted from R2 speedy deletion. It's cross-namespace by definition, but I don't know if that says anything either way for RfD. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Cross-space redirects doesn't apply in this case since portals are reader focused, not editor focused. And in this case it makes sense - the portal has a listing of current events on it. Many of the other such redirects pointed to portals that didn't actually have current events listing, so those deletions made sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ANE Resources → Portal:Ancient Near East/Resources  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ANE resources → Portal:Ancient Near East/Resources  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ANE Topics → Portal:Ancient Near East/Topics  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ANE topics → Portal:Ancient Near East/Topics  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These WP:CNRs could be seen as ambiguous and misleading. Since in the article space, ANE is a disambiguation page, these redirects assume that the reader both think that "ANE" means "Ancient Near East" and that they are not looking for an article. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As noted above, WP:CNR does not apply to redirects to the Portal space. These have existed since 2008 without causing any apparent confusion despite the ambiguity of the acronym ANE. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The word "portal" is nowhere in the page WP:CNR targets. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• User:Steel1943 It does include this text: "Many of these arguments concern mainly redirects from the article namespace to organisational namespaces, like Wikipedia or Template; they may not be as applicable to redirects to other content namespaces, like Category.". Portal is a content namespace, so the page basically says that CNR does not apply to redirects to portals. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete because of the ANE abbreviation whose meaning isn't obvious to most of our readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Basic topics → Portal:Contents/Outlines  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Basic topics list → Portal:Contents/Outlines  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Rather confusing and misleading WP:CNRs. As these are in the article namespace, the question remains ... What Basic (a disambiguation page) topics? Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Is portal namespace outside CSD for XNRs? If not, speedily delete. Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not, WP:R2 excludes Portal. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - The notion of what is or is not a 'basic topic' is an extremely general concept. This is maddeningly vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Even though we have redirects for lists of basic topics, most of which seem to be redirects to "Outline of" article, we don't have List of lists of basic topics, neither do we have Category:Basic topics nor Category:Lists of basic topics. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Current Canadian Navy ships → Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect since in this case, the word "current" could be seen as ambiguous. Besides the redirects current target, the page Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) exists as well, and this page also has a list of ships, none of which seem to still be in use. So, the word "current" can be seen as ambiguous since it could mean "currenltly-existing ships" or a "current list of all ships ever". Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep; unlike others the maintenance burden is at the target not the redirect. "Current" patently should not mean just "the current version of this page", but that's not the case here - there's been a deliberate choice to split out historic ships. That one is weird because not every old ship is historic, but I suppose the distinction between historic and historical has died. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This is the title where the content existed before being moved. It's clear that any reader looking for content with this title will be most likely looking for the current target. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• List of ships Canadian Navy ships → Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Besides the fact that per the redirect's edit history showing that this title's creator didn't seem to create this title intentionally, this redirect is a very unlikely search term due to the the use of the word "ships" twice. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete as unlikely typo that, but for its age, would be CSD WP:R2 or is it R3, implausible typo. Si Trew (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - There's good reason to be generous about spelling errors and other such mistakes being legitimate uses for redirects, but this is pretty silly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Current War in Afghanistan → War in Afghanistan (2001–14)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is outdated since War in Afghanistan (2015–present) exists. Since this redirect could require continuous maintenance and has the possibility of being ambiguous, I'd say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as we avoid relative time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, too ambiguous and may well cause issues in the future (if there is a sudden outbreak of peace, hopefully!). GAB^Hello! 23:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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) 16:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yahoo.cm → Yahoo!  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, while this one appears to be owned by Yahoo, the security concern is still a problem for me, see .cm#Reputation, where .cn was rated "the world's riskiest domain." I don't think it's worth the risk, especially since it's not used (.05 hits per day over the past 90 days.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment It is a typo by omission of the "o" in ".com" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I don't see a risk to readers by correctly identifying this as a property of Yahoo Inc. Anyone researching the domain should have that connection made for them. -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, just an ordinary typo, and I agree with Beland that people won't take this redirect as an indicator that Yahoo really uses this precise name. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 List of townships in Ontario#Thunder Bay District. There is a split of opinion between retargeting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District and List of townships in Ontario#Thunder Bay District, but because the latter actually refers to this township in question, it is a better fit according to policy. Deryck C. 09:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Parent, Ontario → Thunder Bay District  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of the name "Parent" in the target article. I could find no such place via Google, though it might have been obscured by the many web pages about Ontario mothers, fathers, etc. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Upon further search, I did find this, but it gives very little information. Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It's listed at List_of_townships_in_Ontario#Thunder_Bay_District, so a redirect seems reasonable. I don't suspect the township is sufficient enough to have it's own article, but either reidrecting to the district, or the list of townships makes sense.