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 deleted per WP:U2. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Camden Highline → Camden Road railway station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from non-existent user page to mainspace. Draft originally at the page was moved to mainspace (then integrated into another article). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete slowly. The draft article was created at User:Camdentowner222/sandbox and moved by the author (user:Camdentowner222) to this title, probably by mistake (new users not getting namespaces right when trying to publish a draft article is an error I've seen many times, although pages ending up in the Wikipedia: namespace is more common). If this had been noticed straight away (the initial move was in late January, it was moved to mainspace 2 days ago) and/or we had confirmation the author had seen the new location then I'd be happy with a G6 speedy deletion, but they haven't edited since. Eastmain left them a message on their talk page about the move, and I've just left one about the merge, so they should be able to find it when they next log in (they appear to do so only periodically) so deletion shouldn't post too much of an issue for them but there is no benefit in being hasty. It's very unlikely that incoming links will have been made while it was at this userspace title, and it was only there for 4½ months so I don't see that as an issue in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 16 June 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:A → Template:Common abbreviations (meta)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very short and thus very broad redirect, almost never used correctly. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Short by design. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the discussion that preceded the creation of this redirect is at this old revision. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pppery: can you give some examples of where this is being used incorrectly? I'm not immediately seeing evidence to back up your claim that it's "almost never used correctly". Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. None of the uses I've looked at pass a valid abbreviation

  1. Template talk:Infobox element -- ((A|UK)) -- UK isn't recogised as a valid abbreviation, page seems to be using it as a qualifier meaning "UK pronunciation"
  2. User:P64/FSF/Children's/Illustrators -- passed a number as a parameter, not an abbreviation
  3. Talk:Garage rock/Archive 1 -- passed a username, user seems to want ((Reply to))
  4. User:Dareggon/sandbox -- passed no parameters, and results in a blank "(({1))}"

  ... All of which are incorrect. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It’s an abbreviation of “abbreviation” and is deliberately short. Even if this didn’t redirect to Template:Common abbreviations (meta), it would redirect to another template. I don’t see the harm in keeping this as if it’s not used correctly, it would probably quickly be noticed and fixed by the user. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 08:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace current links and retarget to Template:Abbr. If this is meant to be an abbreviation of "abbreviation", then let's have it target the actual template for abbreviations, instead of an extremely narrow meta-template. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tavix: I don’t see a reason to retarget it. “Abbr” is already short and does not also need the “A” shortcut. Retargeting it would just make things confusing. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Interqwark, Pigsonthewing and the discussion that led to its creation (linked above). There is no evidence that this is "almost never used correctly", and even if it were that would be an issue for the template not the redirect to it (some incorrect uses of the redirect are not evidence of it never, or almost never, being used correctly). I explicitly oppose retargetting as that template serves a different function and retargetting would therefore break existing uses and confuse future users. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Can any of you find one example of this redirect being passed an abbreviation that is actually recognized by the template? I can't. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 01:21, 18 June 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5 and WP:G4 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#WikiProject USA). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject Somalia → Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Do WikiProjects need redirects from mainspace? Recently created by blocked user AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 16 June 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stalin Death Toll → Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created redirect by blocked user isn't supposed to be a proper noun. Stalin death toll already exists to take care of this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 16 June 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Artikel 38 → Alliance for Securing Democracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Irrelevant and possibly misleading redirect. The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" obliquely refers to "Artikel 38" of the German constitution, but they are absolutely not the topic of that article. According to de:Artikel 38 des Grundgesetzes für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, this article sets up the electoral process for the Bundestag (German parliament). Activists should not hijack this term to advertise their cause (namely, that they are preserving German elections from Russian influence on Twitter). — JFG ^talk 04:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak retarget to Elections in Germany. Someone searching for this will not find what they are looking for at the current target. Our article on Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (where Constitution of Germany redirects) mentions that there are rights in several articles, one of which is article 38, that are "rights equivalent to fundamental rights", but does not detail what these rights are let alone which ones come from which article. The Fundamental rights in the German Constitution article doesn't have this information either. The lead of Elections in Germany has a very brief mention of article 38, which seems to be the best we've got. Normally I wouldn't recommend retargetting based on that, but the search results for both article 38 and artikel 38 are spectacularly unhelpful, for the former basically consisting of random articles that feature "38" and for the latter pages which happen to include both terms somewhere - almost exclusively "artikel" appears in the title of references and the "38" is usually a page number or part of the coordinates or a URL substring, after half a page it gives up on the "38" completely. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article 38 of the Swiss Federal Constitution provides the basis for Swiss nationality law. Article 38 of the Constitution of Austria governs the functions of the Federal Assembly (Austria). Both of those countries have at least as strong a WP:FORRED connection to this lemma as Germany does. I don't know what's the best solution here; leaning towards deletion. I agree with the nominator that the current target is inappropriate. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 59.149.124.29. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Matt 190417 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as common English speakers as not going to think of German Basic Law when seeing "Artikel 38", and Alliance for Securing Democracy is the source of the website. @JFG: Why are you assuming User:BeebLee (who appears to be inactive on wp since 7 Mar 2018 ) is an "activist"? X1\ (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: I was not referring to any editor; I called "activists" the ASD people who are taking it as their crusade to help German people keep order in their own elections. — JFG ^talk 20:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: The term "activist" is sometimes used as a pejorative, was that the intent? X1\ (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just trying to uphold NPOV. — JFG ^talk 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Saying "crusade" and "activist" about those "people" sounds more of POV. Just sayin'. X1\ (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully admit that is my personal opinion about the part of ASD pretending to deal with German elections; these people should mind their own business in the USA, there's plenty to do there. But that should not matter as to the reason this redirect is misleading. — JFG ^talk 20:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as pointed out by other contributors here, there are several bodies of law which have an article 38; this one does not need to be singled out (it's not even in English). I once saw an exception to this "generic article number" kind of redirect, and that was for Article 50 regarding the part of EU treaty that covers leaving the European Union. There was however ample press coverage about this particular article in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, and it had become somewhat of a household term in English. — JFG ^talk 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is for Artikel, not "Article". X1\ (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Do you have a reference for "somewhat of a household term"? I had never heard of it before. "Mind their own business" sounds of strong POV. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my personal opinion of ASD activities in Germany is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the term "Artikel 38" can refer to many articles in several documents, is in German, and has no particular notability in outside sources linking it to the target page ASD. We can debate Article 50 at its talk page if you wish. This will be my final reply here, as we must let other editors express themselves. — JFG ^talk 07:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: confusing and possibly a form of WP:ADVOCACY by hijacking the term. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The term" is the name of the website, none are called that on English Wikipedia, and neither on German Wikipedia - the closest would be de:Artikel 38 des Grundgesetzes für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (which doesn't redirect there from "Artikel 38").

