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 resolved. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probe Entertainment (version 2) → Acclaim Studios London  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Company depicts the only Probe Entertainment I know, so no "version 2". Lordtobi (✉) 21:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move without redirect to Probe Entertainment to complete the round robin page move that Anthony Appleyard started but neglected to finish. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tavix and Lordtobi: About "neglected" :: I was not intending a complete round-robin move. On 2 June 2017 I obeyed a request to move Acclaim Cheltenham to Probe Entertainment. But there were already many edits at Probe Entertainment (many redirects, and old short text edits made in 2006 and 2007), so I moved them to Probe Entertainment (version 2), because I do not trust a deleted WP:Parallel history sitting under a visible edit history. On 20:22, 23 July 2018‎ User:Duc4Wikmedia moved Probe Entertainment to Acclaim Studios London, complicating the scene. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target article was recently merged into a list article, wherefore this redirect is no longer needed and can just be deleted. If necessary, you can do a histmerge with Acclaim Studios London. Lordtobi (✉) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tavix and Lordtobi: I have deleted Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 26. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (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. I appreciate the civility below, I know there's a lot of history on this. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#RfC:_INTDAB_links_to_non-dab_pages didn't really get to a consensus, and more to the point neither did this discussion. I don't think relisting will get us anywhere productive — and am cognizant of WP:CONLEVEL — so I am closing this as I see no consensus to, if you'll forgive me, rock the boat and change the current status quo vis-à-vis this redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation) → Amazon-class frigate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

dab redirect incorrectly redirects to a WP:SIA. No users of the redirect. Widefox; talk 14:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if I created this redirect - probably a miss click on disamassist. I have no objection to the change as proposed.— Rod ^talk 14:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. “Disambiguation” redirects should not target articles; they are created per WP:INTDABLINK. — Gorthian (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This takes people to a page that disambiguates Amazon-class frigates - which is exactly what someone using this redirect is looking for. The discussion at WT:Disambiguation, despite the best efforts of a couple of users to derail it, did not come to any consensus that redirects like this are in any way problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except the target lists them as an SIA, rather than disambiguates them as a dab. There is consensus that SIAs are not dabs per WP:SIANOTDAB, ie there's no consensus to treat them the same. Widefox; talk 23:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: As repeatedly explained in the extensive discussion, that SIAs and dabs are not the same thing is completely irrelevant, and there is no proposal to treat them as the same so that's also irrelevant. There is no consensus in the discussion (or elsewhere, hence the discussion) that (disambiguation) redirects to SIAs are harmful so you need to show why this redirect should be deleted and do so for reasons other than just containing (disambiguaiton) while pointing to an SIA. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects only exist due to mandatory indirect linking to dabs. SIAs can be directly linked, so as a dab dependent page (redirect) ignoring that consensus isn't helpful. Due to the definitional mess compromise that is SIAs, I don't expect any improvement in clarifying/progressing these things. Widefox; talk 12:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate since there are multiple "Amazon-class frigates". -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to convert the SIA to a dab? Widefox; talk 17:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works now - I fixed a bad redlink in a ship article and added the missing blue link so now it has four valid entries if converted to a dab. No idea what the ship project preference is for keeping an SIA vs convert to dab. If converted to a dab the two redlink SIAs should be created by splitting these lists. Widefox; talk 23:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Amazon-class frigate should be discussed at that page: this RfD discussion is only about the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is directly connected to the status of it being a dab or not. So they're dependent topics, as the redirect is a dependent page. I'd tend to agree with User:Tavix that converting the SIA to a dab is best - it would force the content to be in the two redlink SIAs and be more useful, but I tend to think with SIAs it's up to the project. They could be created irrespective of dab of SIA or redirect, which again, could be done by the project. Widefox; talk 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of "convert the SIA to a dab" is to edit Amazon-class frigate to that extent: sorry if I misunderstood. That should not be done solely as a result of this RfD. People who watch Amazon-class frigate including the Wikiproject Ships may not watch Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation). There was no RfD notice at Amazon-class frigate until I put one there yesterday. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shhhnotsoloud: "not required" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical dependent redirect, "not required" seems a reasonable minimum to delete a vestigial item. Consensus is WP:SIANOTDAB. I think this is moot now, as conversion back to dab seems most useful in the absence of consensus from the ship project, so seems best bet at this point. Widefox; talk 12:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by converting the SIA to a DAB - will this mean deleting the redlinks, and all of the other information in the page?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What I meant was: "As it stands, this redirect is targeting a page which not a disambiguation page, and the redirect is therefore not required, in my opinion." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert SIA to DAB and delete redundant page - Ship indices are for ships with the same name and are list articles so that information on non-notable ships can be included on the page. All ship class articles are considered inherently notable due to RS and therefore, do not need a ship index page. Therefore the SI page should be a DAB page and formatted accordingly. Llammakey (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: Which redundant page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the Amazon-class page is converted to a disambig page, there would be no reason to have a Amazon-class frigate page with a disambiguator. That would seem redundant. Llammakey (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llammakey: If Amazon-class frigate is a disambiguation page then Amazon-class frigate (disambiguation) should be kept as a WP:INTDABLINK. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. No functional difference between the target page and a DAB that would matter to readers. Even if the target page is fully converted to use DAB formatting, the same four entries would still be there, since the two redlinks would pass WP:DABRED. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 2 September 2018 (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) 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sasha → Template:Sasha (German singer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous term, could refer to the DJ or singer. Incoming links can be fixed. The editor whose username is Z0 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oke, delete per nom. Lazz_R 10:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an admin G7 this per the redirect creator's support for deletion above? The editor whose username is Z0 10:37, 3 September 2018 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Saffir-Simpson tornado scale → Saffir–Simpson scale  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

May be confused with (Enhanced) Fujita Scale B dash (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This scale is for hurricanes, not tornados. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree this is a misleading redirect. The SS scale is for hurricanes, and retargeting to the EF scale would be inappropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This scale is not for tornadoes, agree that this redirect is misleading. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 27 August 2018 (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 Card advantage#Virtual card advantage. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tempo (magic) → Magic: The Gathering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a redirect to Tempo (Magic: The Gathering), an article that got deleted at AfD, and the redirect seems to have surived only because at some point previously it had been retargeted to the main article (which doesn't contain any relevant content). I'm wondering whether this isn't a common pattern: an article gets created on a non-notable topic, then someone turns it into a redirect to some related higher-level article after which all its redirects (if any) get automatically retargeted, then the non-notable article is restored and nominated for deletion, and after the deletion all those redirects linger on. – Uanfala (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I see that the concept appears to be described in a paragraph within Card advantage#Virtual card advantage. That seems like a suitable target, but then the question is whether the redirect title is a plausible search term: I'd rather see a disambiguator that is a bit less vague, maybe (collectible card game) rather than (magic)? – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either is reasonable. Tempo isn't a concept just in Magic, but also in other CCGs; however, I think most discussions about it pertain to Magic: The Gathering specifically. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Magic: The Gathering deck types. Mentioned a few times there, may get its own section eventually. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Card advantage#Virtual card advantage. Someone who searches for this is probably looking for a definition, which isn't really offered at any point in Magic: The Gathering deck types; the paragraph in the Card advantage article is much better for that purpose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Card advantage#Virtual card advantage as above; that section explains the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 28 August 2018 (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.