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. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kem chho → Hello  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the original revision: "Kem chho is hello in Gujarati." -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although I'd like to mention that there appears to be different songs and EP album releases by this name, perhaps at least one of them being notable. I'm not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:36, 16 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Isafrikansi → Hello  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to the original revision: "Isafrikansi is good-bye in Zulu." -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:37, 16 May 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Thomas Rudolph Smith → Rudolph Smith  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a bit of a tricky one. Since a Tom Swifty is a dicky one. I am not sure, there's multitudes more, but I must say this is quite a sticky one Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one's actually plausibly useful. ~ Rob^Talk 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh Speedily keep and withdrawn by nominator I had forgotten to say this was a neelix redirect when nominating; this passed me by. If someone says keep, keep, no problem. I'll mark as ((R from full name)). Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Refection → Coprophagia  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Refection is any eating, especially a light meal. Only in zoology does it mean coprophagia. The current redirection is confusing to one who reads, say, Chinese chef and looks up this unfamiliar word. I propose deletion. Gorobay (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in British English a refectory is a kinda cafeteria for where if you are a student you get cheap grub. I do not know if that helps or hinders. It certainly doesn't mean and I have deliberately not looked at the target just back translating someone who has a desire to eat the skeletons or remains of the dead. Please excuse me sometimes for not looking at the target but by not looking sometimes I can make a call for others to decide. Coprophagia literally would mean eating someone's bones or skeleton. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging our friends User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead would this make any sense taxonomically I think a lot of insects indulge in coprophagia but not sure if this makes any sense In English Wikipedia. Coprophage shit eater already redirects there so this is probably OK but I am not entirely sure. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - By far the primary use of the term appears to be either for the act of eating a meal, as pointed out by Gorobay, or for a place where you eat meals, as pointed out by Si Trew. This is also a really common misspelling of reflection. Rather than parsing together the fine points, I would just get rid of it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is quite a good call by User:CoffeeWithMarkets. To my mind I never thought about reflection at all but then my mind works in a different way and that seems a pretty obvious misspelling if it is kinda woss the word if it is filled in by the automatic dictionary things people have on mobile phones. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Used with multiple meanings on Wikipedia, including repairs. Readers are better served with a search result than this redirect. Fences&Windows 19:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Implausible search term better suited for a dictionary. No Wikipedia-notable uses for that particular spelling. It would mess with the more likely search term Reflection AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wiktionary:refection. Per the comments above, the term is ambiguous and the title doesn't seem to qualify for its own article via WP:REDLINK, so redirecting to its Wiktionary entry seems to be the best way to go. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no opinions other than keep. HighInBC 01:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ibsenism → Henrik Ibsen  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was withdrawn by admin User:Liz I don't think that you can do an ibsenism like that can you? Forgot to say Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, you can do Ibsenism like that. In fact, George Bernard Shaw did in Quintessence of Ibsenism. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, and this one ought to result in a well-deserved trouting of the nom. Not only is "Ibsenism" in standard dictionaries [1] and a term that turns up hundreds if not thousands of Google Scholar hits, we've actually got an article entitled Quintessence of Ibsenism, covering a work by George Bernard Shaw. If compelled to decide between Shaw's view of whether a term is legitimate and yours, User:SimonTrew, I believe every reasonable Wikipedia editor (and most of the unreasonable ones), would choose against you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as valid, if not at the target that I can see. We can dispense with the insults now. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Righty ho I don't mind Withdrawn by nominator. It just didn't seem much of an -ism to me. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: That's why you should at least do a basic search before you nominate. It's much easier to ask your favorite search engine if that's something you can do than us. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MY favourite search engine is Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 12 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Paster → Pastor  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(Neelix) Wouldn't this be someone who pastes? I'm not sure what to do with this. We do have someone with the surname: Zorba Paster and a WP:PTM, a horse named Flying Paster. That doesn't seem enough for a disambiguation and I would imagine that a ((R from surname)) to Zorba would be a surprise to just about anyone searching for this. My other thought is a retarget to Paste. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it certainly wouldn't mean someone who does wallpaper paste what would it possibly mean? Nothing essentially. I can see where Tavix is going but I ain't following, I think this is because Neelix is a Christian and all respect to that but it does not really mean anything. Pastor is because it comes from Latin like editor second declension Latin if you see what I mean we do not have editer. And this by the same route should be deleted I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try to explain better with my Latin head on. An actor is not because he his someone who acts that is a back formation that is why we don't have acter. This is back-formed from Latin but badly as a lot of Neelix redirects are. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a real word that means someone who pastes OR a sticky piece of paper (like a post-it note). [2] and other dictionary defs. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When Father painted the parlour you couldn't see him for paste

Dabbing it here dabbing it there, there was paper everyhwere

Mother was stuck to the ceiling the cat was stuck to the floor

Have you ever seen a family so stuck up before?

Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Retarget to Zorba Paster. I'm not sure if it's the best target but it is his surname though--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can ((R from surname)) that. I'm weak on it too but it's better than the current target and is as H. W. Fowler puts it in Modern English Usage a "useful distinction". Backwards run sentences until reels the mind. Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm in that same boat, weak Retarget to Zorba and have a hatnote catch everything else. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a dictionary. This would mess up searches for Pasteur, Pastor, and Plaster. Paste is a common word that doesn't need linking. Paster is not a common occupation. I agree there's a Flying Paster horse but they don't refer to it as Paster. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Gail Kern Paster is almost certainly notable, though shouldn't weigh too heavily while the link is still red. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 17 May 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. We can't find an agreeable target. Deryck C. 15:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Face fault → Manga iconography#Head and face  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I followed a link here from Facepalm and was SURPRISEd. It's not mentioned at the target article. After finding out what it means on TV Tropes, it doesn't look like it's even described at the target article. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not mean something like what The Elephant Man had I can't think of the word but a disfigurement of the face? I just can't think of the word right now. angioplasty is patently the wrong word but something like that for the face. What's Latin or Greek for face can't think of it right now. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe redirect to physical comedy, where pratfall targets? I'm not sure. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're close but no cigar, Physiognomy possibly? I am very good at pratfalls by the way I do them all the time. I just have to mind the 231 bus cos one day it will get me if I do it a bit wrong. Si Trew (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I don't think that's what this is. Have a look at BDD's TV Tropes link. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will but not today cos trying to search things hurts my right hand. Oddly enough to many people I always use a trackball left handed to keep my right hand free for typing nonsense but I can't easily search I am nearly better it will be OK. I also know left handed people who have their mouse on the right for the same reason it is I dunno there is a doctor's word for it that use the hand you're less capable with to do the less useful stuff. I usually keep my keyboard and desk with a mouse on the right and a track on the left so that if a cack-handed person comes along theys can choose, One more day. Try doing roll-your-own when one of your hands is injured I had to go on to tailor mades. Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Rather than hair-splitting over a possible new target, none of which seems to fit that directly, lets just get rid of the darned thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hair-splitting is exactly what we have to do at RfD. If we aren't going to make a choice of whether some entry in the index essentially we are not doing our job and if some of us end up with split ends we should go to another barber. We must split hairs, I entirely disagree. How else are people going to find what they are looking for if we as essentially the indexers of Wikipedia don't give them the key to the door? It's not Take Your Pick it is Wikipedia. I entirely disagree with that philosophy. This one to me stands out as meaning someone who has a facial blemish but we don't have that so that was no option to me. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was not meant in any way as a personal attack at User:CoffeeWithMarkets because I can see it coming from others as being "there he goes attacking people again" as I trog through the redirects and I don't imagine will be taken as such. I just happen to disagree on that point. Probably I would reckon about eight percent of the time CWM's views and mine on what to do with redirects actually are aligned and the other twenty percent we disagree. Nothing wrong with that, that's how we get WP:CONSENSUS. I will disagree with someone over a cup of coffee or preferably a glass of chablis or something, no problem a all, it is no personal attack (I can see it coming because it did yesterday, the day before, the day before, and oddly those editors never reply and never explain. It will today, I imagine, so I am warding it off on this one by saying which I assume User:CoffeeWithMarkets knows yes I will argue vigorously for what I think, humbly take what the WP:CONSENSUS is and never personally attack anyone. Attack their argument, certainly, but not their person. Neither in real life. Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 24 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm.jpg → Facepalm  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although this is in mainspace, I would still think readers using it would be looking for an image. The target article mentions an internet meme of Jean-Luc Picard facepalming--it comes up a bit in a Google search for "Facepalm.jpg", but there are many other pictures too. Since any image of a facepalm could take this name, and since the Picard one isn't actually on the target article anyway, I think it's best to delete. BDD (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm. One hit in the last 90 days. Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as misleading to someone looking for file by that name. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a meme. I've seen it used occasionally, where someone says "facepalm.jpg" instead of posting a facepalm and people are supposed to know what that means. We still don't discuss that here though and it has the potential for confusion with real files. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing since people thinks that this will link to an image file --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary and confusing. No one is going to search "Facepalm.jpg" looking for anything but a file. If they want "Facepalm", they'll just type that. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:43, 14 May 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 any with the incorrect construction "Stan Lees"; keep Mutants, Monsters & Marvels; procedural close the rest without prejudice against speedy unbundled nominations. Deryck C. 22:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mutants Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters, & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters, and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lee's Mutants Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lee's Mutants Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants, Monsters, & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants, Monsters, and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants, Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants, Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Stan Lees Mutants Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants, Monsters, & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants, Monsters, and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants, Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants, Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants Monsters & Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Mutants Monsters and Marvels → Stan Lee's Mutants, Monsters & Marvels  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Quite correct and not in any way phony and dishonest deletion tagging. You can't redirect this this way. There are stacks of these and to be called "Incompentent" "Phony" and "Dishonest" I think says more about the reverting editor than it does about me, I have asked the editor to back off of reverting my CSD nominations at that editor's talk page because I believe it queers that editor's pitch at that editor's nomination at WP:ANI#SimonTrew. Any other editor can but I think that is a conflict of interest. I will have a disagreement WP:CIVILly with anyone but (Personal attack removed). It is quite simply disrespectful to leave edit comments like that. I don't mind disagreeing with people but we do it in a WP:CIVIL way not this way. Si Trew (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way Neelix redirect forgot to say. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some I've added the other sixteen to the nomination. "Lees" is an incorrect construction and just introduces error into Wiki mirrors (I'm strongest on deleting the six Lees). Others are WP:PTMs or pointless variations. An Admin should block the uncivil editor that regularly insults people trying to clean things up. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some you added User:Legacypac are probably valid the one with the apostrophe Stan Lee's. The others with Lees are obviously not because his name was not Lees. Si Trew (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Puntuation variations and "&/and" interchanges are all quite valid, as well as removing the "Stan Lee" from the beginning in case other readers look it up by the rest of the title only. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only Mutants, Monsters & Marvels and delete the rest so that the search engine can do its job. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the ones with "Lees" in the title per Legacypac, but Keep the rest as valid variants per Steel1943. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with what all the regs say above so I am standing aside on this one as nom and you do what you want with it. Si Trew (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Steel1943. There's no guarantee that the search engine will "do its job" the way that some people expect; it's not uncommon for the same text to be a redlink when used in an article but go to the correct target when placed in the search box, or give flaky results via an external search engine. Our goal ought to be to preserve redirects which might prove helpful to encyclopedia users, not to purge them simply because they don't reflect best editing practices. Otherwise we wouldn't redirect misspellings. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this is why I do many good-faith creations by Neelix as ((R from misspelling)) and you do none. STAND OFF. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The functional distinction between redlinks and search results is beneficial. If someone were to try to create a wikilink in an article to this target using one of these incorrect names, it's a spelling mistake that needs to be corrected; it would be clearly highlighted as such if these redirects weren't around. They would either correct it in preview, or leave it and someone else would eventually come along and correct it. On the other hand we want search to be flexible, and it is flexible because the search engine is coded that way. If we didn't have these redirects, it wouldn't hinder search at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's good to make it harder for people who actually want to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to access the information they're looking for? That's not consistent with our purpose here, or with general WMF policy. You're assuming a much higher general level of competence and literacy than exists in the user universe. Our goal ought to be to make errors as harmless as possible, not to make their consequences more severe in a rather futile effort to deter them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're skipping acorss each otrhe here. A speling error wheather it's in a linck or not is a problem that we embeaver to correct, not make workarods to acomdate. Although we're ope to users of all slkil levels, the end golal is a high-quality product, not one lettered with baudly patchled errt1ors. A redlink is an indicator that there is an error in a link. That's a feature, not a hindrance. If someone puts a link in an article to aplles computer ink, the solution is not to create a redirect to Apple Inc., it's to fix the link. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty requests and requires on behalf of Her Mayesty to let the bearer pass without let or hindrance. When I've asked Her Majesty's Secretary of State for help to let and not hinder I don't seem to get very far but that's another story. I dunno what it says in a Canadian passport now but I imagine it will say something similar just it will be for the dominion rather than the secretary of state. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you lost most editor's interest on your comment~s on these when you made degrading comments removing the CSDs. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Break Up - The nominations link together things that are rather different. On that note, I agree on keeping most of them while deleting the ones that incorrectly refer to the non-existent "Stan Lees". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lees and non-comma entries This should leave with about four variants: (Stan Lee's) Mutants, Monsters & (or and) Marvels. Someone referring to this work should bother to tweak their article to one of those four titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:24, 15 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Converted Muslim scholars → List of modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's far too much ambiguity here. Are they Muslim scholars who converted to something else? Muslim scholars who converted from something else? Less plausibly, perhaps, scholars of converted Muslims (again, either way)? Even more problematically, the target article only lists modern scholars, and only lists names and dates. A reader would have to put in a lot of work just to find out which of these are converts. BDD (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what would be unconverted Muslim scholars? Those not converted to Christianity or to Sunni or Shi'ite Islam or what? Makes no sense to me. It is not as if this is the John The Baptist's conversion on the Road to Damascus. With respect to Islam (La illaha illa illa'la mohammed rasul allah) I think this particular once is nonsense. With respect, I am now hearing the prayers from a Muezzin four floors below me when I was a boy of ten or eleven living in a block of flats in Cairo so I know a bit of arabic but not well, I just have respect for anyone's faith or people of no faith, I just think this particular one is nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see this was originally created as a list, and was quickly redirected to a different article, for pretty obvious reasons. I'd say it no longer serves a purpose. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)~[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. "John The Baptist's conversion on the Road to Damascus" mixes the prophet who prepared the way for Jesus and baptized him with Saint Paul who was killing Christians after Jesus ascended and then saw Jesus himself on the road to Damascus, a conversion experience that turned Saul into Paul and the greatest missionary of the early church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 May 2016

I think Jesus said "You are called Paul so I shall call you Simon" which must have been a bit confusing for the old bugger. There is something fishy going on with this one. Paul Trew (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This just isn't helpful, as pointed out above by multiple users. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 15 May 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 this and "litigator" to lawsuit for now. A future retarget is possible if new content is written somewhere that provides a better target. Deryck C. 16:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Litigators → Lawyer  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(neelix redirect) could refer to pretty much anyone in the legal profession or anyone bringing a case before a court of law although that would usually be a litigant. Jurist is probably out. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Barrister at least in Canada and the US this term only refers to a type of lawyer that handles court actions. Synonym for Barrister . The Litigators is a book. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in British English, I think. I don't know it would mean anything really in British English except bad English for litigant influenced incorrectly from too many North American legal dramas etc without understanding the difference. But then litigant also goes to Lawsuit but usually in English & Welsh law means the defendant or accused (in a criminal case) or plaintiff (in a civil case) it does not mean just anyone with a bit of legal knowledge who hangs around a court. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Singular "litigator" also redirects to lawyer.