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) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as all the other redirects from this editor. This term will never be typed into a search bar. There is already a redirect for Petira. Creating a redirect that nobody will use is not required. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

author comment: The redirect, as has been noted in a prior discussion, is not just for searching, it's also for (and 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

"After the Petira of the older ..." as

"After the [[Petira (passing)|Petira]]

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

The "layering" that will result is

• (1) Mouseover-ing - shows 1-word "(passing)"
• (2) clicking goes to the 1-liner section of Bereavement
• (3) the internal link in the writeup usually has a hatnote for the more complete / "Main article." Pi314m (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteUnenthusiastic keep as in cases of February 6. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) (revised 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete as per StevenJ81. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no other kind of petira. We don't need dabs for terminology meanings unless it's like Petira (Bereavement in Judaism) rather than the actual definition inside the dab. Also refine Petira to Bereavement in Judaism#Terminology and timing as it is not described at all in the article, so might as well get over to the section where it is mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:06, 18 February 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. I wouldn't say there's a strong consensus on the result here, but there's unanimous agreement that the redirect should be changed and limited agreement on an alternative target. Deryck C. 13:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Definition of famous → Talk:Lists of people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

At this moment, this redirect is a WP:CNR to an article talk page. I'm thinking this needs to be retargeted to some sort of guideline related to WP:GNG. Also, on a related note, Wikipedia:FAMOUS currently targets Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to WP:GNG. I agree that it should target something relating to our notability guidelines, but I can't think of a more specific page that would be more helpful. In case you are curious, there used to be a page called Wikipedia:Fame and importance, which was moved to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Fame and importance by SMcCandlish in 2006 (it looks like it was moved around the same time the notability guideline came into existence). We also have WP:FAME, which sends readers to WP:Subjective importance#Fame, but I don't think that is a good target for this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Post script: I am updating my vote to retarget to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical per SMcCandlish. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Notability/Historical, which catalogues the "fame" and "importance" debates that eventually resulted in WP:Notability, or just delete it. We don't actually need "Wikipedia:Definition of famous" to exist, any more than we need "Wikipedia:Meaning of clever" or "Wikipedia:Applicability of the term badass".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. I also don't think it's wise to repurpose this redirect to a graveyard page, especially since there isn't a "definition" of famous present there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:FAME redirects to Wikipedia:Subjective importance#Fame, WP:FAMOUS redirects to Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. The latter target is not a good one for this redirect, and the Fame section of the former is too detailed, but I'm wondering about the top of Wikipedia:Subjective importance as it is relevant, but I wonder if someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia would understand why I say that? Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm torn. Maybe either of above suggestions (like "delete"), retarget to Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability or Wikipedia:Inherent notability, or retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If retargeting is not the best option, how about dabifying the page? George Ho (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to suggest that we're very concerned with the "definition of famous". --BDD (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per SMCCandlish. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 21 February 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Winter of 2010 → Winter of 2009–10 in Europe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2010 winter → Winter of 2009–10 in Europe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY as we also have Winter of 2010–11 in Europe, 2009–10 North American winter, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Winter of 2010 and 2010 winter are needed as useful short easily-remembered redirect names for typing in by people who cannot be expected to remember a lot of long page names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless it's the title of some media, we don't have dabs or articles for "winter year" and it messes with MOS:SEASON so the redirect isn't helpful. Letting the user type in "winter of 2010" and picking from the suggested search options which list both 2009-10 and 2010-11 possibilities is more useful. Similarly typing in 2010 Winter will give lots of possibilities including "2010 Winter Olympics" which would be what I'd look for instead of weather in Europe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - this is a useful search term, and as such should not be deleted, but could be either of two winters so we need to resolve the ambiguity. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This is a reasonable, but ambiguous search term. In addition to the three articles listed by Tavix, we should probably add Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia to the dab list.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 00:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have started the page as a draft here:

2010 winter and similar may mean: Winter of 2009–10 in Europe Winter of 2010–11 in Europe 2009–10 North American winter Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia 2010 Winter Olympics ((disambig))

That dab might be useful. I just don't know if that means we should start adding (season) (year) dab articles in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AngusWOOF. I'm concerned that if we flout the MOS's advice here, we'll open up a can of worms and create a large maintenance headache for little benefit. In some cases, this is really stretching disambiguation too. Neither Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia nor 2010 Winter Olympics, for example, would be referred to as "2010 winter" or "Winter of 2010". --BDD (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with BDD. I don't think an SIA is helpful here because that opens a big can of worms. Deryck C. 10:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While individually a set index article seems appropriate I don't think that massive number of overlapping large set index articles likely to result from this ("2010 winter" could refer to the 2009-10 northern hemisphere, 2010 southern hemisphere or 2010-11 northern hemisphere winters and events that happened in or related to any of them, and many in the northern hemisphere would each appear on two lists) is sustainable or worth the effort involved. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 25 February 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 all. This discussion and the one below has shown that "Naruto season N" is ambiguous for N>5 because Shippuden is the successor of the Naruto series but restarts numbering at 1. There is some aversion against targeting a "Naruto season N" title to a general list that includes multiple seasons, so I'm defaulting to delete. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Naruto (season 6) → List of Naruto episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 7) → List of Naruto episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 8) → List of Naruto episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 9) → List of Naruto episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 6th–9th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 6, that could be Shippuden S1, which followed Naruto S5, and Shippuden S6, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 6). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Ugh, no. The Shippuden series is named as such in Japan and restarts with series 1, does not continue numbering where it left off. It certainly does not need ones beyond 5. If you want to keep season 6 that'd be fine, but delete everything above that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 6", etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that retargetting is best. AngusWOOF's reasoning seems to be based on an assumption that everybody looking for this will know and remember the numbering restarted. While some people will, I do not think that we can rely on everybody doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. "Naruto (season 6)" is functionally the same as someone searching for the sixth season in the Naruto franchise. Unless someone can show that either that the 1st-4th seasons of Naruto Shippuden are not the 6th-9th anime seasons in the overall Naruto franchise or that Naruto Shippuden seasons 6-9 do not exist, I stand by my vote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there is NO continuation of the series numbering from Naruto to Naruto Shippuden anime in neither the Japanese nor the English published versions. Note that in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z those TV series also start over in numbering. This isn't Initial D where Second Stage does continue the volume and episode numbering of the anime show from First Stage on the DVD packaging. So it does not serve anyone to keep a chain of these around. How many extra seasons do you want? All of them? Given that Naruto Shippuden goes out to 15+ seasons, does it really make sense to keep redirects to Naruto (season 15) and create even more as they append more seasons? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 6) through List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 9). In the spirit of WP:SUBTITLE, "Naruto" is a plausible name for Naruto: Shippuden. As Patar knight points out, there's only one season numbered 6 (through 9), so why not retarget there instead of engaging in WP:OR to push incorrect names? If it helps form consensus, I have a slight preference for deletion retargeting to a general page. