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, so the status quo will remain. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Waterloo railway station → London Waterloo station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Waterloo rail station → London Waterloo station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Waterloo train station → London Waterloo station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Re-target to Waterloo station (disambiguation)#Transport, as there are more than a dozen Waterloo … stations, four alone (London Waterloo station, London Waterloo East railway station, Waterloo International railway station, Waterloo tube station) in London. Useddenim (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I see it (and the article presents it) is that Waterloo Underground, Waterloo East, and Waterloo International are all constituent parts / extensions to London Waterloo station. But this is only my personal experience. Deryck C. 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Re-target to Waterloo station (disambiguation) -- The Anome (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Re-target per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Waterloo station redirects to London Waterloo station. If it's primary topic even without "railway" why would it not be primary for the other versions. Peter James (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Personal bias? When I think of the London mainline terminal I mentally refer to it as ‘Waterloo Station’; if there’s any sort of rail(way)/train qualifier, I’m assuming that some other Waterloo station is intended (even if it is one of the other three in the immediate neighbourhood). Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Re-target to Waterloo station (disambiguation)#Transport, suggest adding Waterloo station as the principal is the same, all articles have now been redirected from this and the 3 mentioned above, there were quite a few pointing incorrectly primarily within the London quartet. Would even go as far as suggest renaming Waterloo station (disambiguation) to Waterloo station and then deleting Waterloo station (disambiguation), Waterloo rail station, Waterloo Station and Waterloo train station. Rm2033 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. London Waterloo station is the primary topic. Redirects from the 3 nominations land there. If that's not what the reader wants the hatnote leads to the disambiguation page. It's Waterloo station (disambiguation) that's incorrect for not acknowledging the primary topic, not the redirects Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as primary topic. Deryck C. 14:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as primary topic. I feel that I should mention that an attempt by Rm2033 (talk · contribs) to repurpose these redirects was reverted by myself, on the grounds that they had stood for over eight years. Prior to doing so, Rm2033 had bypassed the redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. More at User talk:Rm2033#Waterloo station link and User talk:Redrose64#Your reverts to my edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - It appears that the one central station is the primary topic, and anyone looking for more information can just click on the hat-note as well as any of the other links that are all over the top sections of the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• XEPRU-AM → XHRPU-FM  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An implausible typo for station XERPU-AM. The edit history makes it evident the original article creator thought the callsign was XEPRU-AM and XHPRU-FM when it is XERPU-AM/XHRPU-FM. Raymie (t • c) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep; transposing two characters, especially in a phrase where they don't stand for anything, is easy. If "XERPU" were an ordinary word, this would be a plausible typo, and it's even more significant because it's a meaningless phrase, where you might not notice your mistake even if you look at it carefully. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep unless there's a separate radio station with that callsign. My search results are for an AM 1370 station in Durango, which would be the target: [1] [2]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • XERPU-AM/XHRPU-FM is a permanent AM-FM combo. The Mexican government authorized 80 of them in 1994. Raymie (t • c) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo and considering the visual similarity of the transposed characters, an easy one to overlook. And as others have already noted, it's not in the way of any other content so there appears to be no risk of confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Failed verification span → Template:Failed verification span  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This isn't a shortcut. This is an WP:XNR that can mislead editors/readers looking for a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Pointless, because who's going to think that a template is in projectspace? We can make exceptions when the template provides information about the topic (e.g. WP:Exclusion compliant, currently at RFD, which I voted to keep), but this is an ordinary maintenance template with an obvious meaning that doesn't need explanation. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Failed verification (currently a redlink) is a title I would not object to as a redirect to a template if that was the target that gave the best information available - it's plausible someone would look up that to learn about what "failed verification" means in practice and what to do about it. However, "Failed verification span" is not used outside of the template, and Wikipedia space isn't a logical place to look to find out about templates. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Avengers (2009 film) → The Avengers (2012 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Avengers (film) (2009) → The Avengers (2012 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film was released in 2012. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I can't find record of any film titled Avengers from 2009. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete probably created in anticipation of films from Marvel, but no longer applies. No notable direct-to-videos with this as the sole title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Black widow#Film and television. (Withdrawn.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Black Widow (film) → The Avengers (2012 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not the name or, as far as I can tell, an alternative or former name of the film. That, and the "The Black Widow" character wasn't introduced in the Marvel film franchise in this film: That honor goes to Iron Man 2. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Black widow#Film and television and tag as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). There are 1951 and 2005 films with this exact name and another 5 without the definite article. The Black Widow redirects to the same disambig. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I'm going to withdraw this and implement that plan, given that The Black Widow (1951 film) and others exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Withdrawn. After reviewing the article, not sure how I missed what Eureka Lott stated below. Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Group Hug (film) → The Avengers (2012 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Seems like this title is based on fan fiction only. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. It was the film's working title. - Eureka Lott 22:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. 11:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Untitled Woody Allen Project (TV series) → Crisis in Six Scenes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Untitled Woody Allen TV series → Crisis in Six Scenes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Not a useful search term now that the TV series has a name. Very unlikely anyone will type in the redirect title in the search box to find the series, should be deleted 173.3.79.110 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Not untitled anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I'm going to pull WP:CRYSTALHAMMER on this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. 12:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Untitled Wolverine sequel → Logan (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Untitled Wolverine film (2017) → Logan (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Untitled Wolverine film → Logan (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a useful search term now that the film has a name. Very unlikely anyone will type in "Untitled Wolverine sequel" in the search box to find the movie here. 173.3.79.110 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Not untitled anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Per above, plus possible confusion in the future if another Wolverine project is announced. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTALHAMMER AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 as alternative to deletion. Deryck C. 12:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Affectors → Affect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Neelix)
• Affectors (disambiguation) → Affect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Affector → Affect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]   (Neelix)

