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) 18:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:00sbox → Template:Decades  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Template:00sboxBC → Template:DecadesBC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No one is ever going to use these names. Templates were moved to better names and these pages remain as useless redirects. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First off, the target templates have been nominated for deletion: regardless of where that apepars to be going, BrandonXLF, it's always best to wait until is is over: if the result is "delete", then these redirects would be deleted as well, and there would be no need for us to be discussing them here. If the outomce is "keep", however, these redirects should be kept as standard ((R from move))s: the templates were at these titles for a decade until they were renamed not two days ago. And I'm not even sure the new titles are better: they're rather vague and can easily be confused with Template:Decade. – Uanfala (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uanfala. Even if these weren't redirects from moves, we're almost never going to discuss redirects to pages currently nominated for deletion. If you really think these redirects should be deleted then nominate them again after the discussion about the templates has concluded (assuming the templates are not deleted, if they are then these will be speedily deleted under criterion G8). Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Template:Decades was kept at TfD. The discussion regarding Template:DecadesBC remains open. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The deletion nomination has been reopened and relisted here. Hddty. (talk) 05:18, 23 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) 18:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Peacock tail → Peafowl#Plumage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguate, as seen in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacock_tail&oldid=864530349. Prior to my edits, the two alternative capitalizations of Peacock tail and Peacock Tail pointed to different places. The first pointed, as it does now, to Peafowl#Plumage. The second pointed to Butterfly tail (goldfish), as seen in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacock_Tail&oldid=622270444. Jikin also redirects to Butterfly tail (goldfish). This source http://www.bristol-aquarists.org.uk/goldfish/jikin/jikin.htm confirms that the Jikin and Peacock Tail goldfish varieties are the same. So if existing consensus is correct and Jikin and Butterfly Tail are the same, there needs to be a way for editors to get from Peacock Tail to Butterfly tail, as they are different names for the same goldfish variety. If existing consensus is wrong and Jikin is distinct from Butterfly Tail, there is still a need for disambiguation, but it would just point to a new Jikin article instead. HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no inbound links other than for a valid math article - http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeacockTail.html Assuming that peacock tail refers to the technically correct peacock train (and not metaphorical usage for objects of ostentation) - it should point to the Indian peafowl section and not to the generic peafowl article as most references are to that species and not to the rather rare African or Indo-Malayan species. Shyamal (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No inbound links isn't a good reason to delete a redirect. It seems that the decision should be either what target is most appropriate, or if there are multiple possible targets without an obvious primary then make a disambiguation page. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The stats (54 hits before the nomination this year, 58 hits last year) show that this is a term that readers are searching for and the current target is clearly a plausible thing for them to be looking for and, given the wealth of information about peakcock's tails there, those who are looking for this cannot be provided for better by Wikipedia. Google results strongly indicate that the current target is what most people are looking for as every single one of the first 40 hits are about the plumage of male peafowl birds (either directly or indirectly, e.g. "Like a peacock's tail, our wines cover the wide spectrum of all the colours of the rainbow,"). Other uses of the term should be linked in a hatnote at the target section directly or via a non-primary disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At present Butterfly tail (goldfish) doesn't mention "peacock tail", so if this were to be a disambiguation page the goldfish wouldn't need to be listed per WP:DABMENTION. Even if the name was mentioned in the goldfish article, there's generally no need for a disambiguation page with only two entries per WP:TWODABS – they can be distinguished more straightforwardly using hatnotes. To address Shyamal's separate argument: while it may the case that most references to peacocks' tails refer to the Indian peafowl, no obvious alternative target presents itself (Peafowl#Indian peafowl? Indian peafowl#Sexual selection?) and I don't think any more specific target would be more suitable than the broader topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others above, and use hatnote/s to disambiguate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 09:08, 21 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. I'll replace the five transclusions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPEP → Template:WikiProject Albums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing use for redirect. Wikipages for EP are for editing (edit policies WP:EP, edit protection (Template:EP). EPs are also not traditional albums so to use a shortcut tag such as this for any album at all is misleading. Users can simply use the more sensical ((album)) to tag the WikiProject on album article talk pages if the concern is the number of keystrokes. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep

1. "Unless a WikiProject [or anyone else, for that matter] has actually expressed interest in usurping [these redirects], I don't see [them] doing any harm." To date, no other use for ((WPEP)) has been suggested at all. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
2. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as ((tlc)) or ((tlx)) or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."

