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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Twelve (number) → 12 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as unnecessary (Twelve already redirects to the same target) and inaccurate (the spelled out word is a numeral, not a number: same reason we don't have Tom Cruise (actress) redirect). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete highly unlikely that a reader will enter twelve (number) in the search engine, and we already have a redirect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this isn't helpful. Someone looking for 12 the number would just type in 12. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Considering the additional subjects listed at disambiguation page 12 (which Twelve (disambiguation) currently redirects) that go by the name "Twelve" spelled out, this redirect is valid and helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Tom Cruise (actor) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because he is an actor, not an actress. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the target of this redirect is a number, so it's situation and basis for existence is identical to the existence of Tom Cruise (actor). Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943. Harmless and somewhat useful considering the existence of other articles named "Twelve" with a parenthetical disambiguator. feminist 16:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a standard redirect similar to many others, like ten (number) and thirteen (number) (noting the absence of eleven (number)). And if we wanted to be pedantic about whether the term is a number or not, then twelve is indeed a number, unlike "twelve", which will be the numeral. – Uanfala 21:24, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G7 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• IOS 12 → IOS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No information about this future version of iOS yet, per WP:CRYSTAL. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:40, 8 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) 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohammad Rezaei (wrestler, born 1958) → Mohammad Reza Navaei  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted, This is not the same person, nor the name nor the birthday year if you check the article Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the wrestler who won a bronze medal in 62kg freestyle in the 1978 World Wrestling Championships is listed as Mohammad Reza Navaei according to the Leipzig database [1] . I've updated the links that were pointing to the 1958 wrestler. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 11 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Two thousand five hundred and twenty → 2520 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete Very unlikely someone will spell out such a large numeral. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it redirects to Category:Redirects to numerals therefore, it's not unlike a cross-categorization of non-encyclopedic content, WP:NOTDIRECTORY ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't need spelling out redirects for every number. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete imagine if we had a redirect like this for every number. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 14 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 retarget to Lonesome Dove series. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lonesome Dove (TV series) → Lonesome Dove (miniseries)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Note: Not requesting that this redirect be deleted. There is disagreement as to what should be the target of this redirect. Now that Lonesome Dove: The Series is an article, I feel that this redirect is ambiguous as to whether it is meant to target Lonesome Dove: The Series or Lonesome Dove (miniseries), and so should instead target the "effective" disambiguation page Lonesome Dove series (which includes links to both articles) instead. Another editor feels this redirect should target Lonesome Dove (miniseries), despite the fact that WP:NCTV is clear that "TV series" and "miniseries" are different disambiguation terms. I'd like the community to look at this one and help decide the correct course of action here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DAB - clearly two different articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be eliminated. Clearly two completely different entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF40:E690:DCC0:277A:296F:D5C8 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an inappropriate solution here. Lonesome Dove (TV series) is a valid article/redirect title – the issue here is that it is unclear to which article it should point (or if it should be converted to a DAB). But deleting of the redirect is the wrong call. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lonesome Dove series which has links to both the miniseries, the TV series and other sequels. TV series and miniseries on television can be confused easily. Is there a series that isn't related to Lonesome Dove or covered by that series aritcle? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with AngusWOOF and this redirect should be tagged with ((R from ambiguous page)). older ≠ wiser 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lonesome Dove series, as long as that article includes in its lede prominent links to the two TV series articles. The miniseries might be the only topic with this exact name, but the other one, even though having the extended title of Lonesome Dove: The Series, is similar enough and likely to be referred to as simply Lonesome Dove. – Uanfala 08:17, 18 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. I know when I'm against consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: "Inchoate" is a perfectly good adjective for anything, meaning "embryonic, in the early stages of being formed." Its secondary usage in legalese should not be made dominant. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it already has a "redirects here" kind of hatnote. Add dictionary infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We have other matches besides 'Inchoate offense' that use extremely similar wording, including 'inchoate lien' and 'inchoative verb'. Deletion seems like the right call. I've seen direct matches in terms of songs and albums, though, but then none of them appear to have Wikipedia pages. That might warrant more searching. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least three musical artists seem to have this specific name, but I'm not seeing any of them rise to a particularly significant level of notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:PTM, not a likely way of referring to an inchoate offense on its own. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that this redirect receives a fair amount of pageviews (8 a day for the past month) makes it eligible for being turned into a soft redirect to wiktionary. However, given that we have two articles with content relevant to specific technical uses of the word, readers should have an easy way of arriving there. To an extent, this is achieved by the search results, but I believe disambiguation to be a better solution. – Uanfala 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A disambiguation page wouldn't look like anything, because there's nothing to disambiguate. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Dabify might not be the best idea due to partial title matches --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two legal terms appear to be also used outside of the context of the fixed phrases [2] [3], so they aren't quite partial title matches. There was a discussion last year about the advantages of including this kind of entries. – Uanfala 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current target seems to be the primary meaning of the term from my search, and there's a hatnote in place for the other article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary meaning of "inchoate" or simply where that word shows up frequently? This is an important distinction. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary encyclopedic content for "inchoate", which I feel is an even more important distinction. If someone were to search for "inchoate" on Wikipedia, what would they be looking for? They might mistakenly think that Wikipedia is a dictionary and be disappointed by not getting the definition of the word. However, apart from that, I believe that "inchoate offense" would be the most relevant and primary content that Wikipedia has to offer. I second Angus's observation that it's not the only meaning of the term, and a hatnote is in place to serve those looking for the other relevant topic. That being said, I am also amenable to a disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing this argument, and as far as I know we've always taken the opposite position: that we don't know why people are searching for a word, and therefore we don't force them to one usage of a word if we do not cover the word itself or other potential usage. I note that in legal Latinate locutions "inchoate" is used in a general sense for anything preparatory, but in any case we do not want to have people typing the word into Google and then essentially informing them that it only had to do with crime, when really it doesn't have anything in particular yo do with crime or even legal matters. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It'd be a case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If others don't see it the same way, so be it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as the general should not redirect to one specific usage. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or make into soft redirect to wikitionary. I'm not convinced there is a primary topic in the encyclopedic sense for this term. older ≠ wiser 19:16, 13 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unlikely search term Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was in the lead section of the article when the redirect was created. It has been changed to "Bābili", but one of the references now in the article uses "Bābilu"; I'm not sure if this is an alternative or incorrect version. It seems to refer only to Babylon, so it may be useful, and one of the results in wiki search is https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_(Masefield). Peter James (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the name in the language of the city's inhabitants [4]. – Uanfala 23:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language being Assyrian. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Uanfala's findings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 13 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 disambiguate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anywhen → West Country English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This targets a section of an article that no longer exists, and the word isn't mentioned in the article. I'm not clear if this word counts as an Indefinite pronoun or not, but if it does, it deserves a mention there and a retarget. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the 60,000 useless Neelix redirects. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A band related to Thomas Feiner comes up in the searches but Feiner does not even have an article in EN wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Anywhen" appears to be the name of a somewhat notable project by French artist Philippe Parreno, and it's mentioned on his page. Retarget? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate?. "Anywhen" isn't specific to West Country English, and unsurprisingly there doesn't seem to be any wikipedia content relevant to the generic topic. There do appear to be at least two potentially significant works with this title though: a project by Philippe Parreno (pointed out above) and a novella by James Blish. – Uanfala 12:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even with Uanfala's discoveries it makes sense to delete the redirect to reveal search results. Deryck C. 22:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab between the project/film and the novella. The film has a lot of press. The novella won a Nebula award. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the creation of a disambiguation page as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:24, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G6. This falls under deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Please leave this line alone (LK Siddiqi (Lutful Kabir Siddiqi) → L. K. Siddiqi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded. KMF (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Detritus; extremely unlikely to break any incoming links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbruce (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Green beetle → Emerald ash borer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking to delete as the redirect is way to broad to be relevant to any one beetle species that is green or be useful as a search term. It isn't even a common name of the article currently being redirected to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agreed. There are too many species of green beetles for this to be helpful. --Blueclaw (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Strong agree; currently unhelpful at best. Zakhx150 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the creator called it the common name back in 2006! It's to generic a term. Legacypac (talk) 10:07, 14 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.