There's nothing at this disambiguation that's known as "affector(s)". wikt:affector gives A nerve cell that directly activates a muscle but I'm not seeing that anywhere locally. All other results are a band named "Affector". -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: the "(disambiguation)" redirect only exists because Affectors was linked on the disambiguation page Effector. If these entries are deleted, that line should be removed. bd2412 T 21:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to a more direct link. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all. Even if someone was looking for one of the definitions at affect, "affector/affectors" appear only rarely in common usage. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Disambiguate. Draft available below the redirect at Affector. Admittedly, the fist two entries aren't mentioned on their targets and the third one links to an article that might not be notable, but I think even in this state this disambiguation page is more useful for readers than the search results, which also seem to do a poor job of coming up with the two most common misspellings (which have been included in the "see also" of the dab). – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Deryck C. 12:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SteveJobs → Steve Jobs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a CamelCase redirect that needs to be preserved for legacy reasons. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as harmless and very well used - more than 30 hits in the last 30 days and over 800 hits last year. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This redirect was created in 2011, years after the requirement for CamelCase titles on Wikipedia was removed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This is harmless, unambiguous, and apparently useful per Thryduulf. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As noted already, it's not hurting anything. When we're talking about post-UseModWiki redirects, there's a difference between CamelCase redirects that merely lack spaces (like this one) and the one-word CamelCase redirects that resemble the old ones, ones similar to the old AustraliA. If I create VirginiA, nobody's likely to use it because of the random extra capital letter, but omitting a space isn't hard; if WestVirginia didn't already exist, it could reasonably be created as an ((R from typo)), if nothing else. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Someday (The Hunchback Of Notre Dame → All-4-One  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This was a redirect created from a page move of a page that had been at this title for less than a minute. A better target would be Someday (Disney song), but this is unlikely to be useful with a bracket missing. Peter James (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete implausible typo, and Someday (The Hunchback Of Notre Dame) already exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. It's clear that this is not regarded as a useful redirect for searching purposes, and while consensus about the use in articles as a "mouseover" is not so pronounced the arguments against are more supported and slightly stronger. There is no prejudice in this discussion against creating "Aveilim" as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Aveilim (Mourners) → Bereavement in Judaism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Aveilim (mourners) → Bereavement in Judaism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Nobody will type in a foreign word then the Engish word in parentheses. There is already a redirect from Aveilut, if someone wants to create another one from Aveilim that might be appropriate, but having a foreign term then the translation doesn't seem to be in any way what someone will type into the search bar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Debresser (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author's explanation- The intent of "Aveilim (Mourners)" is for use in articles.
Also, it seems to fit at least the first two of a comment above saying "Keep. This is harmless, unambiguous, and apparently useful" and, if you don't think my first sentence is totally false, then the "apparently" part of the third clause fits too. Pi314m (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pi314m, since almost all redirects are intended for use in articles, I don't understand why you mention that. Would you please supply a sentence where you'd expect this redirect to be used? You can make up a sentence. Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