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to lawsuit, which explains that The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. Lawsuit is also currently the target of litigation, so it would seem natural for both of those terms to target the same article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a better option than my suggestion based on the quoted text. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Notecardforfree. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very much a case please excuse the pun not a Judge Judy case of a difference between British English and North American English. I really don't think this makes much sense in the UK. I don't mind if some of these stay but they make no sense to me. Ambrose Bierce who was American sorta defined a lawyer in The Devil's Dictionary as a liar with a roving profession if I recall correctly but his English was the back end of the nineteenth century and probably not in current American English. He did not define a litigator and so forth, so this is a bit newer than that. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way if my memory serves Bierce defines an editor as "A man who can separate the wheat from the chaff, and prints the chaff". Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - If "Litigant" and "Litigants" both go to "Lawsuit", it appears that precedent is clear to do the same here. It also makes logical sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK, along with Litigator. This is a major gap in coverage and should be remedied; I may try to do it myself. A litigant is anyone who is litigating; a litigator is an attorney who specializes in doing so (as opposed to other types of law). --BDD (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus on "litigious" (current target lawsuit, wikt:litigious, and frivolous litigation were all proposed), default to do nothing; delete other two. Deryck C. 22:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Litigiousness → Lawsuit  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Litigiously → Lawsuit  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Litigious → Lawsuit  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Look up litigious in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

(Neelix redirect) Litigious does not mean lawsuit. It tends to mean someone who likes resorting to the law or courts a lot (wikt meanings 2 and 3). WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment misleading redirects. Maybe a better target? Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Frivolous litigation as a target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to frivolous litigation as these are all pejorative terms for the same concept, more or less CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Frivolous litigation ex parte Albert Haddock and Coffeemarkets. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft retargert litigious to Wiktionary and delete the others. I am also strongly opposed to retargeting this to frivolous litigation; a person can have a predisposition to litigating matters (rather than settling or seeking alternative methods of resolving problems), but that does not mean that they are predisposed to bringing frivolous claims. If we retarget this to frivolous litigation, then readers will get the false impression that litigious individuals bring claims for frivolous reasons. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha that was rather legalistic explanation! I think it does mean someone who unduly resorts to the courts, but I agree that frivolous litigation may not be the best target. Friviolous litiigation, in my mind, is someone who deliberately goes to the court not in the hope of winning or losing the case but to get the costs awarded from the other side. Being litigious is a little bit different. Albert Haddock was quite litigious (and quite frivolous) but went to the courts to prove a point. They are a bit different. I am very averse to take things to Wiktionary WP:NOTDIC if we have nothing we should say so, so Delete all. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep litigious. My philosophy on redirects to Wiktionary is that we should only redirect there when we don't have anything on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the case here as the article on lawsuit gives good indication to what litigious means. Delete the other two as that's too far. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further reflection, I think that keeping litigious at its current target is a good idea, but I still think we should delete the other two. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget litigious to its Wiktionary entry, strong delete the others. Notecardforfree's comment on frivolity is important. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget' to Wiktionary, without prejudice to retargeting to a glossary in future. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete all Your Worship, or Your Honour, as the case may be. WP:NOTDIC. We don't just go taking things to Wiktionary that is what Wiktionary is for, but this is an encylopaedia. By the clean hands doctrine as the good Mr. Haddock says "a dirty dog will get no dinner from the courts". If We don't know we should say so, i.e. WP:REDLINK. I don't know what the "without prejudice" above means because by making a statement on what to do something you are estopped then from claiming any damage from it, it is a nonsense thing to say. Si Trew (talk) 02:05, 24 May 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 Pythia. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delphian oracle → Delphi  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(neelix redirect) Can we do this? The Oracle of Delphi was of course the famous Oracle who would hand out rather cryptic advice but I am not sure we can whack it the other way round never heard this in in English. I would not know how to mark this one as an rcat. The obvious place to take it is to as I suggested but Oracle of Delphi is itself a redirect to Pythia so that is not very helpful. THe Usenet Oracle what is now the Internet Oracle I have contributed to for many years, before the days of the Interweb. I am not sure what to do with this one. Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment wouldn't it be the Delphic Oracle? This one's rather a coin toss. It is in the lede but "Delphian" is no good in English. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No hang on I have got something wrong here the target of the redirect was Pythia so I am getting a bit mixed up as usual. Where shall we put it? Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change target to Pythia as for Delphic Oracle. This appears (with lower-case "o" for oracle as here) in The History of Greece, Volume 1 (1814) by William Mitford (link) but I would say it is incorrect in modern English usage, so I would also add ((R from former name)). --Mirokado (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Çhange targetto Pythia if we keep this, though there is extensive discussion of the topic at the current target. I'm not convinced that "Delpian" is correct - though it reads like Canadian, Italian etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Retarget as above Speedily withdrawn by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Duchess Mary Russell of Bedford → Mary Russell, Duchess of Bedford  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(neelix redirect) This is a bit of a coin toss. You can't really do this and I lived near Bedford but I can see how it would be a likely search term. You can't just make up peoples titles like this but I can see how it would be a likely search term. I would speedily keep it but really not entirely sure it makes sense Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think this sort of honorific works this way, and it appears only three people in the last 30 days have felt otherwise. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely those 3 people include Simon and myself clicking through to check these. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a similar rate of hits going back 90 days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    
• You can't really do this, though it's at least a likelyish search term (unlike the "Baroness The Margaret Thatcher" we had a few days ago...) I don't think it's likely enough, however, so I would lean delete Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is no benefit to deleting this. There is no other possible target. The redirect is old. Verb sap. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 17 May 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 keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Academic Renewal Press → CSS Publishing Company  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(rolls eyes) neelix redirect. Undone at mc CSD lsting by Hullaballo. If there is a publishing company called the Academic Renewal Press I should be glad to hear of it. If it is an imprint of the CSS Pub Co then fine, keep it, but I don't think it is I think it is WP:MADEUP. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is one sentence about it at the target. Target itself is probably WP:PROMO, but that's not our jurisdiction. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. I did check the target but I could not find it. I agree it is not our jurisdiction to say about the target. Si Trew (talk) 18:51, 12 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Faith Walk Publishing → CSS Publishing Company  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another one rejected at CSD by User:Hullabaloo Wolfovitz (neelix redirect) Now you tell me what Publisher is called Faith walk publishing? Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - wrong name, and practically no information at all about the company (FaithWalk Publishing) at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wrong. Let's try to reduce errors, not spread them all over the internet via made up incorrect names of businesses. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The target publisher has a subsidiary called "Faithwalk" Publishing, listed in the article; no one would be arguing if "Faith Walk Publishing" redirected to a "Faithwalk Publishing" article. Our goal here is supposed to be to help people find the information they're looking for, not to cast judgment on their spelling habits. This is no more implausible as a redirect than Emmy Lou Harris or Roseanne Cash, or hundreds if not thousands of others. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedily withdrawn by nominator. If the publisher has that imprint that is fine by me. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with closing this one, per two delete !votes above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC) On reflection, I don't care enough to prolong this. Officially neutral. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 13 May 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 Converted Wikipedia:Importance to a disambiguation page with the three possible targets mentioned below, and retargeted the nominated redirect there. Participants seem to agree that the current target is incorrect, but there is no consensus on where to retarget the redirect. So, the creation of a disambiguation page is the equivalent of "no consensus" in this case. (In addition, there seems to be no consensus for changes to Wikipedia:IMPORTANT. Consensus on that redirect may need to be formed via a separate discussion.