--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the other times this has come up. It's not a good idea to have cryptic template abbreviations in talk pages; using the actual template names should be encouraged instead. When editors see ((WikiProject Albums)) on a talk page, they know exactly what it is. That is not the case with ((WPEP)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could just as easily redirect to Template:WikiProject Epilepsy, for instance, and I really don't think it's worth dabifying this (scarcely used) search term. JZCL 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Projectspace and templatespace shortcuts are quite often ambiguous and are allowed to be. That aside, due to the nature of this redirect, i.e. that it is only ever likely to be used on mainspace talk pages where editors may learn from it and brevity is not high priority, I agree with Tavix that "using the actual template names should be encouraged instead." However, were it something used in discussions, e.g. ((re)), it would be perfectly acceptable. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:19, 19 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Luv Is Rage 1.9 → Lil Uzi Vert discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hoax album promoted by mixtape websites (fan-made). Flooded with them hundreds 13:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned in the target or anywhere else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:51, 19 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. Vaguely keepish, vaguely procedural, but mainly there just isn't consensus to do anything with this until other steps have been taken. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bani Fasan → Ras Al Khaimah  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Former WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND problematic geostub, someone has turned it into a redirect rather than delete it but it's useless, has no link to RAK and needs to go, IMHO... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bani Fasan is currently mentioned in the Ras Al Khaimah article under Dunes and landforms, but you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be. The coordinates given for Bani Fasan in the Ras Al Khaimah article point to a place in the western Emirate of Dubai, some distance from Ras Al Khaimah. It would be good to clarify whether the mention in the target article is accurate, and remove it if necessary, before making any decisions about this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I agree: this is cart before the horse. On the face of it the redirect is (currently) legitimate. If the article is amended to remove the mention (e.g. because the place—if it exists—is in Abu Dhabi (not Dubai) not RAK , then RfD the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 21 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) 03:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 0s (century) → 1st century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another unlikely and at the moment simply wrong redirect Fram (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this and the similar redirects below went to the wrong target at the time of nomination, hence my comments. While that issue seems to have been resolved, the basic issue that these are unnecessary redirects because these terms are not in use and make unlikely search terms remains. Fram (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete makes no sense. 1s (century) anyone? Cabayi (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cabayi's example is irrelevant; the analogous redirects are 100s (century), 200s (century) etc. Unambiguous and harmless as far as I can see. JZCL 21:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JZCL. Thryduulf (talk)
• Keep per JZCL and per my argument below. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JZCL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 24 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 000s (century) → 1st century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another unlikely and at the moment simply wrong redirect Fram (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Contrary to BrandonXLF's claim, a search of the wiki shows that 000s is only used as a method for neatly tabulating numbers in multiples of 1000. I'm not seeing a usage in relation to years. This article creates its own ambiguity in need of diambiguation. In its lack of usage elsewhere it verges on WP:A11, something made up. The same argument holds for 000s. Cabayi (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 000s is currently at AFD. JZCL 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have done Google searches of this phrase and have found no evidence of this being a term used to refer to centuries. JZCL 22:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This doesn't seem to be commonly used, but with the parenthetical disambiguation it isn't confusing or ambiguous – if "000s" is being used to refer to a century, it's certainly going to the the 1st century (in the same way 100s (century) refers to the 2nd century, 200s (century) to the 3rd, and so on, up to 2000s (century).) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This doesn't seem to be commonly used" As in, this is never used. People were born in the 1000s or in the 2000s, no one was "born in the 000s", that's just not something that gets said or written. Fram (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absurdly improbable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 24 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 0000s → 0s  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect, term is not in use for the first millenium or other time periods. Fram (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete defining units in terms of thousands makes makes 0 * 10³ sense. Cabayi (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete New redirect that only exists because of a typo. Unlikely to get usage. JZCL 21:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A more commonsensical target would presumably be 1st millennium, but I can't find any evidence that this term is used to refer to that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete improbable; as a DAB it could be merged with 0000 if there is a need for it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 24 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. No comment the suggested renaming of the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tun Tschu Chang → T. T. Chang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong target: Tun Tschu Chang is a completely different person from Te-Tzu Chang. See [1] Zanhe (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect per nom and Google, which lists Te Tzu Chang in all its top results. JZCL 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nowhere to retarget as there is no article about him, and other articles which mention him are not good retargeting options (Special:Search/~"Tun Tschu Chang"; Special:Search/~"Chang Tun Tschu"; Special:Search/~"張東柱"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redir and change the title of the target article to Te-Tzu Chang; the choice of name for the target article was plausible, but problematic (per nom) and incorrect (per JZCL). Also agree with IP 59.149.124.29.
  Additionally, the botanist abbreviation template needs to be removed from the Te-Tzu Chang article, as it’s simply inaccurate. - Hamamelis (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 59.149. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:36, 18 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The hatnote at the target is getting a bit long, and we need a disambiguation page. I'm just not sure whether unfinished creative work is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of unfinished (in which case the dab should go at Unfinished (disambiguation) instead) or not. These single-word titles are often contentious so I thought it would be better to discuss it.

Brief history: Unfinished was created as a dicdef/joke in January 2006, turned into a ((wiktionary redirect)) in March 2006, had a dab entry added to it in May 2006, and was then redirected to the current target in August 2006, and hasn't been touched since then except by bots. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab page at the base term seems to be the best option. Unfinished creative work isn't the primary topic and I don't even think it should be present on the dab page except as a see also entry. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per above. There are plenty of examples of unfinished that aren't mentioned in the hatnote, like Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. JZCL 22:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify as above which is already being developed. Unfinished symphony has been added and pushed towards the top of the Songs section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:13, 18 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) 03:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this should redirect to Tropical cyclone#Hurricane or typhoon. It shows how hurricane is used along with typhoon. Also, can you add the redirects for discussion template on this redirect? 192.107.120.90 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at the current target. The lede section of Tropical cyclone introduces and defines the search term in the terms that a reader who searches for this common word is likely to understand and find useful, while the proposed target contains no contextual information and provides information on a relatively minor semantic point rather than a general overview. (The redirect has been tagged by Kuyabribri.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I understand your reasoning. It makes me think Typhoon should be merged to this article and redirect to Tropical cyclone. What do you think? 192.107.120.90 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to propose a merge you should follow the instrutions at WP:MERGEPROP. However, the fact that Typhoon is a good article, though, and the fact that Tropical cyclone is already a very long article (161kB, well past the point where WP:SIZESPLIT says it should be split) suggest to me that there wouldn't be consensus for a merge. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing wrong with this redirect. --B dash (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep – Absolutely nothing wrong with this redirect. It is also useful for newcomers and readers for quick navigation to the specified section in the "tropical cyclone" article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This redirect is useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 22 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.