& why "Aveilim (Mourners)" is that a MOUSE-over would display the definition without the need for SOME to understand the term in an article. Example, as requested: The Aveilim then proceeded to the "field" -- this would be especially helpful in Wiki-fying a quote, without altering the quote. There are other Yeshivish-English/Yinglish words that I've seen in Wiki articles, where this would be helpful - per the concept of Ve-Ahavta LeReiAcha KaMoCha, being helpful, etc. That's why I quoted "Keep. This is harmless, unambiguous, and apparently useful" above. Pi314m (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not just create a redirect for "aveilim" to "bereavement in Judaism?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Aveilim (mourners) with lower-case as used in multiple news articles which seem to attach the translated definition right after mentioning the word. Delete the upper-case version as that is not used. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would understand a rename to Aveilim but there's no need for "mourners" after that. This is a redirect, which means someone would type XXXX into the search and we'd redirect. There is no chance of someone typing in "aveilim (mourners)" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it would be useful but now I'm seeing 0 hits since 2015 and prior to this discussion, no links to the term besides from people's talk pages, so I have to question how useful it really is. It would be better to rename to aveillim as it would have to be formatted aveillim (mourners) if it is ever used, and the definition when presented as such doesn't get linked. Striking previous vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

author comment: The redirect is not just for searching, it's also for (and as someone else indicated especially for) articles. As with the discussion of whether a eulogy is for the living or for the dead, with the well known answer that it is for both, the redirect is to permit wiki-fying a quote.

"As the aveilim thought the last visitor was on the way out ..." as

"As the [[aveilim (mourners)|aveilim]] thought the last visitor was on the way out ..."

so that when one moves the mouse to the appropriate spot, the parenthesized "(mourners)" becomes visible.

The "layering" that will result is

• (1) Mouseover-ing - shows 1-word "(mourners)"
• (2) clicking goes to the 1-liner section of Bereavement (Terminology and timing)
• (3) the internal link in the writeup usually has a hatnote for the more complete / "Main article." Pi314m (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I understand the author's good intentions. But it's just not necessary. There's no reason the term in parenthesis can't just appear in the body text, as [[Bereavement in Judaism#sectionname|''aveilim'' (mourners)]]. If it's in a direct quote, change the round parenthesis to square brackets and you're good to go. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STRONGLY disagree. Can't you see that you'd need TWO copies of the article if the case were, Hacham for some, Chacham for others. With what I've done, you could have 2 redirects point to the same place for article use. Example: someone called Hida by some but Chida by others. There's even disagreement on whether his family name is Azulei, spelled with ONE Aleph in Hebrew, or Azulay, and spelled in Hebrew with TWO Alephs. This is part of another set of article edits I seem to be amidst, and since the last name is based on a Biblical phrase, it should be obvious who is right, but so far it's the athletes who are in the winning of how the originator of their last name is to retroactively have his last name spelled. But that's another topic, even though there my "Bar PlugTa" seems to have no problem on this matter. Have we all forgotten about the "recent" Y2K situation? REDIRECT is a tool. Pi314m (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FIXUP explanation:
StevenJ81's 16:39, 10 February 2017 "Go ahead and let it stay" was placed between his own "Delete" of 03:07, 9 February 2017 and my "STRONGLY disagree" with "Delete." so that it looks like I disagree' with his "Neutral-to-weak-keep" (which would make no sense).

Just to keep the record clean, I'm making this edit.
RECAP StevenJ81 said Delete to which I, Pi314m, said STRONGLY disagree. Then StevenJ81 in (what I assume was accidentally) an unsigned comment, said Neutral-to-weak-keep. (BELOW) Pi314m (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Neutral-to-weak-keep. Mostly, I still don't really think it's necessary. But to be perfectly honest, User:Pi314m seems enthusiastic about contributing, this is important to him/her, it doesn't really hurt anything, and redirects are cheap. So I guess I can live with leaving it alone.