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 7 February 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 all. See discussion immediately above. Deryck C. 13:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Naruto (season 10) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 1)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 11) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 2)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 12) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 3)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 13) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 4)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 14) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 5)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Naruto (season 15) → List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 6)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Even though the show exist, the season don't exist. It redirects to Part 2 of the series instead of the original. There's no need for this redirect. 1989 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've bundled several identical nominations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes where all seasons that can be construed as the 10th–15th seasons in the Naruto anime franchise can be quickly found (i.e. for Naruto 10, that could be Shippuden S5, which followed Naruto S5 and Shippuden S1–4, and Shippuden S10, which is the only season in the anime to be numbered 10). Readers can navigate to what season they're looking for using the TOC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Patar Knight. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as with the 6-9, there is no continuation of numbering for the original Naruto seasons in Japan or in Viz Media (English version), so this would be confusing. Japan treats Naruto Shippuden as a separate series, and even if it were combined, it wouldn't start with season 10 pointing to NS season 1 but season 6 pointing to season 1. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus, unless evidence can be provided calling one of Naruto Shippuden seasons as "season 10", etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Patar knight and Thryduulf: Could the both of you please reconsider? -- MCMLXXXIX 17:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Patar knight's comments here and my additional comments above, I still think retargetting is best. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per above comments, with the numbers switched to the analogous seasons. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above comments. Naruto (season 10-15) is getting ridiculous. There is no media that continues the numbering scheme for Naruto and Naruto Shippuden series. Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Z for episodes and TV series volumes does not do this either.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 10) through List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 15). In the spirit of WP:SUBTITLE, "Naruto" is a plausible name for Naruto: Shippuden. As Patar knight points out, there's only one season numbered 10 (through 15), so why not retarget there instead of engaging in WP:OR to push incorrect names? If it helps form consensus, I have a slight preference for deletion retargeting to a general page. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 7 February 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. 11:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• BMW motorcycle clubs → BMW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BMW motorcyc le clubs → BMW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If I were to search this, I would expect to be redirected to a place that discusses various BMW motorcycle clubs. The current target does not do that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or weak target to BMW Motorcycle Owners of America, the only club that mentions BMW in its title for List of motorcycle clubs. Delete the one with the space in "motorcyc le" as unlikely typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't support retargeting to the individual American club. See WP:INUSA, and surely BMW motorcycle clubs aren't a US-specific topic. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, BDD. Even more telling is the fact that BMW isn't even an American company. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the link suggests it was intended to cover two of the clubs in the United States, including BMW Motorcycle Owners of America and BMW Riders Association. But yes, given the international brand and use outside the U.S. UK and that there are a bunch of US ones that call themselves BMW Motorcycle Club of (state/city/etc.) that aren't associated with the two clubs, deletion would be best. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 9 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:EDITASAP → Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shortcut created in September 2016. The shortcut sounds more like it refers to Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Edit warring wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.

