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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal of Molecular Ecology → Molecular Ecology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. The journal was never known as Journal of Molecular Ecology. This was used twice in Wikipedia, and was intended to be used for Journal of Molecular Evolution. Basically someone mixed Evol for Ecol. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing: Michael Condrey mentions he published this thesis in a journal named like this (RS like Forbes and Condrey's personal website also mention this). However, looking at the June 1998 issue of Molecular Ecology, or the June 1998 issue of Journal of Molecular Evolution yields no such publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery resolved. His article was buried under 'Premier notes', available [1]. I withdraw the RfD, since there is real world mistake, which means this is a likely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 20 August 2017 (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) 17:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of random monsters from Kinnikuman → List of Kinnikuman characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "random monsters" is not defined in the target article. Also, the word "random" has ambiguity anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 21 August 2017 (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 Retarget to Sclerochloa. Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Crassipes → Oxalis articulata  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Crassipes is a specific epithet for dozens (hundreds?) of species. No reason why this should arbitrarily target one (Oxalis articulata forma crassipes). Delete and let the search results do their job. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate / create set index (1st choice), weak keep (2nd choice), don't delete. Plantdrew's argument is that "crassipes" may refer to many different species, so the implication is that it is best to have an index. Where I disagree with him is that I think I'd rather point the redirect to any prominent species than delete it out of ambiguity. There is already an example of disambiguation pages on this title in Catalan: ca:Crassipes. Deryck C. 11:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've had dabs/SIAs for species epithets, but many have been converted to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, although I'm sure there still dabs of this type out there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria is a discussion covering several of these titles which concluded with retargetting to the list of Greek and Latin words. I still believe readers would be better served by deleting these and being presented with a list of search results. Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. Whether this targets the most prominent example, a set index/dab (first choice) or list of words I'm not too bothered about, but all of these options are better than deletion. Search results are not predictable, and are up to three clicks away from where someone arrives depending on the search method and device they are using. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Plantdrew, crassipes appears to also be a synonym of the genus Sclerochloa. Do you think this is relevant? – Uanfala 22:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, good catch. I'm still inclined to delete, but I'd be OK with redirecting Crassipes to Sclerochloa with a hatnote at Sclerochloa to an entry for crassipes at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Plantdrew (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for those advocating a SIA/DAB, take a look at C. elegans (disambiguation). That's what a SIA/DAB for crassipes could end up looking like (although the situation there is largely due to a single editor creating articles for every species they can find that could be abbreviated as C. elegans). Plantdrew (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in this case, redirecting to Sclerochloa seems best as this is so far the only topic known by that name. (A hatnote to the list of Latin words would of course be in place, as soon as a relevant entry is added.) Creating a disambiguation page to mimic the Catalan one linked above isn't possible as the English wikipedia doesn't have the articles that the Catalan page disambiguates between. And creating an SIA for all species that have this as a (non-stand-alone) epithet would be like creating a list of English towns with names ending in -ton: not a thing to be encouraged. – Uanfala 08:18, 27 August 2017 (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. Deryck C. 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How was that? → Appeal (cricket)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I asked the admin who closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 7#How was that as "delete" about what to do with the redirect that resembles the other deleted one, which lacked punctuations. I was told that this redirect should go through this process. Therefore, here I am requesting deletion on this redirect for consistency's sake. Just like the deleted one, this redirect is not wikilinked in articles. Also, there are no topics using the title at the moment. George Ho (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Same reasoning. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) feminist 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of games that Data Design Interactive published → Data Design Interactive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Data Design Interactive games → Data Design Interactive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete No such list. Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There is a list in the article, if (deliberately) incomplete. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I undid the nomination split by the nomimator. I reverted the split since Mangoe's comment is affected by this split, and the comment did not specify if it applied to both nominated redirects or just one of them. Lordtobi, if you still desire to split these nominations, the more appropriate option may be to withdraw this nomination and list both nominations separately, but while letting Mangoe know that these are being renominated. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks apply to both, so I would keep both. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per Mongoe. The target does include such a list. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Mongoe, since there is a list. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 27 August 2017 (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. Deryck C. 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of magazine only characters in Ben 10 → List of Ben 10 characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page does not specify which characters are "magazine only" characters. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on the target, the main Ben 10 article and internal search results I'm unable to verify that there even is a Ben 10 magazine that characters could appear in, exclusively or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2017 (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. Deryck C. 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of allies in Ben 10 → List of Ben 10 characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It is unclear who/what in the target page are "allies". It is also unclear if the term "allies" refers to allies of the protagonists or allies of the antagonists. Steel1943 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unless there's a group called the Alliance or Allies? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The word "allies" occurs four times in the target article. From this I learn that the "Plumbers Helpers" are allies of "Ben's Team" (but I can't see that who this comprises of is explained anywhere); the "Amalgam Kids" (a subgroup of Plumbers Helpers) are sleeper agents posing as allies to Ben's Team; and that the characters called Manny Armstrong and Andreas have allies (but no information about who they might be or whether they are allies of each other or not). Several characters are mentioned as having enemies, thus implying that not every character is an ally of every other character, meaning that the target doesn't just list allies. All in all, the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2017 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of alleged UFO crashes → List of reported UFO sightings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Alleged UFO Crashes → List of reported UFO sightings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of alleged ufo crashes → List of reported UFO sightings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Sightings" are not "crashes", and not all sightings resulted in or from crashes. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep — Crashes of unidentified objects are however sightings. It also is easier to patrol a main list than if they were separated in crashes, radar sightings, object sightings, being sightings, abductions... I don't mind much about the deletion of the redirect, as long as it's not about to be replaced by an alternate article, in which case I suggest to keep it. —PaleoNeonate – 10:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — Agree with User:PaleoNeonate --ElfQrin (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a redirect from a subtopic and per PaleoNeonate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (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.