In a google search, the first item is the "Artikel 38" website, as are the top three called "Artikel 38" (the last being the redirect); while the Gesetze-im-internet.de and de:dejure.org pages are called "Art. 38 GG".

Furthermore, no English Wikipedia articles even begin with "Artikel". X1\ (talk) 23:59, 25 June 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. Easy enough to recreate should this or another topic become worthwhile. No comment as to wiktionary ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

'Choping' or 'chopeing' is derived from the recent objection of parliamentarian Christopher Chope to a UK bill that would have outlawed upskirting. Some Twitter users have been committed to refering to upskirting as choping in light of the objection. I have not seen a single authoritative news outlet comment upon people now referring to upskirting as 'choping' (asides one article on The London Economic that has included a tweet from a comedian suggesting the name change). This is a silly Twitter fad started by a minority of politically-engaged users and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Worse, because this is about a living person, it is highly contentious. This may meet criteria (G10) for speedy deletion. Matt 190417 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait this is a neologism, but it's far too early to say whether it will have any lasting notability. It shouldn't have been created yet, but equally we shouldn't speedy delete it as the availability of reliable sources could significantly change during the next week - a speedy deletion could be followed by an immediate recreation. If this does gain traction I suspect we'll end up with an article similar to Campaign for the neologism "santorum". I don't think this is a G10 or BLP issue in itself as the purpose is not solely to attack a living person, but to report on a (potentially) encyclopaedic reaction to a clearly encyclopaedic event. Complicating matters is that both spellings are also apparently used for a slang term in Singapore with a completely different meaning [1], which is covered in passing in the lead of the Chope article as it's the etymology for the name of that service, but doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has now been over a week. I don't think the neologism has caught on. Another news article has included a tweet advocating the neologism; the Urban Dictionary has included it as an entry; and I've seen a comment apiece on mumsnet and a Times article advocating the neologism. This is clearly just a silly fad which merits deletion. It probably fails WP:FORUM point 1. Insofar as a proposed disambiguation link is concerned, I really think that's too generous on the notability, and is allowing politically-charged redirects onto the encyclopaedia. MB190417 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A quick search suggests that only one other authoritative article has now mentioned chopeing (1), but only as being tweeted 'thousands of times'. It also implies that 'to chope' means 'to block/filibuster bills', referring to Chope's frequent filibustering and blocking of bills, rather than 'to upskirt', in which case (if anything) the two entries should be weak redirects to the Christopher Chope article, not Upskirt. Matt 190417 (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quote: "The phrase 'choping' and the hashtag '#dontbeachope' were used thousands of times, referring to his record of blocking Private Members Bills on a matter of principle - regardless of their subject matter." Matt 190417 (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That combined with the Singaporean usage I mentioned above, makes me wonder about a disambiguation page where brief explanations of the three(?) meanings can be given and link to the Upskirt and Christopher Chope articles and possibly Chope if that's regarded as relevant enough to that meaning. Wiktionary wikt:chope can also be linked to (the senses relating to the politician will not yet meet the inclusion criteria there). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought upon seeing "Choping" was that it was a misspelling for Chopping. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: too soon, could potentially be confusing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 24 June 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.