That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing as soon as possible. Diego (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's not a helpful mnemonic for the section in question, and does appear to refer to WP:DEADLINE, so it's confusing. We don't need more policy/guideline shortcuts (much less ones to essays like this) that just seem nifty to someone as a passing fancy. We occasionally need additional ones that tie strongly to the content in section in an obvious way, if a particular section has no shortcut at all and is frequently referred to specifically.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:EDITAGAIN → Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shortcut created in September 2016. I fail to see how this is the proper target, considering this short sounds more like an edit war or some sort of guideline regarding someone making consecutive edits to the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them (in fact, we are discouraged to use them for someone who doesn't already know about the linked policy); they are about being a short, memorable reminder of the part of the policy being linked.

That section of BRD is not primarily or exclusively about edit warring. The shortcut tries to be a reminder about the purpose of BRD to avoid improductive discussion and return to editing again, as soon as possible. Diego (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy shortcuts are not about what first comes to mind when using them." Possibly, but they also don't have to target the first thing that comes to mind to their creator. (If this redirect was years old, I wouldn't have nominated it since at that point, the risk of breaking links in editnotices would be too high.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like the one above; this is not a clear enough referent to the content at the target, so it is not mnemonic and just confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As stated above, there's a kind of disconnect here. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:59, 19 February 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 Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:EARLY → Wikipedia:Early closure to avoid unnecessary confrontation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shortcut using a standard word that redirects to a failed proposal proposed almost 10 years ago. There should be a better/more useful target for this ... but where? Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need to retarget it, we just don't need a shortcut to something no one's going to need to refer to frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure. Less than ten links currently exist, making the repercussions of change negligible.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wikipedia:TOOEARLY is a redirect that targets Wikipedia:Too soon. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure sounds fair. Snowball Clause covers the same ground as my proposal (2006! Where does the time go!) but had better traction / friends in higher places :) Deiz talk 22:58, 31 January 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 and retarget to Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, respectively. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:DUP → Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Dup → Wikipedia:Proposed mergers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both should target the same page/location/section. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to the WP:MERGE section. The proposed-mergers process page doesn't even mention the word duplicate (or duplication, etc.) except inasmuch as some people's ephemeral comments there contain it. The #1 point at the information-page section, however, is "Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope", so this is clearly the more appropriate target.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:02, 24 January 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) 20:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Disabling → Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is there a better/more helpful target for this than a long-historical page? Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I can't find a better target, but it's not doing any harm pointing where it is. user:OneGuy formulated the proposal at the target, so they may have an opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PTM, not particularly useful. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A lot of things can be disabled. I highly doubt someone searching this is going to be helped by the current target, especially since it's 12+ years historical. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Tavix - there are more useful things to disable on Wikipedia. See these search results. Deryck C. 00:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. I'd also like to mention that there's more that can be "disabled" than just unregistered user actions. For example, people can need to tweak bots. I don't think this redirect should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:32, 21 February 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 add tag so the redirect has both ((R from alternative name)) and ((R from historic name)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Devonshire → Devon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be tagged with ((R from historic name)), however Necrothesp has reverted this tag twice, hence my resorting here. Firstly take the lead section at Devon, where it states that the county is archaically known as Devonshire. Secondly take Devonshire (disambiguation), where we have Devonshire is a historical name for Devon, a county in South West England. The present tag ((R from alternative name)) is really far too broad in my opinion, and should be changed to the aforementioned tag. --Nevé–selbert 17:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add tag per nom, especially when the lead sentence indicates so. Redirects can be given multiple tags. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Add tag per nom. It's factually correct and appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The articles are incorrect (and I have changed them). Devonshire is not an archaic name (as Dorsetshire is, for example) and is only historic in the sense that it was formerly the official and common name, but has been superseded in those uses by Devon. It is, however, still used. Maybe not as commonly as Devon, but certainly not in an archaic sense. "Historic name" is not accurate. See Template:R from historic name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After your edit the lead now says Devon, also known as Devonshire, which was formerly its common and official name. Template:R from historic name says This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region, state, principate's holding, city, city-state or such, and the subject has been subsumed into a modern era municipality, district or state, or otherwise has experienced a name change. Given that "Devonshire" is another name that has a significant historic past, and the subject has expereienced a name change to "Devon" it seems a perfect match to me. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking the same thing at the same time, see next.  —SMALLJIM  11:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Add tag. (e/c) Discarding the multiple alternatives that fog the template ((R from historic name)) as cited by Necrothesp, the relevant part says "This is a redirect from a title that is another name ... that, more than just a "former name", has a significant historic past. For example, a region ... [that] has experienced a name change." It doesn't say anything about the name being archaic, and the use of this tag together with ((R from alternative name)) seems to capture the present status of the word "Devonshire" quite accurately.  —SMALLJIM  11:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The point is, it hasn't had a name change. It's just now more commonly known as Devon. That's not a name change. "Historic" implies "former", and that is not contradicted by the template notes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 15 February 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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One One Se7en → Halo.Bungie.Org#Community  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned in the target article, whose status is Good Article. I'm thinking possible targets: 117 (number) or English numerals. If neither, what else to do with it? George Ho (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also spelt "Se7en", not "Seven". George Ho (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One One Seven is created as a redirect page. George Ho (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 117 (number) as a plausible search term. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 08:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it, though? Do you search for numbers this way? If not, what sort of reader do you expect would? --BDD (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Weak retarget to Master Chief (Halo) who goes by the code name John-117. It's a web comic that was published by someone from that community. Whether the comic is notable is questionable though as it isn't mentioned on either article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it since the the mention was removed for GA. Like BDD mentioned, this wouldn't be a way someone would search for the number 117 in general. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Angus and Tavix. Deryck C. 00:02, 20 February 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 no consensus to delete. Consensus beyond that is unclear. Further discussion on the redirect's Talk page may be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:LZD → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:R#D5 as nonsense. FWIW: LZD redirects to an airport in Connecticut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This apparently stands for "Led Zeppelin, Deletions" and is listed among several similar shortcuts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Led Zeppelin miscellanea#Shortcuts. – Uanfala (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the information. I've removed that line from the table as it incorrectly makes it seem like the project has their own deletion sorting category, which is misleading because they don't. On a WikiProject level as specific as a single band, the proper way to set this up would be via article alerts. If the project wasn't defunct, I'd be interested in setting that up for them, but I don't really see the need currently. What's interesting about this shortcut is it wouldn't even cover most of Led Zeppelin anyway. If the band or one of the members were up for deletion via AfD, then it'd be listed there. But if any of their albums or songs were listed, it'd go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. It's a bit of an WP:XY issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is part of a series of several WP:LZx redirects to pages relevant to the Led Zeppelin project, e.g. WP:LZA, WP:LZP, WP:LZT, etc. (all the ones at User:Scott/Notes/Shortcut table/uppercase starting with LZ) and it's getting uses so unless there is something more prominent or more expected at this shortcut I see no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not getting use via the Led Zeppelin WikIProject because it has been marked as defunct. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: stats show it has hrrrrrad 69 hit over the last year so it's definitely in use, and if there's nothing better we want to use the TLA for then no reason to delete. (WP:R#D5 is irrelevant because it is not nonsense. User:UanfalaZ explained is basis.) Amisom (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just used what I call the "page view fallacy". You can't assume that something is automatically useful because it has a certain number of page views. We don't know who is using it, whether they are using it deliberately, and if someone using it is satisfied with where they end up. Seeing as it's an incorrect and misleading shortcut from a defunct WikiProject, I think it's a safe bet that those page views are not coming via people wanting to see if this particular band or their members are being nominated for deletion via AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can never know why people are using a redirect, all we can know is that they are using it. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo (in this case you) to show that the change will be beneficial. We know people are using it, and we haven't identified anything else they could be looking for, so why must we assume that it is not useful without any evidence to support that? Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I know why it was created, I've laid out the problem with the redirect in my response to Uanfala. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Weak keep Since there isn't a page of Led Zeppelin-related deletions, anyone who does know the significance of this is likely to be disappointed. I would expect that most days, the target page would have nothing related to the band. However... the obscurity of the term gives me pause. Surely no one is expecting a project page about the little airport. It's certainly possible editors interested in music-related deletions has gotten into the habit of using this without any specific expectation of Led Zeppelin content. Given that this is extremely low-value real estate, I'm inclined to just let it slide absent direct evidence of confusion or harm.

As a measure of how weak my vote is, I actually changed it from "weak delete" mid-writing. I'd also like to stress that this is just concerning "LZD"; I haven't looked into uses of the other LZx redirects, and may feel differently about some of them. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @BDD: The confusion that I see is that there would be multiple deletion sorts related to the band. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians and there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. There's also other deletion methods besides AfD that isn't covered by deletion sorting. How do we know what someone is looking for? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... that's definitely something. And putting a hatnote to accommodate this shortcut would not be appropriate. I note that the redirect was created in December 2007; at that point, both delsorts already existed. And if anything, I'd expect "Albums and songs" to have more entries relevant to Led Zeppelin. "Bands and musicians" may get an LZ cover band or two, but more relevant AfDs would probably come from songs of borderline notability. Wonder what the other keep voters make of this XY situation... --BDD (talk) 20:20, 19 January 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 wrong forum. If a redirect is in the way of a page move you need Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM) not WP:RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KOF Index of Globalization → Trade-to-GDP ratio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Draft:KOF Index of Globalization has been reviewed and approved for creation, but can't be moved to main space because this redirect is in the way. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Triptothecottage: This might be a ((db-g6)) candidate. Raymie (t • c) 02:06, 8 February 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.