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Unorganized Thunder Bay District. It seems to be a former/historic(/geographic, I don't know what that means) township in the unorganized part of the district. There is a Parent Lake in the unorganized part of the district, close to Geraldton, Ontario, which is the best I can find of things this could refer to, and this memo from the Ontario government referring to the closure of a waste disposal site in "Parent Unorganized Township" close to Geraldton seems to back that up. Although it's not really significant or mentioned anywhere so it wouldn't be awful to delete this either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "geographic" townships are a system of making sure that every piece of land in Ontario has a "name" for land management purposes, such as tracking forest fires and/or recording natural resources (e.g. mining, forestry, etc.) claims. They can occasionally have a more practical application as well — my parents' house is inside the boundaries of one of Ontario's larger cities now, but when they first bought it in the early 1970s it was in a completely unincorporated, not-yet-annexed rural area and their only official mailing address was "Lot #, Concession #, Name of a Geographic Township" (although even today, with their mailing address being "Conventional Street Address, Name of Actual City", the geographic township name still does technically exist for internal government purposes — they're a completely separate thing from the system of municipal governance.) But in reality, for our purposes on here they nearly always mean great gobs of nothing at all, in the absence of reliable source coverage about them — which is extremely rare at best, and usually completely nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It's not an incorporated place in its own right, but is one of Ontario's geographic townships. Per the provincial ClaiMAPS system, I was able to confirm that it is indeed near Geraldton, but is not part of the municipality of Greenstone (although the next geographic townships to its immediate north and east are — if you look at our map of Greenstone, you'll see a small downpointing notch roughly at the midpoint, and Parent is the very next thing immediately to that notch's left. It is not a thing that would be likely to qualify for an article of its own, however, as I'm unable to find any reliable source coverage about it. Our usual standard for geographic locations which aren't notable in their own right is to redirect them to a larger related topic if possible, and this was simply the wrong choice of topic — redirecting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District would indeed be preferable. I also wouldn't object to outright deletion if that's the consensus, however, as this is unlikely to be a thing that very many people are actually looking for information about at all. Literally nothing in mainspace, for example, links to this title at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to List of townships in Ontario#Thunder Bay District, where it's listed. I oppose retargeting to Unorganized Thunder Bay District as long as Parent isn't discussed there. While I'm afraid this isn't going to be very helpful either way, the former at least gives the redirect context. Someone already familiar with Parent might understand the retarget to UTBD, but since it's not included there, it seems too likely to confuse readers for my comfort. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If it exists (or has in the past), I don't see why we wouldn't include that information in Thunder Bay District, which would then make it an appropriate redirect target. bd2412 T 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why not Unorganized Thunder Bay District, where it is actually located? The unorganized area is within Thunder Bay District, not the other way around (like a township within a county, but the township has no local government). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Northern China (disambiguation) → North China  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would normally boldly do this but considering the fun we are having with the Chinese redirects lately, I think better of it: this is not an R to a DAB page. No doubt it was so when User:BD2412 created it to target Northern China as an ((R to disambiguation page)), but was bot fixed when the DAB was changed to a redirect. Retarget to North China (disambiguation) but see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 1#Northern Chinese. Northern China already targets same place. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment these double-redirect bot fixes can be a nuisance; a human editor would be expected to go through the incoming links and judiciously change them before moving the page, so perhaps it would make sense for the bot to avoid "fixing" redirects to redirects when doing double-redirect fixes. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget as proposed. A "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect should not point to a non-disambiguation page. bd2412 T 11:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Retarget to North China (disambiguation) which was where the disambiguation page was moved to a few years ago, before the double redirect bot fixed the retargeted page that was left behind -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I think with the closure of the discussion for Northern Chinese (linked above), we can close this now a little early as retarget, since it would make little sense after the outcome of that discussion to do anything else. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 speedily deleted per WP:G6 Neelix concession by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Chimmer → Room  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't figure out why this would redirect to room. Any ideas why? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete it was created by Neelix, and after participating in deleting thousands of his redirects, I've given up understanding his thought processes. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete is okay. Closest possible target that I got is List_of_ice_hockey_nicknames where one of the athletes is nicknamed "Chimmer"--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - utter nonsense, even for Neelix. Chimmer is also supposedly an insult. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This one is actually real with a literary background. Thomas Hardy illustrated the Wessex dialect of "broad Dorset" with words like "chimmer", meaning room. Short Stories by Thomas Hardy. Whether this usage merits a redirect I leave to others, but this one isn't something Neelix just made up. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neat, not utter nonsense then. But is it useful as a redirect? I find it doubtful (but not completely implausible) that someone would see chimmer in one of Hardy's works and come here to find out what the word means, and if they did, they would not find any information about its usage at room, nor at say chamber. I see from searching that the podcast The Football Ramble has a character named 'Chimmers "Chimmers" Chimmers', but no further details available. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as unlikely search term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - I can understand if somewhere this connection existed in English poetry, novels, etc, but it's still unhelpful and useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.