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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lady Thatcher → Margaret Thatcher  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

She never held such a title. This would just be like having The Lord Palmerston redirect to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston or The Lord Chatham redirecting to William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. I cannot imagine many readers searching with the article just to get to Margaret Thatcher; Lady Thatcher is the far more common (albeit informal) form of address used. She was The Baroness Thatcher, never "The Lady Thatcher". This may seem a little pedantic, but we shouldn't go out of our way to tolerate double-standards either. --Nevé–selbert 23:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes, I don't think that she was known by this exact set of words. While maybe on the harmless side, I still don't see this redirect as particularly worth keeping either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, WP:G7, the only author has requested deletion in good faith. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Iron Lady of the West → Margaret Thatcher  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Iron Lady of the Western World → Margaret Thatcher  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Iron Lady of the Western World → Margaret Thatcher  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Iron Lady redirects to Margaret Thatcher. These redirects are unnecessary; there is now no need to "disambiguate" her from any "others".--Nevé–selbert 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SOFIXIT → Wikipedia:Be bold  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• See also: WP:FIXIT

This seems to violate core Wikipedia policy, specifically, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It's fine to encourage people to edit, but this title only serves as a way of trying to make such edits compulsory - in violation of one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. It's long-standing, but it's always been a bit dodgy, and we should probably retire it. WP:FIXIT is also problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm iffy on this one. It can come off as condescending when used, and it can also be used in other negative manners. At the same time, that is not always the case, and there is significant usage of this shortcut already. I might be inclined to support an act discouraging usage of it as a sole response to criticisms, but I don't support fully retiring it. Dustin (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One possibilitity might be to make it direct to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, possibly with a mild edit to say that people are encouraged to try things, but aren't required to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by criticisms? One frequent use of this link is when people come onto non-mainspace pages to criticize articles and demand changes that they can do themselves, sometimes repeatedly doing so. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - This isn't offensive or anything, but it's also needlessly condescending. It's taking the exactly wrong emotional approach to things. That Wikipedia has so much that can be added, expanded, and improved is an interesting set of possibilities. The redirect words things as if Wikipedia editing is an annoying burden; it's as if people come here with the same attitude as: "Oh, come on, I just washed these and now there's another damn sink full of dirty dishes!" / "Is that even more spam e-mail to sort? Ugh!" / "Is there another blister on my toe, seriously?" Of course, oftentimes enough people may feel like that's the case, but, still, that's not how it's supposed to be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the arguments at the previous RfD. Widely used and huge amount of links. I would in fact see this as an affirmation of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and a way to encourage people to edit. It's frequently invoked when people bring up concerns when they are perfectly capable of making those fixes themselves. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because it's not compulsory for the people to make those fixes themselves. That's exactly the point of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How does suggesting that someone can make the changes they want in any way suggest that it's mandatory for them to do so? It's certainly not compulsory for Wikipedia volunteers to enact every single change that random commentators post on talk pages. If it's a valid change, often the proposer is the most qualified to provide a source and fix it. Encouraging people to edit Wikipedia should be something we encourage. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not WP:YOUCANFIXIT, it's a dismissive command. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect does not reflect how Wikipedia should be operating. I've seen it used almost exclusively condescendingly (complains with articles are lazily dismissed by tossing this redirect at them with few - if other - comments) and I really can't think of any good purpose it serves. The fact that it's been used a lot doesn't convince me; this redirect doesn't express constructive attitudes and ought to buy the farm. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Nohomersryan. My experience too is that it's mostly used to blow off criticism of articles, all too often by people who could be fixing it themselves, after all. Not everyone is in a position to make on the spot fixes to problems they find. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Patar Knight above and Neutrality below. Pppery 20:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "So fix it" is an exhortation to be bold and engaged, not somehow a suggestion that users must do something. While this could be abused, I think that it is a positive reminder that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Neutrality^talk 01:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and very strongly so. This is fully in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia—if you see a problem, don't just complain about it or template it, hit that edit button and fix it. The occasional reminder of that is a very good thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the last discussion and my comment therein.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like many things, it can be used in an uncivil way, but its proper use – when an editor is wasting talk page space and other users' time telling them what he/she thinks they should be doing – justifies its retention. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate and mark as historical. WJBscribe (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not all non-mainspace pages go to mfd. Some are templates and go to tfd. Others are redirects (like this one) that go to rfd. There are thus multiple pages thus could refer to. Pppery 19:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There seems to be, as stated above, some unhelpful vagueness here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a former name for WP:MFD. There are several other sub-redirects for individual pages that were moved after the name change. See here for the list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand into project disambiguation page given the history of Wikipedia namespace project evolving from one into other. I've made a draft below the RfD template. Deryck C. 15:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify, or whatever you'd call it—do what Deryck did. Slap ((historical)) on it and call it a day. Good work. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as a redirect to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion) per Tavix. When I saw this nomination, I thought this page may have several subpages, even if they are redirects, and sure enough they do and Tavix already confirmed this. Changing this page to a disambiguation page will actually, believe it or not, cause harm, simply due to the hundreds of subpages that this page has which are in no way connected to the disambiguation page. Readers and editors performing historical research into Wikipedia to make changes to old pages to better organize Wikipedia's archived pages and forums (which I happen to do sometimes) may be a bit confused if they arrive at a disambiguation page instead of the actual move destination of the parent page (which in this case, is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, of course.) However, with that being said, I support Patar knight's Deryck Chan's disambiguation draft being moved to Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion (disambiguation) with a hatnote being placed on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to direct readers there. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Deryck. Not my draft, but it looks like the best option here. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patar knight: Sure enough, it's not! I need to get my eyes checked, I guess. Didn't mean to completely unintentionally WP:CANVASS you! Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with the disambiguation page, too. I just didn't want to keep the vague redirect with at least three possible targets. Pppery 22:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Disambiguate per those above - Disambiguation is fine. It could also be soft redirected and marked as ((historical)) with the target remaining the same, as it was the original name of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but I see the case for this due to the ambiguity.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate and mark historical.  — Scott • talk 19:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retargeted to transsexual pornography. WP:SNOW. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shemale porn → Shemale  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm starting this debate per this post on my talk page. "Shemale porn" currently redirects to Shemale. However there is another possible target which is Transsexual pornography. Wondering what should we do here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - This should be redirected to Transsexual pornography as it is a widely used term to describe the genre. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transsexual pornography per Dwanyewest and the opening sentence of that article (Transsexual pornography, also referred to as shemale porn ...). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - This ought to go to 'Transsexual pornography', yes. Regardless of whatever opinions one has on the specific labels ("shemale", "tranny", and the like), the above users are totally right. The article's own opening sentence is clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - Was already discussed on the target article Talk page, and is completely self-evident. Next person coming by can close this discussion, even if it's nonadministrator, as this is perfectly clear and uncontentious at any level. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete all. Deryck C. 15:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dynamo (2014 film) → Gerard Butler  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dynamo (2015 film) → Gerard Butler  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dynamo (film) → Gerard Butler  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Bricklayer (2014 film) → Gerard Butler  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither film mentioned at the target article and both are currently "in development." -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - We should get rid of all of these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The film is based on a book by Andy Dougan, neither the author nor the book has an article. Butler only signed up to star in the film so he isn't producing the work or has a huge personal investment in it. No article for screenwriter Eli Richbourg. Producer Beau Flynn has an article but it doesn't mention that title. Co-producer Jeremy Garelick does not have an article. [1] No indication that the soccer film has been filmed or released to the point of being notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hate Mail (film) → Ryan Fleck  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Film not mentioned at the target article. IMDb shows a film named "Hate Mail" in development, so this should be deleted until/unless the film starts production. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Fleck the producer or creator? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Answering my own question. Yes, he's the co-writer with Anna Boden. They were planning on making such a film but it never began production [2] [3] It helped inspire the creation of Mississippi Grind though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Peniaphobia → Greed  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - This was deleted as a made-up phobia (discussion) but was recreated to point to plutomania, which it did not mean. That double-redirect was resolved, bringing us here. But a morbid fear of poverty is nothing like greed, so this redirect should not exist. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if this phobia exists not just as a concept but as an actual affliction, the redirect isn't appropriate. Deletion is the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seriously? I mean it's really just a concept. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 07:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted as WP:G7.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Declined Drafts → Category:AfC submissions declined as jokes  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not needed. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Unnecessary and very unlikely search term. Dustin (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unneeded CNR. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Arderin" → Arderin  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The target is a mountain, so I fail to see why it would be searched using quotation marks. It's receiving a fair amount of views, but I reckon it's because it's on the first page of Special:AllPages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Often times using quotation marks makes sense, with the Jack the Ripper messages such as the "From Hell" letter coming to mind. This, however, doesn't seem worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can come up with a plausible explanation for this bizarre redirect. Alsee (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't see any point. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 Bent → Darren Bent  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 23 Ince → Tom Ince  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 21 Elliot → Rob Elliot  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 21 Hutton → Alan Hutton  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 08 Cleverley → Tom Cleverley  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 24 Sánchez → Carlos Sánchez Moreno  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 02 Baker → Nathan Baker  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as an uncommon way of searching. Without querying databases, I'd imagine a few of these to be ambiguous, so the WP:XY problem would also be in play here. Even if some are some of these are not ambiguous, it would still be a bad precedent to set. I can see this type of redirect being WP:COSTLY because of the maintenance burden required if, for example, someone with the same surname and number becomes notable down the road. Numbers in sports are fairly flexible anyway, with people often switching numbers when they switch teams if their current number is in use or retired. There might be some exceptions for people who are strongly associated with a number within a sport/league (eg: Jackie Robinson and Wayne Gretzky), but I don't think any of these players rise to that level of prominence. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - I agree. Some players get very associated with one number; Jackie Robinson indeed being a great example. However, the redirects here appear to be miscellany not worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Do we really need redirects to people with their jersey numbers, even if that number is retired for the team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - ridicoulous redirects; ambiguous; playing numbers frequently change. GiantSnowman 07:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - even if someone is to search by number, why would they search number then name not vice versa. Can't see how this is useful. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - ridiculously implausible redirects -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was resolved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [[:]] → [[:California Golden Bears football]]

Recently there were redirects created on the California Golden Bears football navbox. The redirects were created for seasons that do not have an article. Previously, because there was no article that the references was made to, the year was in red font. The standard is to have red links so that it will notify users that an article needs created. Now, because of the redirects those season appears in blue, as if there is an article. If an uncreated article season is clicked on, it loops you back to the California Golden Bears football that the navbox is in, which is confusing. Because this is counter to our general policy I think that those redirects need to be removed. PS I am sorry that this messed up your issue entry format. Rybkovich (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rybkovich: Can you provide a list of the redirects you are referring to? I've already clocked through a few of the links on the template, and all of them led to appropriately-named year articles. Steel1943 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, should have done that. Looked through batches that I knew where empty. Someone has gotten on the issue and started creating the missing articles stubs - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1956_California_Golden_Bears_football_team&action=history. The original creation was for a redirect in September. Looks like the issue has been resolved. Thank you very much for looking into this. Rybkovich (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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