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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Curved yellow fruit → Banana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this was turned down as a PROD since it's a redirect. Proposing editor's Rivertorch comments: Implausible redirect. Not a noteworthy synonym, pseudonym or nickname. While a banana is indeed a curved yellow fruit, it is CALLED a "curved yellow fruit" instead of its actual name only rarely, and the likelihood that anyone would use the phrase "curved yellow fruit" to search for the banana article is remote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems to be a neologism but somewhat catchy across different news media. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In some stores, bananas are called curved yellow fruits, which is why I made this redirect in the first place: [6] [7] [8] [9] Colgatepony234 (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible search term. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible search term per the evidence of use provided by Colgatepony234. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This does appear to be a thing, now. bd2412 T 17:10, 3 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 retarget to Structure (disambiguation). I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's too "wooly" but as there are similarly-named redirects that end up at different places, the argument for the dab does seem more convincing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Structure (model) → Economic model  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting community help in figuring out what to do with this vaguely titled, but overly specifically targeted redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strange. We have Structure (mathematical logic), where Structure (model theory) redirects, and Interpretation (logic), where Structure of models redirects. I'm not sure either of those are suitable, though. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Structure (disambiguation) as ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). There are several disciplines that use a structural model and several other things on that dab page for which this is a not implausible search term (e.g. architectural models, models of the structure of chemical elements/compounds, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominator. After the suggestions by Thryduulf, this redirect seems even more woolly and unhelpful. We can't just juxtapose two random abstract words and then point them to a dab page where some of the entries could somehow be vaguely related to both words. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The vagueness of the terms involved is a concern for me too. Given that, how likely is it for users to search it? Not likely, it seems—between 0-5 views per month in the past year. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 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) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Duke of Success → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a silly autocorrect mistake in a Romper.com article about Harry's potential titles (Ctrl+F for "duke of success" - it's obvious the author intended "Duke of Sussex"). The sort of thing you'd expect to get memed, but hasn't appeared anywhere else as far as I can tell. Implausible search, Implausible typo. Delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is part of the display name for a twitter user, but they appear to be non-notable and stopped using that account in 2016. It would make a good stage name for someone though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term which not clear should redirect to Harry. PatGallacher (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's mildly amusing, but deletion is still the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's pointless. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is amusing, but also pointless. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 1 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 no consensus on whether to delete or not, and retarget to Insanity defense as being supported over Insanity (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Distinguishing right from wrong → Insanity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't seem right, but I'm not sure where to redirect this. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Morality instead?? etothepi 👽 ^(u)•(t) 15:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Right and wrong points to Ethics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The way in which this is worded seems awkward. Given how many different things touch about the idea of 'right versus wrong', as well, I think that we should just be rid of the redirect and let people use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Insanity defense. The reason this is pointing to insanity is that the legal test of whether insanity serves as a defense to a criminal charge is whether the accused was capable of distinguishing right from wrong. This is discussed in that article. bd2412 T 13:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Retarget per BD2142. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyone who needs this redirect will not be able to spell "distinguish". (And if that sounds too flippant, "per CoffeeWithMarkets". Deb (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't clearly point to any particular article and isn't needed. No one is going to think this would be the title of an article. Natureium (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Insanity defense. BD2412 (and Thryduulf) have me convinced, so why not retarget to the actual article on the legal usage, if that's the reason? It's discussed there as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 8 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) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prince Hanry Charles Albert David of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Attempting to cross "Harry" with "Henry" I guess? I don't see this as a plausible typo. Delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A pointless redirect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 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 no consensus. Appears a little WP:TRAINWRECKY, so not relisting to see if a consensus for anything emerges. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry prince of wales → Henry, Prince of Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Henry, Prince → Prince Henry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prince henry of wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prince Henry of the United Kingdom → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prince Harry of the United Kingdom → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HRH Prince Henry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HRH Prince Harry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Henry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Harry, Prince of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Harry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Prince Henry of Wales → Prince Harry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects from variations of "Harry, Prince of Wales" to various targets. I expected to find more while doing this, honestly, and at the end of it I think I see what the obvious result is, but I'm opening this to discussion anyway. There seems to be a significant opinion that now that Prince Harry has been granted a substantive title in his own right and is no longer Prince of Wales by virtue of his father's title, he is no longer the primary topic for these redirects. I don't have an opinion on that at this point, only that all of these redirects should point to the same article, whichever it is. However if the Duke of Sussex is not the primary topic, then some of these titles should be retargeted to the Prince Henry or Henry, Prince of Wales disambiguation pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of these are already targeted to disambiguation pages, one from alt caps and the other from a likely sortname. Keep those, at least. bd2412 T 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be appropriate to retarget "Prince Henry of the United Kingdom" to the disambiguation page Prince Henry, given Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. The rest are probably fine. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - added Prince Henry of Wales. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per nom, and BDD. (I created several of these redirects.) DBD 19:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not entirely sure what this proposal is on about. It doesn't seem too controversial that the bulk of these redirects should redirect to "Prince Harry", the issue of him recently being given a dukedom may not have anything to do with it. Is there any definite proposal about where any of these redirects should go to, and if so where? If not, then if it ain't broke don't fix it. PatGallacher (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Break Apart - These seem to have obvious differences in terms of appropriate action. In particular, some of them seem fine as is, particularly ones like the logical 'Prince Harry of the United Kingdom'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Break Apart. I agree that most of these seem fine, but I'm willing to consider any specific comments about particular redirects. I don't think a group nomination is going to be helpful on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - breaking them apart or renominating groups for separate discussions is a fine outcome, of course. But what might those groups be? Should all of the titles containing "Harry" redirect to Prince Harry? Should Prince Henry of Wales redirect to Prince Harry while Henry prince of wales redirects to a disambiguation page? Should every title be retargeted to Prince Harry and let a hatnote suit for navigation? What about BDD's point? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some should redirect to the dab page, some should redirect to the person who just got married. Group them by your desired outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of information: "Henry, Prince of Wales" is a completely different thing from "Prince Henry of Wales", the former being a Prince of Wales called Henry, whilst the latter is a son of the Prince of Wales - and he doesn't have to be the eldest. Deb (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as an American who, humbly, is more intelligent and knows more about Britain than most Americans, I did not know this. I suspect most of our global readership will not know there is such a distinction either. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect at Prince Harry of Wales, which was his title prior to being made a duke, even though you might not like it. Moreover, he is the only person who has ever officially been called that. Deb (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to turn "Prince Henry of Wales" into a disambiguator and include Prince Henry, Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn, and Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester - and possibly Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester. Deb (talk) 08:14, 5 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Curry fired → Michael Curry (basketball)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Initially created as an article in 2009; it was quickly PRODed but a good-faith IP redirected it to its subject. Not sure it's needed as a redirect, and it surely ain't getting any use. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP:ROUTINE firing of basketball coaches don't need redirects unless there plans to be a sizable independent article, which I don't see with this one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is highly unlikely that this particular subject is the only notable Michael Curry to be fired from something. bd2412 T 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what matters so much isn't so much whether this is the only notable Michael Curry to be fired from something, but whether he is the Michael Curry to be most notably involved in a firing. While the article makes clear that the basketball player turned coach was fired (at least?) twice from roles as the latter, it doesn't make it clear that either of these firings was more notable than the average firing of a sports coach so I don't think the redirect is particularly useful in the first place. Our article about Michael Curry (bishop) notes that he fired three high-ranking staff members in an incident that seems possibly more notable than the Basketball coach's dismissals; further reducing the utility of the redirect. Our articles about the drummer and puppet designer do not indicate they have been notably fired or have themselves notably fired. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Deb (talk) 09:03, 4 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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Medicina legal → Medical jurisprudence  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No affinity for Spanish. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:45, 29 May 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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No affinity for Hungarian. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's also the name in the Tetum language spoken in East Timor (former Portuguese colony), not sure if that's a close enough connection for WP:FORRED though. See tet:Portugál. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Last year I evaluated all the redirects to Portugal and nominated many foreign language ones for deletion (See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 5#Foreign language redirects to Portugal) but this wasn't included. I haven't got time to reproduce my research right now to verify, but I can only presume that I found both a significant connection and evidence of use at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I believe this is the Spanish pronunciation, though the Spanish would write "Portugal" just as we do. That plus the the Tetum connection are just enough for me to think we should just leave this alone. Probably shouldn't've been created in the first place, but not really harmful at this point. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 31 May 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.