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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purgatively → Purge (disambiguation)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally targeted laxative. Speedy declined and retargeted to Purge disambiguation. This word does not mean purge, in any possible sense of the word. While purgative does mean laxative, this means that purgatively basically means laxatively, which makes no sense at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pointless redirect from an adverb. PamD 08:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a synonym. Not synonymly? Synonimitation? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletatively - unhelpful. shoy (reactions) 17:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Purgation. Purgatively does mean purge, in many senses of the word. All senses of the word are included at Purgation. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting idea, but Delete, can't see readers going through this redirect. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:19, 13 June 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 soft redirect / delete variously per Patar knight's proposal. Deryck C. 13:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Intimating → Intimate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Intimated → Intimate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Intimater → Intimate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Intimaters → Intimate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Intimatings → Intimate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neelix speedies, all declined, as forms of intimate. All of these are verb forms. Intimate, as a verb, means to imply or state. Nothing at the disambiguation page has this meaning, so none of these are logical terms for any of them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like I forgot intimaters and intimatings. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom - all exist as words, yes, but as parts of the verb - nothing relevant on target dab page. PamD 08:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletimate - I added the other two as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect intimated, intimating , and Intimater to Wikitionary. Those two got 323 hits, 200 hits, and 32 hits over the last 11 months respectively, so people are searching for them. The other two only got 17 and 11 hits over the same time scale, so can probably go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary, for those actually used, delete the rest, per Patar Knight above. -- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per Patar knight for the ones that are used; delete the others. PaleAqua (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect 3, delete 2 per Patar knight. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 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 Speedily deleted, uncontroversial clean-up per WP:G6. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages → Aït Bouaddou Villages  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page was originally created as a template. It's been moved to the mainspace, and this redirect has essentially become implausible. Can't imagine anything going through this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the talk page of the template redirect as well, please. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more context: User:KAIG007 made Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages containing article content, which I moved to Aït Bouaddou Villages, then to Aït Bouaddou villages, before discovering that the user also made Villages of Aït Bouaddou. So I redirected these targets to that article. I then found that the user forked Aït Bouaddou from Aït Bouadou, which, according to some of the refs on the page, look to be misspellings, and the version with 2 ds looks correct. In any case, I believe the cleanup is done, and this redirect in discussion should simply be deleted. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The version that I nominated for TfD is Special:Permalink/718538774 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or speedy delete I often request speedy deletion of redirects from moves out of template space as CSD G6 (uncontroversial) or G7 ((db-author)). I don't know of any reason to keep these, unless they have active links that need the Template: prefix for some reason. (I've seen this once or twice, but they were eventually deleted, anyway.) —PC-XT+ 21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, yeah I thought that this needed a bit more elaboration than a G6 with rationale, so I went this route. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:18, 13 June 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. In this case, we'll be creating a list of lists. Deryck C. 13:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of games considered the best → List of video games considered the best  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedural re-nomination. This redirect was recently closed as Delete in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#List of games considered the best, but, with the permission of the closer, I've re-opened it due to the original nomination not including certain information. I feel this redirect should be kept.

1. "List of games considered the best" was the former and original title of the article (not mentioned in previous nom). Per #4 of WP:RFD#KEEP, "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason". External sites who linked to this article in 2014 & before used the old name, so deleting this redirect breaks those links.
2. This redirect sees substantial use: [1] shows ~40-80 hits a day, which is considerable!
3. The talk page of the target article was not notified. (Also, either the RFD tag wasn't added to the redirect, or I plain missed it on my watchlist.)
