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 Ring structure. --BDD (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ring structures → Heterocyclic compound  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(Neelix) I am not sure on this one. There are plenty of other ring structures that are not heterocyclic but homocylic. I think. If you take a basic carbon ring well I don't know I can draw it for you but I don't know if all ring structures are heterocylic? If you take say a benzene ring fairly basic building block, not sure that is heterocylic because it has three double bonds and three single bonds. Need a chemistry expert on this one. (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ring structure DAB plural. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily redirect wer AngusWOOF, for some reason I didn't find that in a search (probably this was "blocking" it). Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ring structure as plural form --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Ring structure as per WP:TotallyObviousComeOnNow etc CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:47, 31 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Atticist → Atticism  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An atticist lives in a loft or does he? I am not that soft to see that this would make sense, right, but it is not at the target quite. Someone practicising atticism would presumably be an atticist but it does not say that: Is this one OK? (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could also be someone from Attica, someone speaking Attic Greek, or practicing Atticism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: How would it denote someone from Attica? Is a Hellenist someone from Greece?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. but I can strike that one. However, Wiktionary points to the Attic Greek. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Atticist AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: But they are closely related. An Atticist was a user (usually not a native speaker) of the Attic Greek who thought it superior to other dialects of Greek.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is rather useful. If someone writes [[atticist]] orator [[Dionysius of Halicarnassus]] believed that... and the redirect does not exist, it will result in a redlink. The existence of this redirect prevents that.--The Traditionalist (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sensible alternate construction. A thingist is a practitioner of or adherent to thingism, that's standard English. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This term is used in reliable sources to describe people or things associated with Atticism. See, e.g., this book. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:47, 30 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 Anatomical terms of location#Dorsal and ventral. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dorso ventral → Dorsal consonant  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am probably missing something here. We have dorsal in the infobox (like dorsal fin meaning at the back) so this I see makes sense as meaning a sound made at the back of the mouth, I am just not sure it does actually be used in linguistics to mean that. Probably fine but there are lots that are odd combinations WP:MADEUP. (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Anatomical terms of location#Dorsal and ventral which is where dorsoventral points. This is an odd construction but probably harmless. The redirect is nonsense as is, the target he must have been looking for was the velar consonant but, well, it's just wrong. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Retarget away from phonetics. In anatomy, "dorsal" refers to be back and "ventral" to the belly. In phonetics however, a dorsal consonant is articulated with the back of the tongue (as opposed to the tip). "Ventral" doesn't make any sense here (tongues don't have bellies). Maybe retarget to where dorsoventral is pointing? Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 30 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 per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wash against → Alluvium  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neelix redirect, speedy declined. On the always-ludicrous "etymology" argument. Wash against doesn't really mean anything, and certainly not alluvium. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the speedy decliner, User:Patar knight. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Etymology is not a valid argument for a redirect.  ONR  (talk)  20:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well it certainly didn't show up in Crossword Solver [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Erode per all of the comments that have washed up here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Was going off this use of the phrase in a geology book, but looking at it again it's not clear that the term was meant synonymously. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:39, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles III of the United Kingdom → Charles, Prince of Wales  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• William V of the United Kingdom → Prince William, Duke of Cambridge  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Victoria I of Sweden → Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Frederick X of Denmark → Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Haakon VIII of Norway → Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The Traditionalist (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I nominate these five to start and will continue nominating (or not) following the consensus.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lot. I am going from memory but Prince Charles I believe has expressed a wish when his mum pops her clogs to be called George on his ascendancy to the throne so he will be George VII of the United Kingdom asssuming that it is still the United Kingdom by then. Pure WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 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.

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) 03:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pavlos II of Greece → Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Paul II of Greece → Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Monarchy has fallen in my part-fatherland, (sadly, if you ask me) the current pretender is, actually, his father, who is alive and has not abdicated. Apart from that, there is no redirect Pavlos I of Greece for his grand-father, a fact which makes the existence of the first one rather funny. The Traditionalist (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The man doesn't go by either of these names, nor do they seem to be applied by him by reliable sources, so these redirects seem to serve no purpose other than to confuse. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. More crystal stuff. There's nothing to say they won't change that particular name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 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.

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) 03:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as WP:R#D2 confusing and WP:XY. This title could be a misspelling of Hyehwa-dong or Gaehwa-dong (about which we have articles) or most likely Kyehwa-dong in North Hamgyong [2] about which we don't have an article yet. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No articles currently linked to this spelling version. There isn't a dab page to help either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 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.

