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. 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2018 Asian Games - Men's tournament 3rd place → Template:2018 Asian Games men's football 3rd place standings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:2018 Asian Games – Men's tournament 3rd place → Template:2018 Asian Games men's football 3rd place standings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: ((R from move)) Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, ambiguous. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 25 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 move article over redirect. Deryck C. 15:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 0.9 → 0.999...  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure where this should go but I'm sure it isn't here. We do not have a page on decimals like these. JZCL 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If someone copies and pastes "0.9" (which is explicitly mentioned and what the article could be titled) and uses it as a search term they are taken to this redirect and thus the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I agree with Thryduulf that there are good reasons someone looking for 0.999... might search for this, but I think there's a risk of causing confusion here that probably outweighs the benefits of keeping this. For the less mathematically competent among us the idea that 0.999... = 1 is hard enough to grasp, without seeming to suggest that 0.9 = 1 as well. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very much not mathematically inclined, but even I understood from that article that 0.9 != 0.9. A hatnote can be crafted to make it explicit if that would allay your concerns, but even without that I think the clear benefits to those using 0.9 outweigh the slight possible confusion for those looking for 0.9. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move 0.9 (album) to this title via Thryduulf (below). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change redirect This page should redirect to 0.9 (album). – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move @JZCL: 0.9 (album) to this title as there's no need for the (album) – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move 0.9 (album) to this title and add a hatnote to 0.999.... That should resolve Arms & Hearts' reservations while allowing those who do copy and paste 0.9 to find the correct article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Brandon. Nice catch! JZCL 22:57, 17 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. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Implausible redirect. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely grammar of the search term Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, unambiguous, and clearly a plausible typo, given that someone made it when creating the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arms & Hearts. The WP:COSTLY essay of which WP:RDAB is far more often wrong than it is right and so is itself harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 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. Deryck C. 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

SoundCloud is not mentioned anywhere in the target. Perhaps there’s another more suitable target that says not to use this website as a citation? 66.87.148.148 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've not found a better target, but there are so many AfDs that mention the term finding its occurrence in essays and guidlines isn't easy. That said, I would expect a mention at WP:SPS if anywhere, and there isn't one there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a search of the Wikipedia namespace that tries to filter out all that stuff. There don't seem to be any promising targets. It might be worth adding an entry for SoundCloud at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. (I thought of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources first, but RSN has only ever discussed it once so I guess it doesn't really qualify). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not mentioned in the target now or when the redirect was created. I don't think we need to have lists of sites that aren't reliable sources (per WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS), and we certainly shouldn't be creating rules or prohibitions for the sake of finding a use for a redirect created in uncertain circumstances six years ago. That Soundcloud shouldn't normally be listed as an external link is already implicit in point 10 (and perhaps point 5?) of WP:ELNO. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:47, 17 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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• William of the United Kingdom → William IV of the United Kingdom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are many people called William in the United Kingdom, including Prince William of the United Kingdom, who is the primary topic by google hits but possibly not by page views: either Retarget to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge or Disambiguate. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are indeed many people called William in the United Kingdom, but far fewer who have been of the United Kingdom (i.e. have/had a (senior?) peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom). I'll advertise this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mixed feelings its a bit vague but whats the catch all if we deleted it for 'william' Garlicplanting (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a William of England dab page that could be expanded to encompass this as well, that would be better than William. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't work though as William of England and William of the UK will include/exclude different people!Garlicplanting (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant for one dab page to list both topics, similar to how George of the United Kingdom lists all the British kings named George whether they were kings of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify or Retarget to an appropriate disambiguation page per my previous attempt. There are at least 6 British princes called William, in addition to the monarchs. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Amended 08:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been only one King of the UK (if you don't know already, familiarise yourself with the distinction between the 1707–1800 Kingdom of Great Britain versus the United Kingdom since 1801) called William, and that would be the only conceivable usage of "William of the UK"; since the only Williams who've been a Prince of the UK had territorial designations, peerages, — like the current one, who was Prince William of Wales and is now Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and has never been "Prince William of the UK" — or double forenames. DBD 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do a google search for "William of the United Kingdom" and see what hits you get. The state between 1707 and 1801 is also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• William IV wasn't "William of the United Kingdom". He had a numeral. According to your own argument, the current target is as incorrect as the proposed one. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to William of England (and expand that dab page as necessary). The difference between "of England" and "of the United Kingdom" is a fairly obscure one that we shouldn't expect readers to know in advance, and any confusion will be resolved once the reader arrives at the article they're looking for. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify as follows:

William of the United Kingdom may refer to:

• One of a number of monarchs of England
• William the Lion, a Scottish monarch
• Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, an heir to the British throne

Please do let me know if I've missed anyone. JZCL 23:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • "monarchs of England, of England, Scotland and Ireland, and of the United Kingdom", perhaps. DBD 16:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disambiguate I've drafted an option. This is tough, because there's a very good argument to be made that this is not a correct name for anything. I don't think there's a rule that says we can't have such disambiguation pages, but it seems like poor practice, that search results may be better for. I'd rather see this deleted that pointed to Prince William. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 25 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) 10:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-existent dab page, should not redirect to human name SIA. Delete. MB 03:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only a surname of people (like the disambiguation page clarifies) and AFAIR WP:HOWTODAB is the cause for the redirect. Keep. --MinesweeperFive (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:INTDABLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One could easily make a valid DAB page that strictly adheres to style guidelines (i.e. Surname(s), mountain theatre). However since most entries would be surnames, and there are not too many other entries, having a human name SIA with the other DAB entries in the See Also is preferable from a practicality standpoint. So in this case, there's additional reason beyond the normal ones to keep DAB redirects to SIAs. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now a disambiguation page as requested. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, per WP:IAR. 193.210.225.1 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that the target is a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 08:58, 17 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. These were created by Clubintermiamifan (talk · contribs) who has been blocked as a sock of Charles lindberg (talk · contribs) . Anyone in good standing may recreate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Chicago Fire (soccer club) → Chicago Fire Soccer Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chicago Fire (soccer team) → Chicago Fire Soccer Club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Both are leftovers from unexplained moves, and likely not needed since they are very similar to the target. Home Lander (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. Both are valid redirects using correct parenthetical disambiguation which are useful in differentiating the team from the historical Chicago Fire. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Neither is a valid redirect. They were recently created under the misguided premise that they ere the team's common name. They are not a plausible redirect and not a reasonable disambiguator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, I find it hard to believe that any team with a name like "Foo [generic sports team type]" is not commonly referred in informal settings as just Foo. Not sure why "soccer team" or "soccer club" would be unreasonable disambiguation, unless the Chicago Fire is somehow not a soccer team, which it obviously isn't. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both are plausible search terms, ((R from incorrect disambiguation)) can be used if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User who made the unexplained moves has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Home Lander (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't mean the redirects should be deleted. Per above they remain useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Patar knight. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 17 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.