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. Deryck C. 14:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Watersportsgate → Trump–Russia dossier#Kompromat and blackmail: Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Novel or obscure synonym (WP:RFD#DELETE 8). Cute, but still. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The name was used in headlines in January 2017 by The Mirror, The Express, Huffington Post and The Sun, amongst others, so this is neither novel (in the sense of recent) or "very obscure", as the guideline suggests. As far as I can tell it is seldom used to refer to anything other than the current target, so there's no risk of causing confusion, and the number of news reports using the name suggests this is a similar case to the Attorneygate example mentioned in WP:RNEUTRAL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The big difference here is that Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is a descriptive title unlikely to be directly searched by users. "Attorneygate" is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, even if it's not suitable for the actual title. By contrast, "Trump–Russia dossier" is itself a plausible search term, as are redirects such as Trump dossier and Steele dossier. "Watersportsgate", though a clever journalistic joke, is not commonly used as a name for the dossier. I can admit this isn't nothing—perhaps a user has just seen one of those articles and searches the term here, not knowing it isn't in wider usage. But this isn't a simple WP:RNEUTRAL case like "Attorneygate". --BDD (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term is not mentioned at the target so the connection is not clear unless one does additional research. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. I think the appropriate path here would be to get consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier to include this term before recreating the redirect. I have no particular opinion on the WP:RNEUTRAL/"novel or obscure" issue; I'll just note that there are sources using this term, but many of them are disallowed by WP:RSP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of redirects, the reliability of sources isn't a principle importance - the key thing is whether readers will be using this term to find the article. The presence of this term in sources is a strong indicator that this is true. I don't think it is key that the term is mentioned in the article, as it's not ambiguous and so nearly everyone using it will know that it related to a specific incident related to Donald Trump (if not necessarily this one). Even if it is felt necessary to include the term in the article, all it needs is a sentence like "...referred to as "watersportsgate" by some media outliets." even notoriously extremely unreliable sources can be used to verify statements about what that source said. Ultimately this is a useful search term that is neither novel nor obscure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 November 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WHITELOCK → Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The icon is no longer a white lock. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 21:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The target page has over 200 redirects [1], a substantial proportion of which are variations on the colours in the old scheme. Maybe a cleanup will be warranted at some stage, but at the moment I don't think this redirect should be deleted: there's no requirement for redirects from shortcuts to be accurate with respect to the current setup, and this one has several dozen incoming links from within pages (which will need to be fixed if the redirect is deleted: that's not really worth the effort), and there might also exist links from edit summaries (which are impossible to fix). – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Uanfala, this has quite a lot of uses and is clearly still useful for anyone coming upon it. Lojbanist, I'm worried this is a WP:POINTY nomination on your part given your distaste for these new icons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least for the time being. Probably isn't intuitive for new uses, but there's no point breaking the existing uses. --HarJIT (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SEMI's padlock are dark-grey, while WP:PCPP's padlock is blue-gray, so white lock is in Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks#Classic padlock designs. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:59, 25 November 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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Huron Packers → Grand Forks Chiefs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page is redirected to an article it isn't even mentioned on. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is content at the destination to support the connection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 24 November 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. Deryck C. 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Back in the halcyon days of 2005, there were separate articles for all of these things. They were all merged/redirected into List of Digimon, which was deleted outright in 2015. As things stand, there is no information for this one or any of the hundreds of redirects that are inexplicably pointing to the main Digimon article, despite there being only a paragraph of relevant information that doesn't individually name any of them. I was tempted to mass nominate them all but that was too much work, so instead I might use this one as a precedent to boldly delete the others. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my history a bit wrong, most of these stem from other large list articles that were deleted before that, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1). All the more reason to delete these stray redirects that aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:26, 17 November 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaelic(language) → Goidelic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Crucian(language) → Virgin Islands Creole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible because of the missing space before the disambiguator. Pings to creators: Themightyquill, Vgmaster. – Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both - they're used and they're harmless. Deletion will bring no benefits to anybody but will inconvenience some. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. Catrìona (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominated redirects are not synced with their properly-spaced title counterparts: Gaelic (language) targets Scottish Gaelic, and Crucian (language) does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deferred the Gaelic question to the experts, and as for Crucian: I don't think we should be in a hurry to create the corresponding redirect. "Crucian" denotes one of the several regional dialects described in the target article, and I'm not sure whenther that dialect is commonly referred to by the term on its own (rather than using the phrase "the Crucian dialect"). Noting that the much more likely redirects Crucian dialect and Crucian language don't exist either. Generally, redirects ending in (language) aren't very common: only about 1 in every 15 language articles has one. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 21 November 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fundamental principles → Rights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't see what they have in common. Perhaps retargeting the redirect to principle would make more sense, but I don't really see the point of this redirect in general. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to principle. Also happy with delete as vague. JZCL 23:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To borrow a criterion from Wiktionary, this is what they'd call a non-idiomatic phrase. "Fundamental principles" doesn't mean anything more than "principles" which are "fundamental", and in that sense, we could just as easily point this at Fundamental (a disambiguation page). The phrase is used on Wikipedia, but in this same, non-idiomatic way. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD, effectively per WP:XY. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The redirect could cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above—not a helpful redirect, and excessively confusing. Catrìona (talk) 03:47, 19 November 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 Retargeted to Language Movement Day. Nomination withdrawn. wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ekushe february → Bengali language movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ekushey February → Bengali language movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are mentions in several articles of various works with this title, so instead of arbitrarily redirecting to one of them, it's best to let the search engine reveal them all. Given that the mentions are all in passing and so there's no substantial content about any of these entities, I don't see the creation of a disambiguation page as a viable option. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retargeted to Language Movement Day, the clear primary topic. Ekushey (deleted article was a copyvio of What is the meaning of Ekushey) means 21st in the Bangla language. In Bangladesh, 'Ekushey' is synonymous with 'Ekushey February', an alternative name for Language Movement Day – a Bangladesh holiday known by its date, as Fourth of July or 9/11 in the US. Template:Language Movement lists two things whose name is derived from the alternative name of the holiday, Ekushey Book Fair and Ekushey Padak. Per Ekushey Padak § Etymology the name Ekushey is important to Bengali nationalism, referring to 21 February 1952, commemorated as Language Movement Day and International Mother Language Day. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ooops, I'd failed to notice that the redirect's title could refer to the holiday: it's a clear primary topic here and so the redirects should be retargeted. Thanks to wbm1058 for finding that out and for expanding the articles concerned. This nominatino can be considered withdrawn. – Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 21 November 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• PC Expert (Dungeons & Dragons) → List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• PC Expert (Dungeons and Dragons) → List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was promptly moved to Expert (Dungeons & Dragons generic class) shortly after creation, then redirected to the list. This leftover is misleading and should be deleted. I thought it was a joke redirect at first. Xezbeth (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - "player class expert"? Or opposed to NPC Expert? Seems harmless, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector - harmless and gets people to the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 18 November 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bola de Drac → Dragon Ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Spanish name for the series. Should fall under the inappropriate redirects part of WP:FORRED. Xezbeth (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Japanese series' name direct-translated to Spanish isn't useful for English readers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 17 November 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.