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 delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• San João Baptista → Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San Joao Baptista → Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San João Baptista Island → Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San Joao Baptista Island → Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article says the island was named "San Juan Bautista" by a Spanish expedition. These redirects seem to be mixing up Spanish and Portuguese ("San" is Spanish, "João" is Portuguese, and I believe "Baptista" is Portuguese, although Batista seems to be the usual form). São João Batista (Portuguese) and San Juan Bautista (Spanish) both exist as dabs, so there is some ambiguity. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created these years ago and can't remember why. Maybe I saw it used somewhere. Since there are dabs for both the Spanish and Portuguese versions of St John the Baptist and this seems to be a poor mash-up of the two languages I'm very happy for them to be deleted. Thanks for picking it up, Tavix. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 7 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) feminist (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Paint (software) → Microsoft Paint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Paint (disambiguation)#Technology. Ambiguous title. I think that Paint (Software) should also be retargeted, but I'm not sure about any other redirects currently pointing to Microsoft Paint. wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, there's a stack of links to this redirect, all of them (including in GNU Paint) expecting to end up at Microsoft Paint. Paint (Software) has far fewer uses. Lithopsian (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the current target seems to be the primary topic for this search term. A hatnote to the disambiguation page can be added to aid anyone who is looking for something else. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Paint (disambiguation)#Technology consists almost entirely of WP:PTMs; none of the targets, with the exception of Microsoft Paint, call their subject "Paint". Nor can "Paint" alone be a generic term for a paint program either (e.g. no one says *"I need to draw something on my computer, what's the best paint to install"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:55, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rival Rush → Super Meat Boy Forever  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target. Apparently per various edit summaries, this is supposed to be a card game based on the related video game series. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 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. The destination of this redirect can be changed at user discretion. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Loop ramp → Interchange (road)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please either remove or add proper definition within target, as the term "loop ramp" occurs only peripherally within the latter but is not explained as such there; see also WP:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 October 26. –Neufund (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this shouldn't even be here, no proposal or expectation to remove or retarget. No fault of the redirect if the target doesn't discuss this term in intricate detail. Possibly not even a problem in the target article. Should be discussed at Interchange (road) or just boldly changed there. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: Please note that, as mentioned above, the issue has been discussed before without reaching consensus / a solution: The reader is currently redirected to the given target without finding a corresponding section or receiving appropriate information on the redirect term there.--Neufund (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Interchange (road)#Terminology (also the target of the British English equivalent term Slip road) which is the best we currently have. If you think more content needs to be added, then just be bold and write it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: As I already explained at WP:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 October 26, I'm afraid I personally do not have enough sound knowledge to add an appropriate definition.--Neufund (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really change the outcome of this discussion. This is the place to discuss whether the redirect should exist and where it should be targetted. It doesn't make any difference whether the target article explains loop ramp well or even at all. The consensus of the previous discussion was that the target could be improved to explain loop ramp better - it is currently mentioned many times but never explicitly defined. If you don't feel able to do that, the place to go is the talk page. Or just slap something in with a reference and see where it leads - remember, you're not writing what you know, but what can be substantiated from reliable references. Lithopsian (talk) 15:51, 7 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. There were some good theoretical and procedural discussion here. First, there were some concern about a WP:TRAINWRECK due to the wide range of issues and targets, but that didn't seem to be an issue in practice since nobody expressed differing opinions about any in particular. Second, there was some discussion whether some kind of protection might be better than deletion, which Uanfala made some good points why that would not be feasible. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Punjabi languege → Punjabi language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• کھڑی بول → Khariboli dialect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Khaṛi boli → Khariboli dialect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects in this topic area incur a significantly higher maintenance cost than most redirects elsewhere: people have sometimes been fond of expanding redirects into content forks, or turning existing language articles into redirects to articles about neighbouring languages (as happened to one of the nominated redirect's targets: this was quickly reverted, but in the meantime the bots that fix double redirects had managed to retarget all incoming redirects and this wasn't noticed and fixed until a year later.) Also, there's already quite a high number of redirects for the various alternative romanisations, misspellings and disambiguators. Overall, it makes sense to keep around only as many redirects as are useful to readers.