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misleading redirect. It's stated clearly at WP:A7 that importance (also called significance) is a lower standard than notability. I suggest this gets retargeted there (or maybe WP:Credible claim of significance as Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANCE redirects there.) This could well be a major contributor to the common confusion between significance/importance and notability. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To which one? Adam9007 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm inclined to suggest deletion for this one. Indeed, there is a lot of confusion in our site jargon regarding notability and significance and how it relates to a subject's importance (in the sense of its value) and I think we should be careful about which synonyms we use in these cases. In this case, we shouldn't use it at all, because "importance" should not be equated with either of these terms. If you mean notability, use WP:NOTABILITY. If you mean significance, use WP:CCS. Don't make other editors guess. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't see the harm in this one meself since it is not a WP:XNR or anything but it is rather a judgment call would it confuse new editors or not I am not sure. WP:NEWBIES does not have WP:NEW BEES (nova apis) pointing to it for example. Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANCE (as in going to WP:Credible claim of significance, which Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANCE points to). To be frank, I don't see what in the hell the difference would be between "importance" and "significance" in the first place here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Another alternative for retargetting would be to WP:IMPORTANT. Pros: noun/adjective forms both redirect to the same place (as with WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTABILITY; WP:CONCISE and WP:CONCISION; WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Cons: the page for WP:IMPORTANT is now marked "historical". I would oppose retargetting to WP:CCS per Ivanvector and due to the possible confusion with WP:IMPORTANT. If not retargeted to WP:IMPORTANT, I would delete. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance (the target of WP:IMPORTANT). Oh my yes, that's much much better. Good job, Caeciliusinhorto. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance per nom. It rarely makes sense to create new shortcuts to historical pages; I think it would be better to have WP:IMPORTANT retargeted to CCS as well. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:East Logo.png → File:Shawnee Mission East High School logo.png  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect from ambiguous name. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. File was just moved from the title of the redirect in the past few days. The target file page was uploaded at the title of the redirect in 2008. There is a relatively high chance that external links could be broken if the redirect is deleted. However, with all that being said, I'm leaning towards delete since Wikipedia is not a host for non-free content (unless used in an article with a fair-use claim); with that being said, external links to the target file, a non-free image, or its redirect(s) (given that the file was at the title of the redirect for almost 8 years) should not exist, even if they do, since Wikipedia does not host non-free content for others to use since others using non-free content found here would be copyright infringement of the copyright holder's work. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The file has been under this name for many years, and deletion of the redirect would create lots of unnecessary red links in old revisions of Shawnee Mission East High School. See also WP:R#SUPPRESS --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors should take responsibility for any erroneous reverts to old versions, and since images are not part of the text of an article, I don't see why this redirect should remain. If this redirect is deleted, the deletion/move log will be able to inform editors where the file went. Keeping this redirect due to old revisions having the redirect used is akin to keeping a redirect like Dbhhbfijffjfhhffg since it formerly targeted Microsoft Windows and was linked in an old reversion of Microsoft. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does breaking old revision have to do with reverting to old revisions? And what do you gain from deleting file redirects? The only thing you change is that editors who like to see how an article has developed will see red links instead of files when browsing through old revisions of the page. Why do you want to produce unnecessary red links? The page Microsoft Windows is not meant to be transcluded on other pages, so there are completely different reasons for keeping redirects to that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THe policy for WP:REDLINK is clearly stated. But in general, it makes it harder for readers to search when there is this kind of clutter, it is also harder for editors who are trying to maintain or link to files. It is administrative, really, WP:WIKIGNOMEing, to clean up the mess. You have to ask what harm would there be by deleting it. Oh, to preserve the history of a file redirect? Nobody is ever actually going to check that. And even when deleted its history can be retrieved on request from any admin you ask. I know because I do it quite often well about three times a year. To keep it starts a combinatorial explosion of redirects to all kinds of things until we end up with greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you suddenly start talking about preserving the history of redirects. I have only talked about preserving the history of articles. What do you gain by having a red link in the infobox Special:PermanentLink/718547389 instead of seeing an image? See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#G6 and several other discussions which discuss file redirects. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK does not apply solely to articles but to anything on EN:WP. What we gain is that people do not get a WP:SURPRISE by having a redirected file link that goes to a different file from what it might do, essentially WP:SURPRISE is what we gain by deleting it. If not, I can retarget it to File:London bus.jpg or whatever (I don't know if that exists) and how merry we all shall be. The gain in deleting these redirects is not to give readers a WP:SURPRISE. I probably did not make myself very clear. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually exist but I was just picking a title at random and I think that proves my point. Considering I went through all the titles on ((London bus route)) and none of the targets use this pic that is how it is misleading. I imagine most readers would expect to get a pic of a Routemaster. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK presents advantages and disadvantages of red links which you are supposed to click on. Red links which are meant to be transcluded only seem to be mentioned in two sentences: Do not create red links to files. Such red links are categorized for cleanup at Category:Articles with missing files. So according to that page, we should not create red links to files, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. The reasons for keeping or deleting redirects which are meant to be clicked on are largely different to the reasons for keeping or deleting redirects which are meant to be transcluded.

If you delete the redirect, then you surprise people who read historical versions of the article since they see a red link where they expect to see an image. On the other hand, keeping the redirect doesn't surprise anyone. You are confusing reasons for keeping or deleting file redirects with reasons for keeping or deleting article redirects. For example, people often search for articles by searching for article titles, but you rarely search for files that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Filename is too vague to be useful for any kind of image. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as the vagueness of the title makes it almost deliberately misleading CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:08, 13 May 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. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• RBLX → Roblox  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I dont what RBLX have to do with Roblox Flow234 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It looks like the former term is a often used abbreviation stated by users of the program. The "RBLXDev" project seems to be one of the biggest examples. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Xqbot changed this from Roblox to Roblox as a double redirect in Jan 2016. I must admit to me this sounds like a pile of bollox but that is just my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 18:55, 12 May 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 retarget to disambiguation page and withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• La Danse (painting) → La Danse (Bouguereau)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This one's a bit odd. It is a painting but we have a French artist painting it in French so I am not sure where the (painting) comes in. (Neelix redirect). We already have a DAB in the end of it so perhaps we should ((R to DAB)) ast La Danse but I am not sure that is helpful. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the dab page. If anything, I'd guess the Matisse painting is more likely to be what people are looking for—it's listed under the French name in quite a few catalogues and books, so it's an eminently plausible search term—but there are enough other paintings by this name that I'd be reluctant to consider any one title the primary, even if most don't yet have articles. Regardless, Bouguereau's wretched daub is certainly not the primary use of the term. ‑ Iridescent 12:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Speedily Retarget to the DAB at La Danse good call. I dunno if I can technically say withdrawn by nominator but that is what we should do. You should see how wretched my paintings are before criticising theres I can only slap a bit of Dulux on a wall! Mind you that little Austrian painter Adolf Hitler seems to be notable. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - technically this is not a Neelix creation in the G6 sense, it is a redirect left behind from a Neelix page move. An entirely rational one, at that. I have corrected the few remaining incoming links. There are likely external links that will be impaired, but readers clicking through those links will still find information on paintings called La Danse, so it's good enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 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 Deleted. The original target of Oscar Wilde/Biblio is long gone. Fences&Windows 13:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Oscar Wilde/Biblio → Oscar Wilde  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as a potentially-harmful WP:XNR, since the target is not a template. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix as XNR. That is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hazardous - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:06, 13 May 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.