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The result of the discussion was retargetted and subsequently withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• XT1095 → Motorola Moto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of XT1095, or 1095, or XT, on target page: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 19:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @PamD: I found this: "Moto X Pure Edition (XT1095) may soon get more LTE bands" . There does seem to be a connection here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - it has now been retargetted to a page which mentions it. PamD 06:51, 19 July 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. I'm not convinced by the below that even the passing mention in the target would remain, much less of the utility of these themselves. Just for the record, I want to link to the 2008 AfD that created at least one of these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davos Question ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Davos question → World Economic Forum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• The Davos Question → World Economic Forum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Davos Question → World Economic Forum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Davos debate → World Economic Forum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The term "Davos Question" is not discussed at all on the World Economic Forum page. After much research I found that these redirects were created in 2008 following an AfD discussion in which the article was deleted, but it seems that whatever meaning this "Davos question" had in 2008 seems to have become anecdotal, at best, with time. Place Clichy (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last article content in Davos Question, from January 2008 was: Davos Question is a question from the World Economic Forum that has been answered on YouTube by many video posts. "What one thing do you think that countries, companies or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008?" This text was followed by a See Also to World Economic Forum. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It appears that its a better idea to just let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete because of the above comments but also because I'm concerned that people will think it somehow refers to Betsy De Vos. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What a bizarre argument, especially to have such "strength" behind it. This isn't De Vos question, and there is no evidence of that being a notable phrase associated with her. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I s'pect Mr. Guye was joking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is a legitimate thing, see this CNN article. I suggest adding a brief sentence about it somewhere within the article, along with that source, and redirecting this to the corresponding section. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a 2008 article... water has flown since then, and it is such a generic question that I doubt it has ever been referred to as "The Davos Question" since then and be understood out of context. Place Clichy (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, per nom: the topic seems to be something that was discussed for a short while in 2008, but which has had no lasting impact. Google Books and Scholar turn up relatively few results, most of which are not referring to the same topic. It might be possible to add a mention to the target article, but I'm not sure where it would fit or whether the topic is significant enough, with a decade of hindsight, to be worth mentioning. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Godsy's approach. Better to explain what it means than to leave it red. It's not going to ever be its own article, but readers who encounter the term it are apt to want an explanation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Better leave it black than leave it red. Actually, the only mention of "Davos question" in the main namespace is a ref in this article about an interview in a Youtube channel with the same name. I do not think the 2008 question has the notability worthy of attracting links at all. And I don't think it is even notable enough to be mentioned in the World Economic Forum article, which in turn eliminates any worth of pointing a redirect there. Place Clichy (talk) 10:07, 25 July 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 Nationalist government. Deryck C. 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nanking regime → Wang Jingwei regime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanjing regime → Wang Jingwei regime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanjing Regime → Wang Jingwei regime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanking Nationalist Government → Wang Jingwei regime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanjing government → Nationalist government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanking government → Nationalist government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Nanjing Nationalist Government → Wang Jingwei regime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It appears that Nationalist government is the primary topic for this term and variations thereof from a quick search, although I'm not 100% sure, zh:南京國民政府 does indeed point to zh:國民政府 while ja:南京国民政府 is a dab which also links to Reformed Government of the Republic of China (ja:中華民国維新政府), but I see no evidence that the term "Nan(j/k)ing Nationalist Government" is used to refer to that one. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nanking regime by any name should be refereed to as its Japanese Imperial creators named it, Reformed Government of the Republic of China. It was none of those things but it will prevent confusion, as we can see above, having its actual name from the period and the one that will be found in archives.Asiaticus (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Asiaticus (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We use WP:COMMONNAMEs, not official names. And in any case, the current discussion is about where to target the redirects, not about the article itself. -Zanhe (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Nationalist government as primary topic. The short-lived Wang Jingwei regime was recognized only by the axis powers during its existence. It is now universally considered a Japanese puppet regime and rarely referred to as "Nanjing Government" without a qualifier such as "puppet", "reorganized", or "illegitimate". -Zanhe (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Nationalist government per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 16:29, 16 July 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) 14:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Double space → Template:Double+space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Template:Single space → Template:Single+space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as confusing, and better cleared for templates that encode double and single spaces for various purposes (I think we already have some). No one sensible would use these templates at their long names anyway; they're used as (("_)) and (('_)) respectively. They're part of this template series.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep unless the title is ambiguous. @SMcCandlish: What templates do you see as competing for this title? Deryck C. 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's ambiguous on its face. "Ambiguous" doesn't mean "clashing with another already extant page". See wikt:ambiguous. We don't have to have an already-existing template competing for the title, when a template redirect doesn't make sense as a name for what it redirects to; just a possibility of one. Two obvious potential candidates for this would be 1) an inline spacing template that used non-collapsing whitespace to force two blank spaces; could be a wrapper for ((spaces|2|(({2))))}; 2) a line-spanning template that forced a blank line between text, perhaps with <br />&nbsp;<br />, or with CSS, so that one could do :Blah blah.((double space))Yak yak. – a non-block alternative to ((pb)). ((Single space)) could be a redirect to ((space)), or perhaps to ((sp)). Or it could be a line-break insertion of some sort, perhaps CSS-kerned to insert some whitespace between lines. Either way, if something's done with one, something similar should be done with the other so they don't serve confusingly different purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. The template means "double quotation marks plus space", but the redirect title sounds more like "two spaces". Delete. Deryck C. 13:31, 25 July 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.