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 wrong forum. [I think this is better addressed at Categories for Discussion and I've opened a discussion there at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 24#Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures. (non-admin closure)] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures → Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Narrow to East Asian culture only. Overwhelming articles reflect this style only seem to apply to Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Tiger parenting has its roots in Chinese Confucian origin and Imperial Examinations through Imperial Chinese history. No evidence of Tiger Parenting ever taken root in Afghanistan or the Philippines for example Backendgaming (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close, reverse nominator's category move & depopulation, and send to WP:CFD for a proper discussion. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Basic tools in nutrition → Nutrition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tools in nutrition → Nutrition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Tools" isn't a well-attested term in the realm of nutrition, so it's vague what this may refer to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tools in delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - These seem awkwardly worded and not really worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:23, 28 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathhew Shepprd act → Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete An obscure spelling that would probably never help anyone redirect to this page. Goveganplease (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible double typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear error and implausible. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can see the likes of 'Matthew Sheppard Act' and 'Matthew Sheperd Act' being created, say, but this redirect here isn't worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:53, 28 March 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. A few reasons:

• Discussion below is somewhere on the no consensus to delete spectrum
• The previous discussion ended less than two weeks before this started. If you want to challenge an outcome, the proper venue is WP:DRV, not restarting a new one 11 days later.
• There's a mention now which, whether appropriate or not, makes this even less likely to delete.

In short, no consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• L'Affaire Russe → Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. No evidence of widespread usage in English-language sources, just a one-off catchy blog headline. See prior RfD discussion, which was closed as no consensus, thus keeping the redirect in place. Consequently, PamD felt compelled to add the term to the article, while noting it was a stretch (see this thread in the article talk page). We should now eliminate both the redirect and the mention of the term in the article. — JFG ^talk 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Lawfare uses the term extensively in it's coverage see here. However, other media outlets have not really picked up on the term.Avisnacks (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the reason to delete. Lawfare (blog) is a blog that coined the term, and it wasn't picked up anywhere else. It's not even used frequently in French-language sources. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current title has less claim to WP:Common name (0 use off wiki) compared to the redirect (1 use off wiki). The purpose of redirects must surely be to improve accessibility to the relevant information. Presumably Avisnacks read said blog and wished to further research said topic on Wikipedia. He faffed around to find Wikipedia's convoluted title and created the redirect to save the next reader that faff. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would somebody type in a French phrase when they are looking for information about Russia interfering in a US election? Thundermaker (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It isn't even a redirect in the French-language Wikipedia. Translated, it means "The Russian Affair", which could refer to many different things. Thundermaker (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per French interference in English Wikipedia articles. Seems very obscure term. I also checked the sources provided in the previous RFD discussion, and they were either French sources or linked to Lawfare blog. Politrukki (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"French interference": good one! — JFG ^talk 11:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not a plausibe Anglophone search term. Senator2029 “Talk” 02:50, 1 April 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 per G7. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Trump exemption → Wikipedia:Ignore all rules  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disruptive and POV redirect created to make a WP:POINT in an ongoing discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Ranking Trump in relation to other presidents — JFG ^talk 08:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing...[which] disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia - that is not the case here. The redirect has been used to make a succinct point that differs with the POV of User:JFG. Breaking the link while the conversation is still ongoing is a below the belt method of turning an opposing editor's comment into nonsense. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Seems like a joke in poor taste rather than an attempt to helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Explanation. JorgeLaArdilla interprets the situation quite exactly. Kudos for that! Before seeing this, I had already replied here. I'll bring over the relevant part in a little bit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and changed the redirect to save it for use as a private essay I'll write. Unfortunately I now have to leave and can't add a more complete comment now, so my diff will have to do for now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sorry BullRangifer but this really isn't appropriate and I would go as far as to say this should be speedied because it in no way improves the project or helps with its goals .... and that's coming from someone who generally hates Trump .... It's not appropriate as an essay neither it's not appropriate full stop. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So your basic assumption is a BIG policy violation by refusing to AGF? You have no idea what kind of essay this will be. There is a lot of latitude for personal essays. Please reconsider.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe

• Did you notice MY preferred version? It's not to IAR. I did not make the latest, very problematic, change. I don't want thst version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AGF has nothing to do with it ..... Whether it's a redirect, an essay or a gallery of the bloke the point is the title is not appropriate, Yes I did notice hence the essay part in my !vote - Allowing this would set the precedent that this sort of thing is okay ... when it's not, If you recreate this as an essay then it'll still be back here regardless so it might be a better idea to give up with this. –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we can cross that bridge if it is ever necessary. Right now it isn't, and don't be surprised if I'm not good enough to do it in a totally policy-compliant, non-disruptive, and likely humorous manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's called "ignore all rules", not "ignore all laws"... ba dum pssh._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect currently targets User talk:BullRangifer#Trump exemption; I disagree with that too. Unless an essay is created at the redirect, any other target (especially any part of a user talk page) is problematic. Steel1943 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inappropriate and unhelpful redirect regardless of whether the target is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules or User talk:BullRangifer#Trump exemption. Politrukki (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete requested by creator. If this ever becomes relevant as a redirect, it can be requested. Right now it serves no purpose but to irritate the people here, who are the only ones who know of its existence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting action on this. Just delete it already. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:07, 28 March 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 procedural closure. Thanks to PamD for converting it into an article.(non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This small feature located here (less than a settlement) is not mentioned at the generic target. Tarves appears to be its civil parish but because Scottish parishes have little recognition that could be questionable. Its farmhouses are mentioned at List of listed buildings in Tarves, Aberdeenshire so maybe that's another target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it is hardly notable, but it does exist. Which criteria for deletion does it satisfy? It doesn't appear to be misleading, confusing, abusive, meaningless, spam, or broken in a technical sense. It is also a long-standing (ie old) redirect. Might make sense to let this discussion work through before nominating the dozens (hundreds?) of such redirects that one editor created a decade ago. Or list them all in one go. Lithopsian (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the target is way too broad, I have pointed out a potential targets but I don't think any are that viable. It is part of a large number of generic redircts, many of which I have fixed, see User:Sjorford/PrimroseGuy redirects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is confusing to have a redirect target an article that offers no information on the term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that for Windsoredge there is more point because at least it is where is would be mentioned (Nailsworth, its civil parish) like Willows Green is in Felsted, but Ythsie is obviously not going to be mentioned at Aberdeenshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT List of listed buildings in Tarves, Aberdeenshire is a sound redirect. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced its a sound redirect, that article deals with "North Ythsie Farmhouse" and "South Ythsie Farmhouse" but not "Ythsie". That's like having Manchester redirect to List of football clubs in England. That said I think that because those 2 Listed buildings is what Ythsie appears to make up, I'm happy with it to be targeted there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Have created a stub - Ordnance Survey recognises it as a hamlet, that's good enough for me; found a few refs and an image, etc. Can we now Close this RfD and tidy up the stub to remove the redirect? PamD 23:06, 23 March 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nintendo N5 → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another ancient(?) name that isn't mentioned in the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "N5" is an early name that appears to have been used by some popular publications. It's not just made up, but then would the Wii article need to list early names at all? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editorial consensus on writing video game history; after all, products tend to go through multiple titles before official release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as shown by that Eurogamer article as an unofficial nickname for the Gamecube successor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - As it was used in early versions it obviously makes sense to keep this. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 22 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nintendo nplay → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very ancient name for the console - possibly a hoax in fact. Could not find it in any sources. Implausible redirect. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Don't see any uses for NPlay except for other products like Uma [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 22 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GameCube Revolution → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GameCube: Revolution → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Console was never called "Gamecube Revolution", only "Revolution". This is not a plausible redirect currently. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The successor to the GameCube was, at one time known as "Revolution". Hence the redirect is not impausible. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no news articles that combine the two brands as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All Google results seem to be all forum-related ...... There's doesn't seem anything here that can back up JorgeLaArdilla's !vote (If it was called as such then it would've been by a few people and not multiple sources). –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that the successor to the GameCube was once known as the Nintendo Revolution is not evidence that the system was ever known as GameCube Revolution and as stated there would be evidence that it was a commonly used term. I would also note that we don’t have Super Nintendo Entertainment System 64 as a redirect to to the SNES successor the Nintendo 64 nor does Wii U Switch redirect to the Nintendo Switch article.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 02:15, 23 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GameCube 2 (Revolution) → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GameCube 2 Revolution → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GameCube 2: Revolution → Wii  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Made while Wii was still called "Gamecube 2", but very implausible redirect now. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The successor to the GameCube was, at one time known as "Revolution". Hence the redirect is not impausible. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You can have perhaps Gamecube 2 or Gamecube sequel but don't sit on the fence with a combined title, one of which was a working title, when there are no news articles that have publicized it as the combined one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have never heard the system called the GameCube 2 Revolution.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 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 American Idol (season 1). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• American Idol: The Search for a Superstar → American Idol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American Idol: The Search For A Superstar → American Idol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• American Idol: Search for a Superstar → American Idol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should these be retargeted to American Idol (season 1) since apparently, this alternative title only represents the first season of American Idol. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OP has a valid point and should redirect the redirect. Either way that is a keep JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @JorgeLaArdilla: so you want a Retarget, right? feminist (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:18, 29 March 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Idolonfox → American Idol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was a website for American Idol but now redirects to American Idol on ABC. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information provided by by AngusWOOF would indicate that "Idol on fox" is a plausible search term.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This would indicate it's still used on a daily basis, In some ways I feel it's useless and in other ways I feel we'd be doing a disadvantage to those searching for it. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 22 March 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 normally dislike deleting old redirects with some history, but the lack of references and lack of actual merged content here makes it easier. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• American Idol Magazine → American Idol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. (However, this redirect is a ((R from history)) that was blanked and redirected.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep American Idol Magazine desrves a mention in main article JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no mention of this magazine, and the former article can't be used to add a mention since it was completely unreferenced for its entire existence. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – While it may "deserve" to be mentioned in the main article, it doesn't seem to be notable to exist on its own. Should someone wish to write a verifiable article, or redirect to a section in the main article about the magazine, the correct name is American Idol (magazine) Senator2029 “Talk” 02:45, 1 April 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Emett, (Frederick) Rowland → Rowland Emett  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created weird stylization of the name not used in any books or news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep oxforddnb stylization JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!. Should this format be allowable in general? Or only if they are highly likely to be looked up by the dictionary? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What tag should this entry have then? ((R from sort name)) ? ((R from alternative name)) ? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Template for "ODNB stylization"? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a format used by a major publication, so it makes sense that someone may use it on Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above - Seems an obvious keep. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 28 March 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.