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 as retargeted. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 20:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tai Then language → Theen language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete. Tai Then and Theen language are completely unrelated. The former belongs to the Tai–Kadai family, the latter to the Austroasiatic family. This redirect is misleading and detrimental, pointing to the wrong destination. In this case it is better to just have a redlink. RJFF (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected to proper article, Tai Thanh language. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. The redirect's creator has corrected his error, and the redirect has no other contributors. I don't see any obvious objection to the new target, and if someone does, then that can be a new RFD. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My only concern is whether "Tai Then" is an acceptable alternative transliteration of the term "Tai Than", but the language is so rare that we have no chance of getting a suitable scholar to advise us. We have done as much as our expertise allows. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. In Ethnic Groups of Laos (vol. 3, p. 218) Joachim Schliesinger indicates 'Tai Then' as an alternative name for 'Tay Thanh'. Thank you, @Kwamikagami: for finding the appropriate target. As far as I am concerned, we can close this discussion as resolved. --RJFF (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the literature, then we keep it. We can close this discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:52, 5 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. Deryck C. 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chak Choti Shafi → Chak Shafi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I redirected this page to Chak Shafi as the co-ordinates in the infobox suggested that it was the same place. The article's creator maintains that it is a different settlement, so a redirect doesn't seem appropriate, but neither have they been able to provide sources or point to a map location for the separate settlement. See User talk:Nazim Hussain Pak#Duplicating content rather than improving existing content. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates which are retained as proof that Chak Choti Shafi and Chak Shafi are a same place do not have any proof of validity. Chak Choti Shafi's redirect to Chak Shafi is wrong as they are not a same place. These villages have following differences:

1. These villages are 3km away from each other.
2. Population of Chak Shafi is exceeding 11000 but that of Chak Choti Shafi is near 2050.
3. According to papers of local Patwaris, area of Chak Shafi is 120sqkm while that of its neighbouring village Chak Choti Shafi is 3.2sqkm.

Though Chak Choti Shafi lacks any reliable source, it and Chak Shafi are not a same settlement.

Sinner (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC) summary=%5B%5BWikipedia%3ARedirects+for+discussion%2FLog%2F2017+June+30%23Chak+Choti+Shafi%5D%5D+closed+as+keep)) keep]/[((fullurl:Chak Choti Shafi|action=edit[reply]

• Delete not the same. Chak Choti Shafi is not notable to have an article, and is not even listed in the postal directory. It can be created when RS are provided, but it needs to meet WP:GNG. If Chak Shafi is not notable either, then send that to AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not the same (apparently). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I should have no objection over deletion, but a strong objection over redirect. Sinner (talk) 14:12, 1 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. Deryck C. 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Q Ratio → Tobin's q  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete this capitalisation to allow inputs of "Q Ratio" to redirect as Q ratio. Q ratio redirects to Q-ratio which has a hatnote to Tobin's q. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is poker still the primary topic for all these Q ratio redirects? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: good point. It is currently but a simple Google search shows overwhelmingly more popularity for Tobin's Q. Once this RfD is closed I will move Q-ratio to Q-ratio (poker) and change the associated redirects and hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unhelpful miscapitalisation. If kept, this should have the same target as Q ratio. – Uanfala 08:44, 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 retarget to Biblical law#Christianity. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Biblical law in Christianity → Christian views on the Old Covenant  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not convinced that these refer to the same thing Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oiyarbepsy: Could you elaborate on how you believe they are different? — Gestrid (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - Biblical law doesn't necessarily mean the old testament law. There are placed in the new testament that also would count as biblical law. So, that's what I mean when I say they might not be the same thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Biblical law. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Biblical law#Christianity as recommended by Shhhnotsoloud. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Biblical law per Oiyarbepsy and Shhhnotsoloud. — Gestrid (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, specifically to Christianity subsection, per Angus. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Biblical law#Christianity. With a topic that invites dogmatic argument, we need to be as unbiased as possible, and I'm piling on this target as the correct one. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:09, 2 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.