The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unglue.it → Open Book Publishers  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unglue.it is run by Free Ebook Foundation, and not by Open Book Publishers. I cant see any reason why Open Book Publishers is an appropriate target. Unfortunately I cant find a better redirect target as Free Ebook Foundation and its members dont individually appear to be notable. Unglue.it could be notable, but it would require a lot of effort to research/create an article which passes notability policies. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redlink it. I think the notability of the parent entity is plausible and deleting this redirect might encourage the creation of the article. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Comparison of crowdfunding services#Unglue.it, where it is listed and described. Potential Notability aside, it is only mentioned briefly in passing at the current target (i.e. "OBP organized a campaign to republish an out-of-print book by Ruth Finnegan through the crowd source funding platform Unglue.it"), not described there. It is described at the Comparison of crowdfunding services list, hence it would make a reasonable ((R to list entry)). It is also listed at the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association article in a section, but it isn't described there.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  user:Godsy, targeting to a List/Comparison article creates a circular problem -- those types of pages usually require an existing article to determine whether an item should be included in the list/comparison, and editors look for non-blue links as a simple proxy for 'no existing notable'. That is the case with this comparison; see Talk:Comparison of crowdfunding services/Archive 1#Weed table of non-notable sites? and other discussion threads. If this is retargeted to the comparison page, it fails the conditions of the comparison page, and will be delisted from the comparison page, and then we need a new RfD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @John Vandenberg: I went ahead and added a reference to the entry in question on the list. It is beneficial to preserve the information there until such time as an article is created (sources didn't seem to be unreasonable to find about it at a glance). Lists can have entries that are not linked per WP:AOAL #8 at WP:CLNT#Lists. Though Talk:Comparison of crowdfunding services/Archive 1#Weed table of non-notable sites? began in 2012-2013 to the effect you mention above, an editor pointed out in 2015 that removing all the links that weren't blue (didn't have their own article, i.e. redlinks and non-links, though bad redirects such as this can slip through the cracks displaying as blue) was "a bad idea".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The page notice for the comparison article suggests only notable subjects should be included there. I haven't gone through the list to see if this is otherwise adhered to. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to have to do the legwork on this, aren't I? Alright. Of 96 list entries total, 94 have standalone articles, thus meeting the inclusion criterion. 1 is a redirect to a section of another page (a bio of the site's founder). 1 redirects to a parent company, with some discussion of that particular subsidiary. Since it fails the enforced list inclusion criterion, I oppose retargeting it to Comparison of crowdfunding services. That's probably going to mean a delete, with Free Ebook Foundation red. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD. Thanks for doing the legwork. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:59, 22 January 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 speedy close; nomination by banned user. Feel free to renominate or ask me to re-open if any legitimate editor should have concerns about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:HITANDRUN → User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect from the Wikipedia namespace to a user's essay is being used by that user to give a false credibility to his actions when he reverts edits that he simply does not like. See for example [1], [2], [3]. I thus believe it should be deleted. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - creating WP-pseudospace shortcuts to userspace essays is common practice (c.f. Category:Redirects to user namespace) and deleting it would break those edit summaries (which can't be repaired). I think that the proper course of action here should be to raise a discussion on this somewhere like WP:VPM to determine what the community's position is on the suitability of the essay, and if it's deemed inappropriate then further action can be taken. For what it's worth I think those edit summaries are fine, the shortcut is being used to explain the action. The action might be problematic, but that's really out of scope for Rfd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of this reads as a bit redundant to WP:DRIVEBY. WP shortcuts to userspace are deleted sometimes, usually when there's consensus that the user page expresses a minority view such that the WP prefix really is misleading. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 4#Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule. So without commenting on the substance of the nominator's request, I think this is a procedurally valid question to raise. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a valid question to raise, but I don't think this is the right forum. In that case there was clear dissent to allowing the target to be seen as a prevailing opinion by associating it with project space; a significant number of users opined that it contradicts established policy. We don't have any such opinion to evaluate here, and this wouldn't be the right place to develop one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another way: as long as we haven't established that the target is problematic (hasn't been asked), then as a redirect, this points where it should. It could possibly be retargeted to the same target as WP:DRIVEBY but there's no good reason to do so; WP:DONTFIXIT applies. At least one user finds the shortcut useful (WP:RFD#K5). