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 2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association Tournament. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association standings → Template:2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association standings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 2018 Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association Tournament per below Big 10 rationale. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to closely related Tournament page (per Amory above) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Killing of disabled children → Euthanasia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Too generic, since inhumane killings (i.e. violence) related to disability are also possible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Infanticide comes to mind though it is not limited to the disabled. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Euthanasia includes many examples of killing individuals who aren't disabled children, and it doesn't include many examples of killing disabled children: those often fall under violence, abortion, infant exposure, and probably other things too, and none of those involves killing only the disabled. In other words, as far as I'm aware, this doesn't equal the topic of any article, and it's not a subtopic of any article. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is too difficult to have as a redirect to a particular article per above comments. An additional relevant article to consider in addition to the above list would be Eugenics. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:List of mathematics articles → Lists of mathematics topics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There is no need for this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reason for this redirect to exist --DannyS712 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to be an artefact of an undiscussed move in 2007. Any utility it had has long lapsed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Maxwell's equations. This also satisfies the "delete" !votes for cross namespace reasons. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Table of Maxwell equations → Template:Table of Maxwell equations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The target is a reader-facing template that exactly matches the search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a cross-namespace redirect that was obviously created in error by the target’s creator. In addition, I do not see any help or value in this redirect existing unless a foot target is found in the (article) namespace, and there might be one. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this being in the template namespace matter when the content is exactly what someone searching for this will be looking for and is identical to what they would see at an article-space page with this title? Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged when it would confuse or otherwise be unhelpful for a reader looking for encyclopaedic information - but that is not the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would anyone look for a template in the article namespace, or look for a table of the equations in the first place? People would search for Maxwell's equations instead, which has a lot more information. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • They aren't looking for a template, they are looking for a table - exactly this table - that it is a template is irrelevant. If someone is looking for general information about the equations then yes, they'll use a different search term - but that's irrelevant to people using this search term. Does it matter why people look for something? People are looking for X, we have X, therefore we should take them to X, regardless of where X is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would anyone search for a table in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • People who know content is often shown in a table — like in a textbook — may well search for that table later on. I know I certainly have. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Thryduulf that if X is a plausible search term and we've got the expected content, then it doesn't really matter if that content is found in the template namespace. There are two problems here though. First, the target isn't the only place where a table of Maxwell's equations can be found: in fact, there are several tables of this kind in the various sections of Maxwell's equations. But more importantly, the redirect isn't really a searchworthy term: there is usually a very large number of possible terms to describe the stuff that can be found in a given article (for Maxwell's equations that would be "Table of..", "List of..", "Tabulation of..", "Diagram of...", "Illustration of...", "Derivation of...", "Alternative formulation of...", etc.). Creating redirects for any number of these doesn't really scale up and keeping isolated instances like this one is at best useless (these aren't the kind of phrases that users would expect to work when searching), and at worst misleading (a reader who stumbles upong this redirect might then be misled into expecting other redirects of this type to work). And judging by its history, this particular redirect was clearly created in error. – Uanfala (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not needed, we should avoid cross-namespace redirects from article space. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Maxwell's equations where there are, appropriately, numerous tables of Maxwell's equations. That exact template isn't there, but there are a half dozen tables. This is a very plausible redirect as it's common to search for "(thing you want in a table) table" such as "codon table" or the like. Why not point them to content? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Amory, I'm happy with a retarget to Maxwell's equations. This is very clearly a useful search term so the only factor for the discussion should be which is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 reverse redirect. In effect, this moves Template:East Coast Main Line diagram to mainspace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• East Coast Main Line diagram → Template:East Coast Main Line diagram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See WP:R#D6. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plausible search term and the target page is exactly what those using it will be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone look for a template in the article namespace? If you're looking for a template, you'd search in the template namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't looking for a template, they're looking for a diagram. That the diagram is in the template namespace is completely irrelevant - this redirect takes them to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a cross-namespace redirect that was obviously created in error by the target’s creator. In addition, I do not see any help or value in this redirect existing unless a proper target is found in the (article) namespace; I cannot find one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my vote per the current precedent for such pages in the article namespace as presented below. (My opinion regarding the usability of these being in the article namespace as opposed to the template namespace is a discussion for another day. For the time being, I am choosing not to go against the status quo.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • What difference to the reader does it make if the diagram they are looking for is in the article namespace or the template namespace? The content they see (which is exactly what they are looking for) will be identical. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a title that has zero WP:REDLINK potential since the subject of this redirect has absolutely no notability as an encyclopedic subject, but is rather an artefact of a template that was made for Wikipedia. In other words, there is next to no possibility of any type of editor creating an article called "East Coast Main Line diagram" since it is not a real subject. I can honestly not think of any editor who would create the opening line:

      The East Coast Main Line diagram is a diagram of the East Coast Main Line. It is used in Wikipedia.

      It would be an unnotable self-reference. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been hashed out at least twice before, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Subpages in general (April/May 2011) and Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#Diagram articles (December 2016). Useddenim (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked 2011 conversation states that it was created in the article namespace because "...that's where [the creator] created it. WP:SP is only a guideline in any case, so it does not have to be followed, per WP:IAR." The 2016 statement stated that templates such as the target "...are not templates, i.e. not designed to be transcluded into another article." The 2011 conversation basically states to follow WP:IAR, and the 2016 conversation ... I’m not sure about this one since I don’t see any transclusions, so it’s possibly substituted? From what I see, the linked conversations to not provide any rationale that would enforce the redirect to be retained, especially considering how complicated it can be to transclude pages in the "(article)" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move. I had forgotten about West Coast Main Line diagram and South Eastern main line diagram. Useddenim (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, or retarget to East Coast Main Line. we don't need more cross-namespace redirects from article space. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the template to mainspace to match West Coast Main Line diagram and South Eastern main line diagram. Jc86035 (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc86035's proposal seems to me to be the sensible way to resolve the issue. It delivers the intent of the original creation more neatly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - This was originally created (by me) in mainspace, and was moved to template space for some reason I don't understand. The diagram is a comprehensive diagram of the ECML, rather than the simplified on displayed on the article. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My first instinct is that this is cruft and I personally wouldn't advocate for the creation of these sorts of diagrams in an encyclopaedia, and I'm certainly not sure sure what they're doing in mainspace given that they're clearly not encyclopaedia entries. But that's an argument for another day in another venue, and not a hill I'm prepared to die on. Thus we should either keep the redirect as-is, or move the template to mainspace for consistency with other route diagrams, and there probably ought to be a discussion about treating them all consistently in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell: Diagrams for smaller railways can often be fairly detailed, including platform maps for each station and the location of every level crossing. If that level of detail is accepted as appropriate and encyclopedic then it would make sense to allow a similar level of detail (or at least a level of detail that shows every junction with another line) for a much larger railway like the ECML. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If this was my encyclopaedia, I probably wouldn't allow this sort of thing, but fear not, I'm not going to try and eradicate it now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move back to mainspace, per Jc86035. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 17:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• World Culture Fetival → World Cultural Festival  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

implausible typo PRehse (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fetival" is a typo. World Culture Festival already exists as intended! NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.