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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving age → Dropping out age  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

delete even more ambiguous than the previous redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This wording is too vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vague. There's already School leaving age. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 14 September 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. Note that the target article has been moved to School-leaving age, reverting an undiscussed move. It looks like "School leaving age" was actually the stable title, but I'll let the question of hyphenation be settled at RM if necessary. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• School leaving age → Dropping out age  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

retarget or delete. The act of "leaving school" could be after graduation or leaving one school to transfer to another. Also it's not clear if "school" includes higher education . Prisencolin (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Term is used by government and other institutions in UK [1], Australia [2] and newspapers [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - While unhelpfully vague, this is the exact wording used by official government institutions, as stated above, and has become a bit of educational jargon. The redirect serves its purpose well enough. Though, I agree that it doesn't feel right because of how unclear the wording is in plain English. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AngusWOOF. This is an official term with a defined meaning, even if the plan reading might be ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:WORLDWIDE. School leaving age varies by country. QED by Angus and CWM. This is pretty meaningless, although the target is also pretty meaningless. Is that the age at which you can "Turn on, tune in, and drop out" as Timothy Leary said? I left school at sixteen, my mother at fifteen, and my father at fourteen, all with qualifications etc so I don't think the terms are synonymous. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 15 September 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Dyknu → Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Lowercase shortcut without an uppercase equivalent that is incorrectly named (as Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 isn't necessarily the next DYK update) and linked only from notifications related to the previous RfD a month ago which failed due to other redirects nominated being highly linked. Pppery 20:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no use, not used, part of the obscure and arcane melange of DYK history that needs serious refinement. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no sign that this was ever used back in the day, and nothing currently links to it except for discussions on whether it should be deleted or not. It also isn't useful now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 9 September 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Asdasdsdadasdasdsasdasddasasdasdsda.png → File:Worms Armageddon Game Boy Color screenshot.png  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, implausible redirect. Satisfies speedy criterion G6 or per common sense. FASTILY 23:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete implausible search term and already renamed to something useful so housekeeping applies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 10 September 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pirates of the Caribbean 6 → Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pirates of the Caribbean 7 → Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. "Pirates of the Caribbean" has four feature films, with a fifth one in production. There are not six or seven as the redirects imply. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt until there's an announcement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree, but I'm not sure if salting is necessary. Maybe just wait on that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but do not salt. There is no evidence that these have been created more than once, let alone repeatedly recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 14 September 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. This could've been added to the other listing instead of a separate nomination. With clear, unanimous consensus to delete that one, I see no reason to keep this one open. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Samurai (2014 film) → Gavin O'Connor (director)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

IMDb shows no 2014 films by this name. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 4#The Samurai (2014 film) Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only plausible use is for that German film we don't have an article on anyway. MSJapan (talk) 23:54, 10 September 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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yakuza (2014 film) → Gavin O'Connor (director)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Presumably, this is referring to this film still in development. IMDb doesn't show any films by this name released in 2014. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 10 September 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) 10:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trojan centipede → War in Donbass#Humanitarian situation  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SURPRISE. Redirects to a nonexistent section. The edit summary says this was a media nickname for a Russian humanitarian convoy, which seems alluded to at Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass#Humanitarian response, but no mention of a centipede. This seems too obscure to me. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've redirected the article to a section that now mentions the phrase "Trojan centipede". WP:SURPRISE doesn't really apply: what else would a reader who typed "Trojan centipede" be looking for?
Having said that, the phrase is pretty obscure, so it doesn't really matter if this redirect exists or not. Very few people will end up on the trojan centipede page regardless, because of its obscurity.
For the record, googling "trojan centipede" leads to a few news articles about the aid convoy, plus a few random comment threads on /r/the_donald. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would expect this to be related to the Human Centipede horror film franchise. No idea how I would make the leap to this association to a war, and it's pretty weakly substantiated. What a lot of people fail to see is that not every word or phrase needs a redirect, and that just because a redir is created doesn't give it a stronger case to be kept simply because it already exists. MSJapan (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one-off reference in the media is not significant. Unlikely that someone searching for this phrase would be looking for the target article. WJBscribe (talk) 22:26, 16 September 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 Culture of Taiwan#Popular culture. WJBscribe (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Taiwanese pop → Taiwanese Hokkien popular music  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Taiwanese popular music → Taiwanese Hokkien popular music  (links · popular music&action=history history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