4. The redirect is harmless and useful, WP:RFD#KEEP #5. This is more a "re-litigate the previous RFD" comment, and I believe the above 2 reasons are the most important ones, but the nominator's concern about confusion is unfounded. I don't think an article ranking sports is likely to ever exist (find out which of Baseball, Cricket, & Rugby is the best!), same with many other types of games, and if such an article ever IS created ("List of board games considered the best", perhaps), then the redirect can be changed into a disambiguation page harmlessly. There are tons and tons and tons of redirects from phrases that don't quite exactly match the topic; that's okay, though! SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my previous nomination of this redirect. In addition, page views of a redirect do not prove that the readers are arriving at their intended target, but rather that they are just searching the term. In a case like this, there is a possibility that this redirect is viewed because it might auto-populate in the search field when typing a similar string of words, and then click on this because it appeared first. (This part is just speculation, but it may add to the lack of ability to prove that this redirect leads to the correct target by page views alone.) The best option for this redirect would be for it to be deleted so that the search function of Special:Search can provide the reader with search results rather than force them to immediately be forwarded to the redirect's current target. (By the way, thank you SnowFire for informing me of this discussion, even though you knew beforehand that I had an opposing viewpoint. That proves a very fair character on your part!) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the comments below, I may also support disambiguation if it can be proven workable. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate between this and List of Game of the Year awards (which should be moved) and List of Game of the Year awards (board games). Readers would then be able to see which lists we have, which is more than a search can provide. Peter James (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Peter James and nom, as I think such a page would be more useful than deletion in cases of old links while also providing some help in navigating after search-completion entices people here, making it pretty harmless, I hope. —PC-XT+ 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Peter James. Probably redirect the deleted redirects in the previous RfD to this page as well. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:32, 15 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force → Horse training  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term. "Present-day" will be inaccurate in a couple of seconds, "force" is nowhere in the target article and the use of the word "proponents" seems unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a Present-day proponent of subordinating bad redirects by deletion. Bizarre. Cannot imagine this redirect being of use to anyone. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unlikely search term. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments. This just isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:47, 13 June 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Current frigates → List of frigate classes  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of the word "current" in this case is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Current delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Super arts → Superpower (ability)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase is not mentioned in the target article. The only connection I could find to this phrase has to do with this apparently being the name for special moves in the Street Fighter video game series. And Super Art Fight exists, but the redirect seems to not be an official nickname for that subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. It averages 0 views per day, so it's doesn't seem to be a common name for anything. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 16 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Super adapter (Mega Man) → Mega Man (character)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term of the redirect is not mentioned at the target. Per the redirect's history, it was previously an article that was merged into the target article, but it seems that the content of the redirect is no longer present in the target article. Also, the redirect's history as an article seems to fail WP:NOTWIKIA as an encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 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. There have been plenty of retargeting suggestions, but most participants are fine with the status quo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Super admin → Administrator  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The use of how a "super" admin is signed is not at the target, rendering the redirect confusing and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the page was created by a sockpuppet to point to a page that was almost immediately deleted. I changed the target, but never really felt it was the best place to redirect. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely a term used to refer to a class of administrator in systems where there are tiers of administrator privileges (e.g. [2]). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly retarget directly to Superuser rather than the DAB page. Silly as it sounds, this is actually a legit term. SnowFire (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've heard it used for administrators that have the ability of granting superuser privilege for individual accounts on specific machines, also I've heard it used to describe root account vs accounts that have sudo-like access. I'd also support retargeting but could see both superuser and system administrator being valid targets as one describes the permissions and the other the role, so leaning towards DAB page as target. PaleAqua (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Also potentially consider retargeting to sudo, but the current redirect seems fine) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 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 "ivory torch" and titles not separately discussed; delegate decision of the rest to admin-participant Patar knight to retarget or delete as he deems most plausible. Deryck C. 11:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge diamond → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sapphire bracelet → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jeweled scarab → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gold coffin → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Trunk of jewels → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ivory torch → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Brass bauble → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Beautiful painting → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jewel-encrusted egg → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jade figurine → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Egyptian sceptre → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Crystal trident → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Clockwork canary → Zork  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The connection between the redirects and the target is unclear. These terms also seem to have notability as standalone concepts used in other forms of media (for example, a "jeweled scarab" may make some think of The Mummy (1999 film).) These phrases seem to not be in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is a connection but the term itself is too vague to justify a redirect. Ditto sapphire bracelet, jeweled scarab, gold coffin, trunk of jewels, ivory torch, brass bauble, beautiful painting and jewel-encrusted egg. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The aforementioned comment was made when the only redirect listed in this nomination was Huge diamond.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Xezbeth: Good call. I've gone ahead and added all of those redirects to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That, and it turns out that there are more then ten more that should probably be added here. I may get to that soon. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out that there were only 4 more that met the same criteria as the other grouped redirects. They have been added in the same edit as this comment. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/DAB possible ones.
