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 by RHaworth. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My cocaine → Michael Caine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not drunk enough to put any sense into this redirect. Sam Sailor 21:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although saying it out loud does make it sound like the target. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 04:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unspecified gag name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:09, 14 October 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 User:Masem/Trainspotting. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't understand the link between Wikipedia:TRAINSPOTTING and Wikipedia:Fancruft. This is simply an implausible redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to User:Masem/Trainspotting which is an essay referenced in the only discussion where WP:TRAINSPOTTING is linked (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 30#Trainspotting), that explicitly references the term being used in edit summaries. Unless Masem has any objections to this of course. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: That wouldn't work because it would meet WP:CSD#R2 and get speedy deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pkbwcgs: WP:R2 only applies to redirects from the main namespace. This redirect is in the Wikipedia namespace, so R2 would not apply no matter which namespace it targets. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We should (and do) avoid sending WP space redirects to user space. I don't think it's necessary given its low use. --Izno (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no general issue with WP: shortcuts to userspace essays, there are plenty of them (although of course my mind has now gone blank for examples). Some specific userspace essays have had WP shortcuts deleted, but these are rare and I can only think of examples where the essay was contentious or significantly at odds with policy or widespread consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to User:Masem/Trainspotting. Redirects, including shortcuts, from the projectspace to the userspace are acceptable and useful. I disagree that they are avoided and view them as commonplace. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you don't don't understand something - that does not make it implausible. Trainspotting and Fancruft are variations of the same issue - excessive unrequired detail in articles generally originating from fanaticism. The term was often being used in edit summaries so I created the link as I was always having trouble finding the fancruft essay to refer to - I was not aware of the user space essay. That being said - while retargetting is okay - I would probably encourage that the components of the Trainspotting essay actually be included in the Fancruft essay, making for a more complete single location on the whole concept. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:45, 14 October 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) 05:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• CNCo → China Navigation Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be straight up deleted, or retargeted to CNCO as this is much more likely to be a search term for the group. NØ 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion certainly isn't the right call here as it's a correct search term for the company. The primary topic for the four letters is clearly the band as the first 40 (at least) hits on Goolge are related to them, however Google searches are case insensitive so those results are not definitive from just numbers alone. Of those 40 hits, 39 refer to the band as "CNCO" and 1 (Getty Images) as "Cnco". Searching instead for "CNCo" "China Navigation Company" 38 of the first 40 hits use the capitalisation "CNCo" and 2 (Radio Holland and "All About Shipping", which may not be reliable) use "CNCO". Put together, I'm not seeing evidence that someone using this redirect is likely to be looking for anything other than the current target, but a hatnote can be added pointing to the band to cater for anyone who is (a hatnote for the other direction already exists). Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's reasonably commonplace, if a bit counterintuitive, for articles to have titles that differ only by capitalisation – see WP:DIFFCAPS, which gives the examples Red meat and Red Meat and Maven and MAVEN. CNCo and CNCO is another situation where, as that policy says, "typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings" and in which, where hatnotes exist to direct the reader to the desired article, "small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics". (So if this is kept a hatnote for CNCO should be added to the target.) I find it hard to believe that "CNCo" is "much more likely to be a search term for the group" – "CNCO" of course is, but that's another redirect entirely. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:47, 14 October 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 No consensus on New South Wales redirects, delete the rest. Some good discussion here. There's a strong sense to delete a lot of these, but the most powerful keep arguments support keeping the ", New South Wales"-styled redirects, and I don't see sufficient consensus to delete those. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Newcastle railway station, Sydney → Newcastle railway station, New South Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