see RFD for Hokkien pop Prisencolin (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate can also refer to Mandopop. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• RFC? Do you mean this RfD? I'm inclined to retarget to Culture of Taiwan#Popular culture. I don't like disambiguation, because the topic here is popular music in or of Taiwan, of which some is Hokkien and some is Mandarin. (Right? I'm just going by what I read here.) And while Taiwanese Hokkien popular music is fundamentally a Taiwan-specific topic, Mandopop really isn't. Until we have a standalone article here, I think my suggestion is the best place to point. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per BDD - Limiting this to a particular dialect is incorrect - it's music of a country, not a language. What if some of it actually uses English, like other Asian pop often does? MSJapan (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:10, 16 September 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, but the need for a larger discussion is noted. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Arrow (season 2) → Arrow (season 2)  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:CSD#R2 and the deletion log of Draft:Arrow (season 1), an identical situation. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No reason to delete. I was pretty confident in declining this as a CSD, but just to be sure, I looked at move logs of draft articles to article space. All of the draft space pages moved today are still blue-linked redirects. I looked at deletion logs of draft articles. None of them deleted today are deleted per CSD#R2. It appears it is standard practice to leave the Draft page as a redirect to article space. Plus there's the wording of the actual R2 criterion, which says it only applied from article space, which I've pointed out to Alex twice now, so "per WP:CSD#R2" does not make sense as a RFD rationale. It appears Sphilbrick made a small, harmless mistake in deleting the season one redirect; it's no big deal, but it doesn't mean I'm obligated to make the same small harmless mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody convince me that redirects in Draftspace are anything but a waste of everyone's time. I cannot think of one good reason why we should be leaving redirects in Draftspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WP:CSD#R2 doesn't apply. These redirects are generally de facto retained.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Floquenbeam. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging Sphilbrick, which should have been done when the editor was first mentioned. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I thought Cross-namespace redirects did apply; I'm sure this is not the first one I've removed. I thought it was standard to remove the redirect from craft to mainspace and I'm not sure what value there is in retaining it but I'll try to avoid removing them in the future. Thanks for the ping, or I wouldn't have known.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Some of us actually like to inform other users that they're being talked about. And I agree, there is no value in retaining the draft as a redirect. The article is now a valid article in the mainspace, and hence there is no need for a draft page, redirect or not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument could be made that it does no harm and potentially aids navigation for those returning that visited it at the former title.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such an argument could be made, but using Draft:Arrow (season 1) as an example, the new link is already available in the deletion log on the page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• These redirects are usually kept because they are a "bookmark" so those who worked on the draft know where it is. Since there are thousands of these redirects, really the only solution if someone wants these deleted would be an RFC on the issue. I think last time someone suggested that they'd be safe to delete after 6 months, so it'd make sense to have G13 expanded or a G13-like process to take care of these redirects. But that's another discussion for another day. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't need to be kept at all – they're completely pointless. AfC reviewers in good standing should all be given supressredirect (via WP:Page mover rights) so that they can move drafts to Mainspace without leaving a redirect. If leaving Draftspace redirects is "how it's been done in the past", it's a pointless practice that needs to end. If we need an RfC to make this happen, then let's have it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I mentioned this discussion as an example at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover#User:Jcc.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @IJBall: If such an RfC were to take place, the question should be something like: "When a page in the draftspace is moved to the mainspace should the redirect be retained?" We shouldn't complicate it by bringing situational things such as Articles for Creation and the page mover user right into the equation. It would intrinsically be reasonable for prolific AfC reveiwers to request the right if the community approves speedily deleting said redirects. Secondly, it is situational, because not all drafts go through AfC.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Godsy: Sure, I'd agree with that – the RfC would most likely be on adding Draftpace redirects to WP:R2. While I think prolific AfC reviewers should have Page mover rights, I'd agree that they should request them rather than be automatically granted them. (A suggestion along those lines could be added to the instructions for AfC reviewers...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, there really needs to be a broader RfC on this. As soon as these redirects are created, there's potential for both use and harm: use due to old links, bookmarking, etc., and harm since something with "Draft:" clearly implies a draft, which users will no longer be going to. Over time, the potential for use decreases and the potential for harm increases, but I'm not sure where to draw that line. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and undelete Draft:Arrow (season 1) until a consensus is reached that these redirects should be deleted, in which case a bot can work through them all. WJBscribe (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WJBscribe. This is not the place to decide the overall policy. — Gorthian (talk) 05:44, 14 September 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} 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crane1 → Crane  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. Artifact of a move to revert vandalism. Nick Number (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think that this is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as housekeeping; it gets no use. — Gorthian (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unhelpful, possible housekeeping --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:11, 14 September 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. I'm wary of creating a draft that potentially no one would be interested in working on. Please contact me if you want any content restored. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ginny eck → Johnny Yong Bosch#Eyeshine  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect JMHamo (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When this redirect was nominated, it was a double redirect since it targeted Eyeshine (band), which is a redirect to Johnny Yong Bosch#Eyeshine. I have bypassed the double redirect in the nominated redirect and updated this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move this revision of the redirect to Draft:Ginny Eck without leaving a redirect or delete. Since the band which the subject of the redirect is notable for doesn't have its own article (but rather the redirect targets a section of an article about a different member of that band), it may be a good idea to move the previous contents of the redirect to the "Draft:" namespace in case notability can be established for the subject of the redirect in the future. But, then again, there probably is no claim for the biographical subject's notability with the revision's current content, which is why the redirect previously had a speedy deletion criterion A7 tag on it when it was an article. Either way, I do not have a strong opinion for either option, but I do oppose "keep"-ing the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is Ginny a member of the band? I don't believe there's a page for the band anymore so this can go away. Should the band infobox be recreated and she has some notability, then this can be reconsidered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 10 September 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 move Open universities over this redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Open university → Open University  (links · history · )     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term is a general concept, I got here because it was linked from Open University of Kaohsiung, any use of this link would be likely to mislead readers for they are most likely not looking for something specific. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Open universities over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per BDD's suggestion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per BDD --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per BDD. Excellent solution. — Gorthian (talk) 05:46, 14 September 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.