Individually, what's wrong with the nominated redirects? The first two are self-evident; the third and fourth feature a misspelling of "language" (misspellings of "language" are fine for redirects to Language, but for redirects to Pashto language it makes sense to have misspellings of "Pashto" and not of the common term "language"; these two redirects are also the only ones of their kind on wikipedia). The fifth redirect is missing the final "i" of the name, which is not a plausible misspelling (and really, we probably shouldn't be making redirects for misspellings of terms in foreign scripts even if they're plausible). The sixths one mixes styles (diacritic on the r but not on the two is: we already have Khaṛī bolī and Khari boli). – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to users involved with these redirects: Ish ishwar. AnonyLog, Pgdudda, Ellmist, Joseph Solis in Australia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If there are problems with redirects getting incorrectly overwritten the answer is (semi)protection not deletion so that much is irrelevant here. As for these specific redirects, given the different formats, different alleged problems and different targets I think splitting them into individual nominations without all the irrelevant background will have a much greater likelihood of avoiding a trainwreck. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think you can stop the double redirect bots by semiprotection, good luck, but that was only one example of the maintenance costs involved in the topic area. These redirects are obviously wonky and it would be a waste of time to discuss them individually. Though if anyone feels it's worth the community's time, then they're welcome to split the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep strictly as far as the first paragraph's concerned: per Thryduulf, we can just protect these titles when people cause the problems that you note. No opinion on your second-paragraph arguments; closing admin should ignore my vote when evaluating consensus on whether they're plausible enough to keep or implausible enough to delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the problematic edits are done by autoconfirmed editors, so protection won't help that much: unless we opt for locking up the whole area in extended confirmed prection, which is very hard to justify. And any form of protection is going to be counterproductive as there is a history of good edits by IPs. And anyway, these were only examples for the relevance of WP:COSTLY; other examples could come from the fact that many of these articles cover several closely related topics that will one day have articles of their own, and when that happens there's going to be work involved in retargeting the incoming redirects. You see, the issue that I'm trying to address here is the presence of useless redirects. The maintenance burden could become lighter if we got rid of the cruftier ones. And apologies for coming up with the obscenely lengthy two-paragraph long nomination, but I was intending this to be something I could point back to from subsequent nominations of other groups of redirects in this area (though by now, I think I've given up on that). – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, since you're mostly going for the stuff that you consider useless anyway, that's fine; I just don't think we ought to trash something merely because people are making a mess of it. Making mess + not useful, sure that's fine to trash. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Uanfala has made good arguments of what's wrong with each of these redirects. Deryck C. 16:38, 13 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) 15:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 Puchuncaví earthquake → Geology of Chile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2007 Puchuncavi earthquake → Geology of Chile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No related content in the target article, and that makes sense, as this was a non-notable earthquake. WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines. Dawnseeker2000 01:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of earthquakes in 2007, which mentions the earthquake in question. Whether it should be listed there is an open question, as all the other earthquakes in that list have their own articles (and lists usually either contain only notable entries or only non-notable entries), but at present it's the best target. This also needs to be kept in some form per WP:ATTREQ, as content from the article previously at this location was merged into the target in April 2013. The arguments about notability above are entirely beside the point, as redirects are not required to refer to notable topics. @Dawnseeker2000: do you want to add 2007 Puchuncavi earthquake to this nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. This earthquake has since been removed from List of earthquakes in 2007 list. Since it occurred two weeks ago, it's a long enough time for the edit to "stick". With nowhere else to retarget, that leaves deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at leaste the second one, given that the mention at List of earthquakes in 2007 has been removed and it appears that another mention isn't likely to be coming back. But then there's the tricky attribution question: the first redirect was once an article that was merged into Geology of Chile, and even though the merged text has long been removed (and isn't coming back) it potentially is an issue that it's still visible in old revisions of the page. Some guidance in this situation can be gleaned from WP:MAD and, more specifically, from this 2010 discussion. I'm not sure it's entirely warranted to be fretting about the attribution in this case, but one possible way to preserve it is to keep the redirect's history at a different title, one that would be eligible as a redirect to that article; it's difficult to come up with sensible redirects here, but Geological hazards in Chile would probably do. – Uanfala (talk) 15:41, 14 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 retarget to Brownie. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural nomination: I have closed this RM discussion as consensus to move the page. There's a subdiscussion inside on whether to redirect this title to Brownie or Chocolate brownie. The consensus on that is not clear, so will like to determine that here. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No PT for now, either redirect to Brownie or create a separate DAB at Brownies. For the reasons given at User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic, and Talk:Cheddar, Somerset#Requested move due to internal and external links pointing to Scouting. I don't think we should make PT swaps for relatively significant topics. I'd be open to revisiting it in a few months or maybe a year, but I think its not been established that the chocolate is the clear PT for just "Brownies". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Chocolate brownie. Clear primary topic.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flooded with them hundreds (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It should point to Brownie. The other suggestion is nonsense as chocolate brownie is not the primary topic for the singular term, so why on earth should it be for the plural? Brownies (Scouting), Brownie (folklore) and Brownie (camera) are all major topics and can be referred to in the plural. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Brownie Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page at Brownie. There is no clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Brownie per Xezbeth. I agree that there's no primary topic and no reason for the singular and plural to point to different targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Chocolate brownie as clearly the primarytopic here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Brownie dab as above. not only food items or Scouts, but names of films, media and other dabs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 10 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.