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The essay was inspired by User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts and I've thought WP:BMK would be a nice shortcut to it. I noticed WP:Unblockable and WP:FANCLUB are user essay redirects. I'm not fussed about what happens to this redirect one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:38, 15 January 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 request granted as unopposed. Since the redirect has only noise-level hits before the RfD began, there should be no problems with breaking this existing shortcut. Deryck C. 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:TFAP → Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retargeting to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. Sexual connotations aside, an actively used project page seems like a more useful target than a failed proposal. sst✈ 17:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The suggested new target would have the acronym of WP:TFARP. I guess I don't see why WP:TFAP couldn't go there as well, but it might throw people off a little bit. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:48, 15 January 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. 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Last Queen of England → Anne, Queen of Great Britain  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apart from the current Queen being Queen of England, if you do a google search for "Last Queen of England" the predominant result is a mystery novel written by Steve Robinson. DrKay (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Last I checked there was a Queen of England named Elizabeth, the author/book is not notable so we can not redirect to that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in fact Anne was the last Queen of England. During her monarchy, the sovereign states England and Scotland united to become one sovereign state known as Great Britain. She then became Queen of Great Britain, and all of her successors have been King/Queen of Great Britain or King/Queen of the United Kingdom. Although they have all ruled over the area which continues to be known as England, it was not part of their formal title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per "Queen of England," which lists more uses of the term than the "official" definition. Someone who is queen of the area known as England would logically be the "Queen of England." Now, if the redirect was Last Queen of the Kingdom of England, then it would no longer be ambiguous (but I wouldn't recommend that created, I don't think that's a plausible search term.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is about as ambiguous as they come. Tavix has pointed out the ambiguity of "Queen of England"—"England" is a common, if sloppy shorthand for the UK, or perhaps intended as a metonym. "Last" has its problems too. Yes, Anne was definitely the final queen of the Kingdom of England, but once we concede to the ambiguity of "Queen of England", does "last" mean "most recent" (i.e., latest) or "previous"? So that throws Elizabeth II and Victoria into the mix, and even that's just counting queens proper. (Queen of England demonstrates the other types of people who might be referred to as such.) --BDD (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix and BDD: respectfully, I strongly disagree with your view. "Last Queen of England" is not at all ambiguous unless erroneous or colloquial definitions are included. There is only one person who is unambiguously the last Queen of (the Kingdom of) England, and she should be considered primary for this topic. The variously erroneous or colloquial uses can and should be solved with hatnotes; this is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Furthermore this has pointed to its current target since 2009 without anyone thinking there's a problem with it; WP:DONTFIXIT and WP:PRESERVE both apply here. Someone looking for the person who was the final female ruler of England upon its dissolution will find her at the target, and someone confused and trying to find either the current or most recently previous female ruler of the UK can find it by the hatnotes; there's no reason to give these users a dead end. (You might also argue that a confused reader searching "last queen of england" is looking for George VI or Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, if we're being either very literal or honest about common errors.) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. If this was a common search term, I think I could go along with it, but with abyssal stats (less than half a hit a day), I really don't think it's worth that risk, especially since I believe that the "colloquial" use is more common than you are describing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment England has been dissolved? I think I should have been told. (Mind you, there have been a lot of floods there lately...) Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Queen of England which details the last queen of the Kingdom of England before Union (either regnant or consort), as well as the current Queen (and thus temporally last), and the last Queen-consort (the Queen Mother), through the various lists listed -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a good idea. That would be even more likely to confuse or astonish than the current target. At least the status quo gives you one possible answer to the query; this "solution" would give you nothing but lists and you'd have to the research yourself. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per much of the foregoing and, in case this hasn't been brought up yet, a red link might be useful for encouraging article creation (assuming the book is notable enough). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We do not have Last King of England nor Last king of England, so there's no real precedent there. We don't have last king of Scotland, Last Queen of Scotland or Last queen of Scotland either. We do have Last King of Scotland as a redirect to The Last King of Scotland, a book (adapted to a film, which it hatnotes). Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 17 January 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 keep. Deryck C. 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Argentine Ethnography → Ethnic groups of Argentina  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ethnography of argentina → Ethnic groups of Argentina  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page moved to "Ethnic groups of Argentina". Ethnography is not a synonym for its actual topic. Carwil (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've combined these two like nominations and updated the target article. Please note that these formerly redirected to Ethnography of Argentina, which was later moved. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFD#K1, WP:RFD#K3, WP:RFD#K4, WP:RFD#K7. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the intro sentence of the target article says "ethnography of Argentina"; clearly this is linked -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 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) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ridley Tsui → Smoke (Mortal Kombat)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page is inappropriate since while Tsui did don the suit to perform as Smoke, the page contains no information about him and it would be inappropriate to make it biographical for him in any way, since it's not about him to start with. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and to encourage article creation. It seems that this actor starred in a lot of movies so it's unfair to simply point his name to just one of them --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 16 January 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 keep. Deryck C. 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My anus is bleeding → Rejected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All jokes aside, delete as an unlikely search term. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as joke redirect OR weak retarget to Rectal bleeding, weak since this redirect is bordering on Wikipedia is not a medical instruction manual --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually it's a perfectly valid redirect. "My anus is bleeding" is one of the scenes in the "Rejected" collection of animated shorts (ref). See also My spoon is too big, another redirect to this collection of shorts, and I am a banana..yet another. Sure, this title seems rather less than legit, but it is legit. These shorts are not to everyone's tastes, but they have won awards. The "My Anus Is Bleeding" short is available on YouTube. I just found one that's been viewed over 100,000 times. It's a notable enough title to be searched for, and looking at the hits here on Wikipedia for the last 90 days, people are looking for it (65 hits in 90 days). --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: The animated shorts are notable as a whole yes but I am not sure about quotes from the shorts. I didn't see any mention in the article about any of these terms, if this is kept the three you mentioned might want to redirect to Internet meme. At least have something in place that is not in-universe info that explains them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote per se, but the name of the scene. It's not a meme either. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to think about this is as a movement of an entire piece. For example, La primavera (concerto) is one of the movements of the entire The Four Seasons by Vivaldi. If you click on the La primavera link, you will see it is a redirect to The Four Seasons. This is no different in structure. "My anus is bleeding" is a "movement" of "Rejected". Ok, the two works of art are, shall we say, on entirely different levels. But, that's an artistic, subjective judgment. If we were to delete this redirect, there's no reason to not delete La primavera (concerto) as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the love of god and all that is holy What jokes aside? It's a well-known, oft-repeated quote from the short. What reason is there to delete this? --Closedmouth (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't think 42 views in the last 60 days qualifies as unlikely. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw It looks like I Quacked on this one, I do recommend page protection though for obvious reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, do not protect. Protection is for pages which are subject to ongoing disruption. This page has never been vandalized even once. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "My anus is bleeding" isn't mentioned in the article. If it's as important as you all are saying it is, I'd recommend it be added to the article somewhere, lest we end up in the same place down the road. Remember, someone searching for this is going to want specific information about "my anus is bleeding," and right now we are disappointing the less than one person per day that searches this by not having that information. I'm not !voting "delete" because I trust someone knowledgeable on the subject will do so, but as it stands, the target isn't helpful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that would be a call to WP:FIXIT. I think we've certainly come to the conclusion that deletion is even less helpful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am calling on someone to fix it. That's specifically why I'm not !voting delete. However, I do not feel comfortable fixing it myself as I know nothing about the subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Tavix above, no need for a rinse lather repeat routine here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R to article without mention)), because this redirect has been used. sst✈ 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. I didn't know about that Rcat. Its corresponding category should really be treated as a maintenance category. Something that can't be moved to one of its subcats (i.e., incorrect names and misspellings) is almost always going to be a problem. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. This phrase was in my head this morning, and I'm not sure why. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Without prejudice to this discussion, I tagged it as suggested by SSTflyer (also as ((r from quote))). For the record I agree quite strongly with Tavix' comment: someone knowledgeable about the subject, like those who have shown up here to explain the redirect, should at least ensure this is mentioned in the target article. (On another topic, the mention of "My spoon is too big" was removed in March 2012). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ergh... I can just justify this as an ((R from quotation)), since I don't think "Rejected" is a very intuitive title, and can imagine a reader remembering one of these quotes, using the search term, and putting two and two together. Others may just be ASTONISHed or confused, though. I'd feel much more comfortable if it were mentioned in the article, but I'm unsure of a good way to do that. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 22 January 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.