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} 01:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Friday 4 → Friday (disambiguation)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• FRIDAY 4 → Friday (disambiguation)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's unclear what on the disambiguation page these redirects are supposed to refer to. Per the edit histories of these redirects, it seems that these were articles referring to a possible 4th film in the Friday film series, but not even that article has information about a fourth film. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without seeing the history it is completely unclear what the intention is. As you say, it seems from the history to be about a movie that may not even exist. it is hard to see how the redirect could possibly help anybody as there is nothing on the target article that matches the names there. If the movie was genuine, and this was its name, then a redirect to Friday (film series) would make more sense. Unless or until that is proven, lets delete them. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete History of both links shows one user trying to plant incoherent rumors about Friday 4 in 2010 actually being a thing which never turned out to be true. Nate • (chatter) 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only plausible target I could find was Native American Day, which is held on the fourth Friday every September in California, but I think that's too far of a stretch. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Series fourth film did not manifest. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We can change this if/when the fourth Friday film gets out of development hell. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:35, 1 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. --BDD (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cracking pattern (engineering) → Fractography  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cracking pattern (painting) → Craquelure  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No no there's no doubt User:Patar knight that cracking pattern is a word. It's the disambiguation that makes it nonsense. We have a WP:TWODABS at Cracking pattern (but not Cracking Pattern) of which both entries are Neelix redirects. This needs unwinding somehow. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Here is an academic source basically saying craquelé is a cracking pattern, and all other sources refer to cracks in painting in reference to craquelé (see: [1]). Same with fractography (see: [2], [3]). As for two-dabs situation, I don't think anyone of them is a primary topic, but per the page views, Craquelure gets 60 hits per day over the last 90 compared to Fractography's 46. Don't think that's enough to say one of them is primary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:37, 3 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, re-refining to The Legend of Zelda#Music and sound. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series → The Legend of Zelda#Music  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Musical Instruments (Legend of Zelda) → The Legend of Zelda#Music  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Musical instruments (Legend of Zelda) → The Legend of Zelda#Music  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Musical instruments (The Legend of Zelda series) → The Legend of Zelda#Music  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects are so ambiguous that they are vague. The current section they target is about the history of the music of the series, not about "musical instruments". Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series is a ((R from merge)). It seems that the redirect was formerly an article with information regarding the use of "musical instruments" as in-game items. At the present time, the article The Legend of Zelda does not contain that specific information (it may have been removed over the lifetime of the article.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: I guess I am not clear about the purpose of this nomination. Are you proposing these redirects be deleted? If so, why? At least one of these has some information in its history that should not be deleted for attribution reasons if it was merged, even if the information doesn't appear in the current version of the target article. You may also want to review WP:CHEAP. VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @VQuakr: WP:CHEAP doesn't apply since these redirects seem erroneous. And I have already pointed out that one has history as an article: See my nomination statement. And WP:CWW only applies if the content in the page's history either, in one form or another, belongs in the page's target article (if a redirect) or already is somewhere (such as due to a merge). My argument is that the content in the redirect's history isn't anywhere and doesn't belong anywhere per WP:NOTWIKIA. So, the only other option I can see happening with this is "Restore Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series, point all other nomimated redirects there, then nominate Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series for WP:AFD." Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, if content exists in a page's history it still needs attribution in the form of the page history it was copied from. What makes you think these redirects are "erronious?" VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first, as ((R from merge)), but change section redirect to The Legend of Zelda#Music and sound. I'd be more skeptical if this were "List of musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series". As such, that section does discuss instruments generally. And I suppose weak keep on the others, again changing the section. These look like functioning search terms to me. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first because of the need for attribution, retarget all four per BDD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 28 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---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userbox/Unix → Template:Prefer Unix  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

userbox redirect in article namespace Wishva de Silva (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cross-namespace redirect to internal content. Unix users should certainly be technically-competent enough to figure out Wikipedia namespaces without needing crutches like this to help them find things. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Cross-namespace.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no need to keep this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 28 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) 03:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crack pattern → Cracking pattern  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(Neelix) Rejected at CSD by User:Patar knight. What do you think it means then? Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R from short name)).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Godsy. Plausible word form. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 3 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. --BDD (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Craquele → Craquelure  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(neelix) Ouch. I've marked Craquelé as ((R from other language|fr)) it is in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE but considering that in English it has another name then without the accent not sure this makes sense. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is used without diacritics to refer to this (see: [4], [5])---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Patar knight. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:12, 4 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 withdrawn---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Chemistries → Chemistry  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(Neelix) I can see ((R from plural)) with this one but does it make any sense? Would anyone say "Oh in the chemistries of the 19th century" or anything like that? Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is an entry at wikt:chemistries. An unreliable source gives a good explanation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to the OED chemistry can be used as a countable noun if it means "The chemical composition and properties of a substance or group of substances; (also) the chemical reactions and processes involved in a particular activity, or associated with a particular body, organism, etc." Usage example: "Although both types of pollution are called ‘smog’ by the residents involved, their appearance and chemistries are..dissimilar." Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the right place to ut it User:Uanfala. I am fed up with people using my user talk page as some kind of pubic forum. Put it at WP:RFD.Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a "pubic" forum, but discussions are certainly public here at RfD, where we already are, SimonTrew. I can't help feeling there's some subtle and complex pun in what you're saying that I can't get. Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep withdrawn by nominator. Nah User:Uanfala no subtle and complex puns with me more "slegehammer wit" as Sybil Fawlty says of Basil. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 29 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.