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The result of the discussion was withdrawn.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) 13:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Austin Petersen (politician) → Austin Petersen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary and pointless disambiguation initially created to skirt a previous AfD against the target page. Note that a second AfD of the main Petersen article was closed as keep following a restoration in light of further coverage, so his notability is no longer at issue, only the usefulness of this redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not at all pointless. This is ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). --BDD (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a standard ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). – Uanfala 21:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consider this withdrawn. I'm not sure how to close, but someone else can. Smartyllama (talk) 12:52, 26 July 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 the whole batch as it is, without prejudice against creation of redirects to other pages as editors see appropriate. @AngusWOOF: If you want to point Disney 30 Countdown to Radio Disney, go ahead. Deryck C. 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney 30 → The Walt Disney Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Disney30 → The Walt Disney Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Disney 30 Countdown → The Walt Disney Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Disney30 Countdown → The Walt Disney Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Disney30.com → The Walt Disney Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no mention of this at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The redirects are unnecessary. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disney 30, Disney30, Disney30 Countdown as vague. Searches indicate it could refer to a 30th anniversary, some non-notable 30 day challenge or a 30-pc collectible set. What about a 30 for 30 from ESPN? Redirect Disney 30 Countdown to Radio Disney but they only call it Top 30 Countdown and Radio Disney's Top 30, never Disney30. Delete Disney30.com, it is not a valid site. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:15, 26 July 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 Move to Riley family tree without leaving a redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Riley family tree → Riley family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect, unlikely that anyone will type this in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this used to be a family tree that was transcluded into the article [1] , but has since been taken apart. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, it's cross-namespace. PCN02WPS 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Talk:Riley family/Template:Riley family tree or something similar, as this was copied to the article. Peter James (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as suggested, without leaving behind a redirect. This can't be deleted because of the requirement for atrribution. – Uanfala 18:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the need for attribution. In case someone needs the history, it should be relatively easy to find. Moving it to a cryptic place does not help in that regard. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a subpage of the article is a more cryptic location than a page in template namespace. If someone does follow a link to the template, they will then be directed to the deletion log entry which will point to the page's new location. Moving is better than keeping because of the need to prevent the template namespace from getting "polluted" (as they say over at TfD), that is free of things that are not templates and that will get in the way of for example people searching for templates. But all these benefits are slight, so I don't think it's that important in what particular way the page is kept, as long as it is kept. – Uanfala 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If template space is untenable, I would be amenable to moving as a mainspace redirect. Riley family tree makes sense to me; the redirect would preserve the history in a way that's logical to the subject, and has the potential to be useful moving forward. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This sounds like a reasonable idea. – Uanfala 13:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tavix: Do you have a suggestion for where the edit history of this redirect could or should be moved? Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: What about Riley family tree? -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:48, 25 July 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) 15:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruth Robbins → Nicolas Sidjakov  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's quite odd to redirect an illustrator's name to one of the author's whose books she illustrated. Far better as a redlink. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, it's odd. Part of Sidjakov's article looks like a WP:COATRACK for Parnassus Press. If we did have such an article, though, I think it would be appropriate to target Robbins there. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There turn out to be a number of Ruth Robbins out there, and the others are probably more prominent. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 25 July 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. With the term used in sources, this redirect unlikely to ever get deleted. Relisting could arguably lead to the formation of a consensus, but this would have the same practical effect, and I don't see that as a community priority given the backlog. It's conceivable that arguments could be presented against taking into account the sources found by Tavix, so if anyone has come up with any, I'll reopen the discussion. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 21:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disney/Pixar's Toy Story 2: Buzz Lightyear to the Rescue → Toy Story 2: Buzz Lightyear to the Rescue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems like such an implausible search term that it is unhelpful, particularly since its target is a video game and not the film Toy Story 2. The film isn't a helpful target for this redirect since the film's title doesn't contain the subtitle in the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 20:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No point in retroactively applying Disney/Pixar to every old Pixar title, unless there is evidence they are being renamed as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consider me surprised, but there are some sources calling the game this: [2] [3] [4]. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 4 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 disambiguate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Muhammad Aziz → Jermaine Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this a valid redirect? I can't find any reference to the name Muhammad Aziz in the article. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For some time the article did have a prominent mention of this name, see Talk:Jermaine Jackson#Name. – Uanfala 14:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a quick Google search and couldn't find any meaningful results, but didn't think of checking the talk page. I guess the redirect should be kept, even if the article doesn't mention the name anymore. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There's the complicating factor of the existence of an article for which the term is a spelling variant (Mohammed Aziz), and two similarly named ones: Mohammad Azizi and Muhammad Aziz Khan (the last might not be relevant, as the person appears to be known as Aziz Khan). – Uanfala 21:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Seems plausible for both Mohammed Aziz and Mohamad Aziz. Jackson could be included if relevant information is added to his article. Is there a standard practice for naming such human-name disambiguation articles—namely, do we use a default spelling of "Muhammad"? I doubt it, though in this case, it seems like anything could work. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I've drafter a dab page below the redirect. Although in this case disambiguating does appear somewhat non-standard, it's better to land readers on that page than have them play with the search engine until they find what they're looking for. As for the choice of article title, I'm not aware of any formal conventions, but I'd go for using the most common spelling, and that's Muhammad. – Uanfala 21:18, 8 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 no consensus. With a desire to keep these redirects in harmony, I'll revert to the status quo ante. Modi government will revert to Modi ministry. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Modi government → Premiership of Narendra Modi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Modi Government → Modi ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should the different capitalisation lead to different pages? If not which should they go to? Peter James (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget second to Premiership of Narendra Modi as with Modi administration. Caps version has appeared in multiple news articles and isn't specific to Ministry just as the U.S. president administration isn't limited to their Cabinet. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have created both redirects originally to redirect on "ministry" page. But later one other editor changed target of one of these redirects to "Premiership" page. I think "ministry" page is better target because "Government" means "collectively all ministers in that government" and "premiership of Modi" is quite related to "performance of Modi" or schemes and initiatives taken by Modi.--Human3015 ^TALK  15:49, 19 July 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.