deletion) During 2016/2017 some Australian Transport templates like Template:Sydney Trains stations contained a bug whereby the links to previous and next station in many railway stations stations such as Caringbah railway station to Miranda railway station were created with a suffix like Miranda railway station, New South Wales or Miranda railway station, Sydney where such links would be shown in red as an error. In some cases links were also created with a , Victoria suffix. Instead of having the bug corrected, in many cases editors added redirects to resolve the problem. Now that the bug has been fixed these redirects are causing problems as the templates can not differentiate between valid and invalid redirects and hence still will at times use the invalid ones as valid ones, to create the links with an invalid suffix. Hence the templates have had statements added to ensure these redirects are not used. 158 such redirects have been identified - a further 157 links are listed below for the same reason. Ones theses are deleted the templates can be simplified hopefully without any bugs.. Fleet Lists (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of the listed redirects have been tagged for RfD, this is a requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these all seem like perfectly useful ((R from other disambiguation)) search terms - at least all the ones I checked were correct in terms of being in the right state. If they are causing problems with the template then the correct course of action is to correct the template. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very point of the problem is that all the redirects have the wrong state information in that stations in the Sydney region should have the , Sydney suffix while the ones outside of Sydney should have , New South Wales but they are all wrong from that perspective. Hence there appears to be little purpose in keeping them as they will never be used.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Sydney is in New South Wales, it seems like these are all useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all with incorrect disambiguation. For example, the first one implies that Newcastle railway station is in Sydney, but it is actually in Newcastle, which is 162km away from Sydney. Keep the rest. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now that the template problem has been fixed. Not plausible search terms.--Grahame (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that e.g. "Riverwood railway station, New South Wales" is not a plausible search term when Riverwood railway station is in New South Wales and the main article about Riverwood is at Riverwood, New South Wales? This is a genuine question - I honestly can't see anything implausible about it at all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • People are much more likely to search for "Riverwood railway station", where they would find what they were looking for.--Grahame (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it certainly would not be the case with ones with the , Sydney suffix where no one would be looking for Wyong railway station, Sydney. And to be consistent we should add all station names with a , New South Wales suffix if it is though that the ones listed with a , New South Wales suffix are to be retained, which I am certainly not suggesting.Fleet Lists (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep – I never saw the state of affairs where the templates were resulting in red links. I was originally called in to look at a case where a station was missing from a station template's list, one with a blank default case, resulting in a confusing blank result. I also never found anything other than the station template code itself that explained how they were intended to be used. By having a default that looked for disambiguated cases first (agree that parenthetical disambiguation would have been better than comma), then for the non-disambig case, the templates could cover nearly all of the stations without having to explicitly list them. Instead, it appears that people chose to make the station templates be lists, sometimes with a default and sometimes not, and - to further complicate things - people added redirects with disambiguations where they where not required.
  Since the redirects are essentially harmless as long as they point to the correct article, I don't see any strong need to delete them, even if they contain the wrong state (I think that's what Fleet Lists means by "invalid" redirects). The path by which we got to the current state had some unfortunate turns, but I believe we should let the current state persist in the absence of some proposal to fix the templates to have a consistent (and documented, please!) approach. [My proposed approach appears at User talk:Jmcgnh#New South Wales stations with suffix.] — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all "New South Wales" disambiguated stations, because they are all in New South Wales. Delete the three "Victoria" disambiguated stations, because they are not in Victoria". Weak delete the "Sydney" disambiguated stations, because they are not formally in Sydney. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, many are not really correct, and none are needed now that the problem has been fixed. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 29 hours have passed since this nomination was created and it appears that no effort has yet been made to tag any of the redirects in question. See WP:RFD#HOWTO. (Aside from apparently being too much work to tag 158 redirects, it's also very hard to accurately reach any conclusion on their fate, which is why I'm not !voting – clearly there are some with objectively accurate descriptors after the comma, some with objectively inaccurate descriptors, and others that are more ambiguous, but I've got better things to do than try to sort through them.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done, note for closing editor, as this was not performed until 15 October, earliest closure date for the discussion should be extended by 48 hours to reflect this oversight. Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not likely search terms, many of the towns / cities in which the stations are located are hundreds of kilometres from Sydney. Ockstherooty (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, as long as the bug has gone away, and thank you to whoever fixed it. Will this stop them appearing on "missing articles" lists too? (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales/Missing topics) If not, they have a potential to reappear as this might have been the original vector for creation. There appear to be a number of xxx railway line, Sydney articles for country branch lines in that missing topics list which are presumably "required" by the same or a related bug. There's also a few odd ones like Bourke railway station, Sydney redirects to Bourke, New South Wales, but Bourke railway station is presently a red link. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these redirects are deleted, they should turn from blue to red on the "missing article" lists and should then no longer cause any problems. As long as they are here they can cause a potential problem. Some more changes are to be made to the templates but these will depend on whether these redirects are still present or not. The red links referred to are as far as we know true missing topics and not related to the bug but will be investigated during the further changes to be made. There is no article for Bourke railway station hence the redirect is to the locality name instead which is normal. I am not aware of any red links to Bourke railway station in any articles but please let me know if there are and they will be investigated.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the template is automagically linking to Bourke, New South Wales. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thanks for fixing the bug Newystats (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The few redirects here that are both accurate and helpful, e.g. Liverpool railway station, New South Wales, are covered by synonyms such as Liverpool railway station, Sydney. Please can an expert check the few uses of ((Closed Lines stations))? The footers of Blackalls Park railway station and Toronto railway station link to deletion candidate Fassifern railway station, Sydney but that should fix itself on deletion. Certes (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the "New South Wales" suffixes. This is a reasonable redirect - the stations are indeed in New South Wales. Delete the "Sydney", "Victoria", etc. suffixes for stations that are not in those places.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The redirects have been tagged, but some do not transclude the ((rfd)) template. 66.87.148.148 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helensburgh, given the hatnote at the article and the fact it's the first station on the line outside the Sydney suburban area. Weak keep the "New South Wales" ones and the following plausible "Sydney" ones: Picton, Gosford, Woy Woy, Katoomba, Bargo, Point Clare, Blue Mountains railway line. Delete the others. Gareth (talk) 18:20, 15 October 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) 09:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bailey Company → Arby's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Bailey Company is an insignificant former Arby's franchisee that had previously serviced an extremely small area in Colorado before the company dissolved. It is not mentioned in the Arby's article. I doubt it warrants in inclusion. Fails WP:N. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Confusing and misleading: primary topic of "The Bailey Company" based on google hits is The Bailey Company. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned in the target and there aren't any more plausible targets that I can see. None of the three articles that mention "the Bailey Company", or the greater number that mention "Bailey Company" without the definite article, discuss an entity by that name in enough depth for a redirect to be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 14 October 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) 15:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Glenbrook railway station (New South Wales) → Glenbrook railway station, New South Wales  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Unused redirect with non standard station name. Fleet Lists (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly harmless ((R from other disambiguation)). Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or reverse. In my opinion, using parenthetical disambiguation should be how stations are disambiguated since they are not localities. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parenthetical disambiguation is used for stations in countries with naming conventions (e.g. WP:NCUKSTATIONS, WP:USSTATION, WP:CANSTATION), but no naming conventions exist (that I've found) for Australian stations (a suggestion for a global naming convention for stations was rejected a few months back). Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations) which is currently being drafted,Fleet Lists (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: redirects are not required to abide by naming conventions or to be used. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:00, 14 October 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 per nomination. DrKay (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retarget to Wakin goldfish. I have been trying to clean up a lot of information recently added to Goldfish-related articles when I stumbled on this redirect. Wakin goldfish is a newly created article about, according to it "the second variety, developed from the common goldfish". If it is truly a distinct variety from the Common Goldfish, the redirect to Wakin should point to it, not Common Goldfish. I am nominating it here because Wakin was once its own article [1] and as a result of a proposed merge, became redirected to Common Goldfish, so I don't want to unilaterally override that consensus. Furthermor, the Wakin goldfish artilce has multiple issues that make determining its accuracy difficult. However, it is still a cited page that seems to me like the more appropriate target for this redirect. No matter what, something must be done because Common Goldfish doesn't mention the Wakin at all. HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. (I think unilaterally overriding the existing consensus – which, as far as I can see, was the result of a tag being placed on an article for a week in 2004, during which time no discussion occurred – would have been the right move here, but I suppose there's no harm in confirming that through discussion.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, with thanks for asking for feedback here before taking action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 16 October 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.