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 Life history (sociology). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Life historian → Life history  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(neelix redirect as you guesse) would this not be a biographer current target is a DAB at which I don't think that is listed because deals with medical doctor's records and stuff Si Trew (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Life history (sociology) since that seems to be the primary topic but add hatnotes to biographer and the DAB page. Here is "life historian" used to refer to evolutionary/biological history [3], but most times it is used in the sociology interview sense [4]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 'Life history (sociology)' and the closing admin (or non-admin, whatever) can double-check that we have a hat-note to the disambiguation 'life history' page at the new target CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:20, 30 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. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white → White genocide (conspiracy theory)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Highly unlikely search phrase, editor probably doesn't understand what redirects are suitable. Doug Weller talk 06:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a FB community with 18k people has this exact phrasing as its name, and [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_code_word_for_anti-white RationalWiki has an ariticle about this exact phrase so this seems like a plausible search term and could be kept as redirects are cheap. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing this after finding[5]. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Masses (Thai newspaper) → Mahachon  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Calling User:Lenticel. We have this and The Masses (Egyptian newspaper)... I can take the Egyptian one which I believe is nonsense can you take the Thai one. No problem with the target just the back translation. Is this nonsense or makes sense in English? I have no knowledge of Thai but you may make sense of it. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the term มหาชน seems to mean a lot things like "mass of people", "people" and "public". I'm not sure if "Masses" is the only appropriate translation for the newspaper's name. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be honest I would have thought a better translation would be like The People (newspaper) although as far as I can make out they were essentially Soviet propaganda sheets (and toilet paper could get very short in those days). I don't like these back translations as they tend to "stick" that Google Translate then thinks that is how to forward translate something. Then again I don't really like Google Translate because it piles a lot of its rubbish on our doorstep. Delete per Lenticel. Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The target article has been moved to Mahachon (newspaper). If the redirect is kept, please make sure to re-target. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to new name The Masses is used as the translation for this paper by these academic works: [6], [7]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the Egyptian one to Al-Jamahir. @ซวากสท์ ชาเกิล: Would you like to help us with the Thai here?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:47, 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 delete both. WP:REDLINK seems to be the dominant opinion here. Deryck C. 21:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhode Island General Treasurer → Rhode Island#Government  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Rhode Island Treasurer → Rhode Island#Government  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK. There's no mention of this position at the target article. It has one mention, linking this phrase, at Government of Rhode Island. As a statewide elected official, the office is no doubt notable. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am being deliberately obtuse first why would it not cover the Providence Plantations and second why would he (and it would be a he) be called that instead of a Paymaster General ? I am deliberately just throwing that in in case it helps anyone to work out whether this is really an official office or just WP:MADEUP (it probably is but that probably separates the men from the boys). Si Trew (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have Rhode Island and Providence Platantations General Treasurer for example? Seems not. Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well Paymaster General seems to be only in the UK but I think we used to own it once upon a time. I have a nice cheque from Her Majesty's Paymaster General to the tune of ninepence for some overpaid income tax some years ago which had to be sent abroad at the cost of the stamp being more than the cost of the cheque. Those kinds of cheques don't normal people just pin them up on a noticeboard or something. Poor old HMRC loses probably quite a frac in lost fifty pence pieces with undemanded cheques and the cost of a ninepenny stamp (well 97p now or something) but if they did the other, took a penny of someone's taxes too much, then someone would complain and it would cost them far more to file and probably successfully defend the lawsuit. In my favour I returned when demanded by HMRC two pounds and sixpence explaining I had not the Sterling on me right at the moment the equivalent in Hungarian forint with a bit left over "for the noticeboard". The thousand forint somehow got converted to Sterling at HMRC's internal rate I guess, I do not imagine at a bureau de change but I was pleased to see it arrived successfully and maybe it made someone's day. I was out of pocket by about thirty four pence on that one but so far I am up by two quid and sixpence with them over the years. They then sent me a receipt for the two pounds and sixpence back to Hungary which cost three pounds fifty seven for them to post recorded delivery. Very reasonable people at HMRC. Si Trew (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable office to need its own page. Not like Rhode Island Governor which redirects to List of Governors of Rhode Island AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Government of Rhode Island, since there's where any relevant information is. A Google new search for "Rhode Island General Treasury" shows that this office does get some news coverage. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation. Yes, there's a mention at Government of Rhode Island, but one wouldn't learn much outside of the fact that it's part of the executive branch. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:07, 6 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. --BDD (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Gun-grabbers → Overview of gun laws by nation  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Clearly irrelevant to the target, not used in reliable sources except on not-especially-reliable right-wing websites. Certainly doesn't belong in current state, but could be redirected elsewhere if there is another page that discusses this phrase in detail. I couldn't find any such page, so I think this redirect should be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per WP:RNEUTRAL, "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term". The term is discussed (very briefly) at gun rights ("They also attack gun control advocates, using epithets such as 'gun grabbers'") and at hoplophobia (explaining why the person who coined that term thought it was better than "gun grabbers"). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I think this redirect meets WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 and 5, which provides, in my opinion, 2 policy-based reasons it should be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, redirects don't have to be NPOV or even strictly accurate. That doesn't change the fact that this term is political extremist speak for "those to which support increased regulation of firearms", and I'm not sure of any specific article that would work as an actually helpful target. What's happening right now is somewhat akin to going 'Christians' -> 'Overview of religious traditions by country' in terms of misapplying a label for a sub-group of people over to a general page. We don't have an article for 'Gun control movements' as we do with 'Anti-abortion movements', otherwise the former would probably go into the ideologically-charged terminology that's bandied about and could make a retarget. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the confusion. Someone grabbing a gun might be confused with someone who is pro-gun rights. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alan Gottlieb, who apparently wrote a book called The Gun grabbers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and let readers search. No good page for retargeting, except maybe hoplophobia, but that was coined explicitly to avoid this term. Also, no good page on Wiktionary for a soft redirect. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:23, 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.