Thanks. Pi314m (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do I not see any uses of this mouseover scheme per WP:NOTBROKEN? Where are those articles? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note Sir Joseph nominated[3] Aveilim (mourners) with the rationale "As before, this is a redirect that will never be typed into the search bar.". As it differs from this redirect only in capitalisation I have merged that nomination into this one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. Nobody searches for Aveilim. If you think they do, make a redirect for Aveilim to Bereavement in Judaism (there already is a redirect for Aveilut. Yoninah (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The mixing of languages is unhelpful. Consider making a redirect for Aveilim if one thinks it useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew) → Kings of Israel and Judah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There already is a disambig page for Melech which points to Kings of Israel and Judah, a redirect for a term that will never be searched for is not needed. (Nobody will type in the current title of this page) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Debresser (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

author's explanation- an article should have a direct path from "Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew)" to "Kings of Israel and Judah" without having to point to a disambig page in another language, was til now the case.

Also.. how can Melech (מלך) (from the disambig page) be anthing but my redirect? MoLoch is not the same as MeLech, so isn't this disambig page in error? Itn't it less than neutral to say that Moloch is listed, but King George is not? Perhaps my redirect page should have been named Melech (מלך) since that seems much more correct as compared to making Malik and Moloch be the same as Melech. Somehow, the Melech part of this has been ignored.

IF IT'S OK... I've places this copy of the Melech Disambi page here...

Melech (מלך) may refer to

• the title of "king" in ancient Semitic culture, see Malik
• the singular word (in Hebrew) for king, among Kings of Israel and Judah
• the deity Moloch

To repeat: how can Melech be equated to Malik and Moloch ? Pi314m (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not? Don't they all share the same trilateral root, out of which both names appear? And his name appears in multiple forms; remember that the Bible sometimes calls him "Milcom", after all. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see why some type of DIAMBIG page might be needed, but then:

• (1) why is the Hebrew given above the 3-way listing
  • (2) given that the Hebrew is there, why is the "the singular word (in Hebrew) for king, among Kings of Israel and Judah" second and not first
  • (3) what redirect should be available to serve "Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew)" as a MOUSE-over? would "Melech (King, Anglicized from Hebrew)" be better? Pi314m (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You're missing the point of the discussion. Is "Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew)" ever going to be typed into the search bar? The answer is no, so this page should be deleted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as there is already Melech and it doesn't really provide a more specific use than what is presented in the dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as in previous case. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unenthusiastic keep as in previous case. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Melech. While that disambiguation page does cover some additional topics (Malik and Moloch), they are all transliterations of foreign words that could reasonably be expressed as "melech" in english text and a novice reader might plausibly be looking for any of them.
  Re: the arguments that this is unnecessary because we already have Melech, that's not how redirects work. Redirects do more than merely support the search engine and we get no benefit at all from deleting harmless redirects. We save no money, we get no increase in system performance, we have no different effort in maintenance. Redirects really are that cheap. This one (once retargetted) does no harm. Rossami (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SEARCH BAR is the wrong place to be looking. It's in articles that somehow . . . there's a communication gap.

There is something in the way of communication and understanding missing here. There is an entire area of Wiki covering IBM mainframes. Due to differences in how IBM Marketing professionals and "systems" people refer to things, e.g. the processor is a 2067, but the system is an IBM 360/67, more fully an IBM System/360 Model 67, there is a major work called List of IBM products, and it is related to articles named IBM System/360, /370, and more. A far more senior person than I, Guy Harris, might be able to help you understand the MAJOR value of my, by his level, tinker-toy "Layering" I've been trying to explain. On just one article I worked on not long ago, he had 25 edits, vs. my far fewer edits. Just look at his contributions, and ask for him to explain the value of what I've been trying to do in this area of Wiki, vs. what I've done for the IBM 370 stuff, which seemed to have gotten far less attention than

• System/360, on the one hand
• the "Z" stuff, since it's the latest.

You might might also want to contact Shmuel Metz - he (a respected IBMer) and Guy Harris have (who is quite professional himself) might be able to help you "appreciate" (not that I'm in their league) what I've tried to do here. Pi314m (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete since the disambiguator makes no sense in this context. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - I also don't believe that this redirect is really helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.