  • Jeweled scarab should be redirected to Jewel scarab as a plausible search term.
  • Ivory torch should be redirected to Destruction of ivory?
  • Jewel-encrusted egg should go to Fabergé egg or maybe Egg decorating
  • Jade figurine could go to either Jade or hardstone carving
  • Egyptian sceptre should either go to Was or Sekhem scepter with a hatnote to the other, a DAB page, or retargeted to Sceptre#Antiquity, though the last one does not mention the Sekhem scepter.

The others can probably just be deleted unless they are frequently and uniquely associated with Zork, which does not seem to be the case (especially for "Crystal Trident", which seems to be better associated with [3], though that's a weak basis for a redirect). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• These all seem like plausible options ... with the exception of the retargeting option for Ivory torch. That seems like a bit of a WP:SURPRISE since the reference seems to be about "torching ivory" to destroy it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That was definitely the most tenuous one, and hence the question mark, and is less of a plausible redirect than all the others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:34, 15 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Super- → Super  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as ambiguous/implausible - as it stands now, it redirs to a dab page for Super. However, the hyphen denotes a prefix form, and there's nothing on the dab that refers to the redir as such. So, if I'm going to look for "super", I don't need to type "super-", and if I'm looking for "super-", I'm not going to find it. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as with sub-, hyper-, under-. Might as well try pre- too. Exceptions would be made if there are actual articles that include a dash like Anti- (record label) and of course any articles that discuss it as a prefix like meta- AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:26, 9 June 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 Nonvolatile BIOS memory#CMOS battery.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rechargeable CMOS battery → Asus Eee PC  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Asus Eee PC may have a Rechargeable CMOS battery, but that doesn't mean that all Rechargeable CMOS batteries are Eee PCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElianDoran (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to CMOS Battery Any battery could have potential to be rechargeable, but the article on a PC isn't a likely target. If a company has patented the term, then redirect to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rechargeability not discussed at target. Siuenti (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nonvolatile BIOS memory#CMOS battery per AngusWOOF. Per nominator this shouldn't target one model of PC; that's a grossly promotional abuse of redirects. Rechargeable CMOS batteries have been around forever (e.g. the blue thing in File:286 Baby AT motherboard layout.jpg for example, pretty sure that's a NiCd battery), but generally have been replaced by lithium batteries on newer machines. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nonvolatile BIOS memory#CMOS battery. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Small accident → Accident  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "small" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the term "small accident" undefined, leaving readers who arrive at the target article trying to figure out what specific set of circumstances make an accident a "small accident". Also, the word "small" is subjective and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no official definition of small or minor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unclear, vague terminology. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 14 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• List of rivers of Saudi Arabia → List of wadis of Saudi Arabia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rivers of Palestine, a wadi is not a river and anyone too ignorance or lazy to search for wadis separately from rivers can't expect to find them Siuenti (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the term creates false expectation like List of people living on the Moon. I disagree that wadi is a common term though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OR Retarget to Geography of Saudi Arabia. While wadis are not rivers in the proper sense of the word, reliable sources do describe them as "seasonal rivers" (e.g. [4]), and it looks like the current target is the best we have. If this is not good enough, we should retarget to Geography of Saudi Arabia where it talks about the hydrography of KSA in depth. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the reason this redirect exists is to prevent List of rivers of Saudi Arabia from being a dead link in the lists of rivers template - lists of wadis seems the next best place to send someone looking for info on rivers in a country where they don't exist. Punishing someone for not knowing what a wadi is seems counterproductive. Kmusser (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Patar knight and Kmusser's sound analysis. Cavarrone 08:00, 12 June 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. The slang association, and the resulting lack of a widely agreed topic fit, point towards deletion as the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Big tit → Breast  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Big tits → Tit  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Big-tit → Breast  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The words "big" and "tit" are both ambiguous. Also, Tit, a disambiguation page, is an inappropriate target since no subjects in that page are not referred to specifically as "big tit". Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Retarget to Tit Big tits gets 16 hits a day and Big tit gets 3 a day so they both get lots of use, and there are several potential targets on Wikipedia, so soft redirects to Wiktionary shouldn't be an option (breast, Tit, or maybe Breast fetishism). Of these, Tit seems like the best option given the ambiguity of "tit". Regardless, these two should redirect to the same target. The redirect with the hyphen only gets 15 hits over the last 11 months, so that can stay or go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I'm reading this comment's rationale, this seems more like a reason to delete these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers determine what subject they are looking for without being forced to go to a specific page due to an existing redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Oh jeez. Just more of Neelix's titty obsession. Completely and utterly inappropriate. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retarget all to tit. This follows our general policy of creating valid redirects even for vulgar terms, with the delightful side effect of helping all the people searching for "big tits" to learn more about the members of the family Paridae while at the same time not preventing them from reading aaaaaaaalll the way down the page to find their intended target in the unlikely event of this being a prurient search -- something, of course that I'm shocked, shocked to even consider might ever happen. Consider, for example, the magnificent disambig page wiener, which has much the same effect. -- The Anome (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tit is a disambiguation page. Redirecting a term which does not describe a valid alternative name for all of the subjects on the page, is not an exact title match with the disambiguation page's title and/or isn't a title with capitalization, punctuation and/or differences with the use of the word "the" is misleading and inaccurate. I'm pretty sure that none of the subjects at Tit#People are referred to as "big tit" or "big tits". Also, the argument trying to compare Wiener having a similar situation regarding "big" redirects is not true since the only incoming redirects to Wiener are Wieners and Wiener (disambiguation); Big wiener, Big wieners, Big-wiener and Big-wieners do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed they don't. But if they did, "big wieners" etc. should all redirect to the "wiener" disambig page, as we don't know which kind of wiener might be intended. The analogy with "tit" here is perfect. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Big penis redirects to to an article specifically about human penis size (not endorsing that, just stating the fact).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to breast, which is the only subject on tit which is commonly referred to with the "big" modifier. It's extremely unlikely someone who comes here (or anywhere on the internet) and types "big tit" is going to be looking for a bearded reedling (bearded tit) of above-average size. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement that the phrase "big tit" may only refer to breast may not be the case. Thinking I had heard the word "tit" used otherwise in the past, I recalled that I once heard the word "tit" used as an insult. Sure enough, wikt:tit and third party sources confirm this. Apparently, the word "tit" is sometimes used as an insult in British English. Like most insults that are a single-word noun, the word "big" can be placed behind it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very good point, but I don't think that usage is present on the disambiguation page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  These pages might have future retargets by other editors. This RfD might sync them for now, but I have a feeling it won't last. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Breast size redirects to bra size. Nipple#Changes in size gives an average size, but isn't really a good target, as it doesn't describe what is "big". Oppose retarget to tit because the overwhelming usage of this terms is to refer to the size a specific part of the female human body.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I feel like I'm defaulting to it since it seems like there isn't a good enough target from the above discussion, so perhaps it's best to let the search engine deal with it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:02, 17 June 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 deletion -- as absolute nonsense. -- The Anome (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Big ldea → Big Idea Entertainment  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling. The first letter in the second word of the redirect is a lowercase "L". Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Big killer → List of causes of death by rate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Big killers → List of causes of death by rate  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects' target, List of causes of death by rate, is about death in humans. "Killers" or a target of a "kill" is not exclusive to humans, and the word "big" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The edit history of a redirect targeting these redirects' target, List of causes of human deaths by rate, has the term "big killer" to describe the topic of the list, but the term as used in that article was not referenced. Also, I was unable to find any connection between "big killer" and any specific term either through search engines. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as per nom. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 14 June 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 boot disk.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bootable USB → Live USB  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A bootable USB is not necessarily a live USB. A live USB contains a full OS, rather than, for example, the Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 setup files to install the OS from the USB. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Valid search term. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but retarget to boot disk. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to boot disk. A live USB is just one use of a bootable USB. PaleAqua (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per suggestion. A very valid search term. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:17, 13 June 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Windows 10 (for PCs and tablets) → Windows 10  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We don't begin parenthetical disambiguators with prepositions, in contrast with Windows 10 for PCs and tablets, which has a natural disambiguator; and Windows 10 (PCs and tablets), which has a parenthetical disambiguator that doesn't begin with a preposition. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (the redirect) per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 June 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Game of Thrones (season 8) → List of Game of Thrones episodes  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am taking this to RfD since another editor has twice attempted, incorrectly, to speedy delete this redirect. I will inform that editor of this RfD. At the moment, I am neutral with respect to deletion. Safiel (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The season has not been confirmed at all, and the edit summary of the article's creation ("It's been confirmed to be the last season of the show.") is completely false and based upon speculation. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No useful information to fill in this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Pure speculation. Safiel (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Game of Thrones#Adaptation schedule where this is discussed. Not WP:CRYSTAL, since possible season eight is verifiable as both the show runners and the president of programming at HBO have publicly talked about needing a season eight in reliable sources (see: [5], [6]) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword: possible. It has not been confirmed and hence the page should not exist. Those are all speculation sources. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL clearly says that it only applies to "unverifiable speculation", that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced," and that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The fact that there has been open speculation by the people in charge of the show about needing an eighth season is verifiable to reliable sources. Unless you're asserting that the creators/showrunners of Game of Thrones and the president of HBO programming are not "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in [the] field" for noted HBO show Game of Thrones, I fail to see how this should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We need a season 8" doesn't sound like "We're going to produce season 8" just like CEOs of sports teams wanting to re-sign their players going into free agency. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that scenario though, if the coach and the GM both openly say in reliable sources that they're in discussions with the player and that the current plan was to sign them, then it would be fine to include that per WP:CRYSTAL, since it is verifiable speculation about the future. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that does not mean to put the player on the roster. But that redirect may have to do for now to funnel traffic as with Star Wars 9 which has been in discussion since the 1980s with things making it more a certainty from 2015. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now back on topic. Game of Thrones does not related to sports or Star Wars. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as suggested by Patar. The redirect's topic is in an article and properly sourced, so a redirect makes sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as suggested above. It does not violate WP:CRYSTAL to do this because the subject has been covered by reliable sources. The fact that those sources are still largely speculating at this stage is not a problem, as WP:CRYSTAL allows us to report speculation by reliable sources as well as discussion about the likelihood that future events will happen. Hut 8.5 21:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I began to close this as delete, but was afraid I was just doing a supervote. I'm not satisfied with the retargeting option because any potential season 8 is more than just about the "adaptation schedule". A reader might reasonably expect to find information about its casting, development, etc. Such a retarget makes sense at this moment, but may very soon not, given that we're talking about recent events here. Given CRYSTAL, I would much rather make clear to a reader that we don't really cover this topic, instead of just diverting him or her to where we happen to have a few crumbs of speculation at this time. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I actually agree that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't strictly apply here because there has been discussion of a prospective season eight in reliable sources, but the amount of information we have about season eight is too insubstantial and too patchy to fit into any article we've got so far. With that in mind, I don't think retargeting to the adaptation schedule will help readers very much. Better to keep it a redlink and quietly admit to readers that there we don't have useful information on it. Deryck C. 16:37, 17 June 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 deleted, WP:G5, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Trump Caused Riots → Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Self-explanatory deletion; likely created by Beercan999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in evasion of their long sock history as Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 21:53, 8 June 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.