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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Janī → Homosexuality in Japan#Japanese gay slang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to non-existent section, term is not mentioned on page. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2019 (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) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Melt with You (Carly Rae Jepsen song) → Kiss (Carly Rae Jepsen album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the mantra of this project is that redirects are cheap, this one isn't. There is no discussion of the supposed song at the destination and so a reader will be left wondering why they were redirected. It turns out that song is included as a bonus track on one of the many special editions of the album. Perhaps a different target is appropriate. If not, delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know how this redirect isn't WP:CHEAP. If this were to be deleted, that would mean every redirect for a track on an album should be deleted as well and that would set a worrying precedent. There does not need to be some in-depth discussion of a song at a target; in most cases it just needs to be mentioned. Ss112 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you can read, but I explained why this is a terrible redirect. Find the text or point to where in the article it's discussed, and then it makes sense for this entry to be deleted. If others need to be deleted as well, you can decide. Template_talk:Track_listing#Hiding_bonus_tracks Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, same condescending question to you: I don't know if you can read, but i said the title of redirects don't need to be discussed, merely mentioned. It is mentioned in one of the track listing templates and you know this given the linked discussion. By all means, please point me to where on Wikipedia it says a valid redirect needs discussion on the target article rather than just a mention and then you might have a point. Ss112 22:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that it cannot be found on the page by default. We should not confuse readers by pointing them to an article where they cannot find the content they're looking for. We should also not create redirects just because we can and because they're cheap either, but that's another discussion altogether. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then the track listing should be un-collapsed; in fact, I just might make it un-collapsed. Until there's a rule not to create redirects in this manner, I will continue to create them when I think they are valid. Ss112 22:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unambiguous search term with no other possible targets. Granted, there might not be much at the target page, but someone specifically searching for info about this song might be pleased to know which version of the album it was included on. I certainly don't see any harm in it. (Disclosure: My input was requested by Ss112) PC78 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So someone is going to type that exact phrase? I doubt it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shows up as an option when one types in "Melt with You", so it's possible. Who are we to say what readers are and aren't going to searching for at some point? Ss112 00:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ((R from song)). Someone searching for this song will learn that it is a Japanese bonus track for the target album. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak(ish) keep: Doesn't seem like a problematic redirect as long as the song is mentioned in the target, which actually does contain some information on it in the track listing. In other words, there is not much discussion, but it is not nonexistent, and having a redirect from the song title does no harm. Geolodus (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: It's a Common practice here to redirect bonus tracks to the required album especially if the artist has released multiple albums.

DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Moises Castro → Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym#Professional career  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unrelated names Brayan Jaimes (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:RFOREIGN translations are not appropriate as redirects for common words/concepts Polyamorph (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymond1922 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The language of this redirect is Polish. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:27, 11 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuzail Ambar Nasiri → Fuzail Ahmad Nasiri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not appear to be an alternative name for the subject based on the result of DuckDuckGo, Google, and Google Scholar searches _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 8 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misleading and incorrect, the Iberian Union was not a republic, nor is "republic" mentioned anywhere in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I considered retargetting to something Portugal-related as that country actually is a republic, but that option would not be much less misleading. Geolodus (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Marketing performance measurement → Marketing accountability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion suggested. This is a marketing WP:NEOLOGISM and an associated article was removed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing performance measurement. The redirect makes no sense as mentions on the target were unsourced and have been removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent deletion: delete after Category:Marketing performance measurement has been deleted; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_8#Category:Marketing_performance_measurement Dpleibovitz (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2019 (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 all. 60056 was the closest, between a no consensus and delete outcome. I ultimately found for the delete voters since they convincingly argued regarding the lack of substantive content about the subject. We may expect search results to be about as helpful. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 20346 AD → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 52005 → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 60056 → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless redirects from random far-future years. We could, in principle, have thousands, millions, or even billions of these redirects that no one will search for. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: -- CptViraj (📧) 08:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as meaningless search terms Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore original: 60056 is not a random year. The original article for it (which I created 12 years ago) was far more useful than the redirected article Timeline of the far future which doesn't mention 60056 or, as far as I can see, anything like it for another year. It read:

Year 60056 is a common year of the Gregorian calendar.

The internal date encoding system of NTFS and Windows NT (and their descendants) is limited to the range up until about May 28 in 60056. This is similar to the Year 2000 problem and Year 2038 problem.

• Delete the first two per nom. 52005 was previously kept at RfD in 2007 (see discussion) due to its history, but the KEO satellite hasn't even been launched yet so speculative dates for its return are unsuitable for a redirect. Unsure about 60056 due to that content having been merged, even of it doesn't appear in the current target; maybe retarget to NTFS where the year is mentioned in the infobox (though maybe the full date would make a more useful redirect?), but oppose restoring a few lines of unsourced trivia. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least the first two; random future dates with no obvious significance. I don't think the third redirect should be left as is either, so delete or weak retarget to NTFS which mentions it in the infobox. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three since they don't even appear in the target. The 60056 is just a bit of trivia. Pichpich (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget 60056, probably to NTFS since that's about the system with this issue. Other two don't seem justified or likely searches, and don't have relevant encyclopedic content elsewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 21 August 2019 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ali Pur(Punjnad) → Alipur  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to the edit history, this redirect may once (in 2007) have been a badly-written unreferenced article about Alipur (Muzaffargarh) (which is a redirect). I doubt whether the original article is salvageable The qualifier is not spaced. Punjnad is mentioned in the article, and is apparently not a misspelling of Punjab. Delete per WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to tell, but this may be an early version of Alipur Tehsil which is also described as "an administrative subdivision of Muzaffargarh District". It's not clear what distinction there is between this and Alipur (Muzaffargarh), perhaps this is meant to refer to Alipur City which is mentioned in the article? PC78 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If we can't decipher it, we can't expect readers to (if they would even try!). --BDD (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (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) 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rossiyskaya Federaciya → Russia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Rossijskaja Federacija → Russia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Rossijskaq Federaciq → Russia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED, we don't need these alternative latinizations of the country's name. Rossijskaja Federacija is used by South Slavic and West Slavic languages, Rossiyskaya Federaciya mixes transliteration conventions and does not correspond to any single convention that I'm aware of. Rossijskaq Federaciq mixes latinization and some truly terrible faux-Cyrillic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rossijskaq Federaciq is how you would type the official Russian name of the country using the Russian phonetic keyboard layout Barracuda41 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. The phonetic keyboard would produce a variant with both Russian and Federation ending in an 'a', not a 'q'. Even if it were, why would anyone after the English language version type in a search transliterating from Russian? Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  However, the image on Phonetic keyboard layout shows a keyboard with Я for Q, so if you are a learner of Russian and don't know the traditional JCUKEN keyboard yet, to type Российская Федерация on the Russian phonetic keyboard layout you would have to type "Rossijskaq Federaciq" Barracuda41 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is English language Wikipedia. If people are searching for non-English spelling, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication that they're not after the English language Wikipedia article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  However, the article is about Russia, so Russian versions and romanizations of the country ARE ALLOWED, just like how Ukrainian names for Ukraine are allowed. Barracuda41 (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects from transliterations of foreign terms are only useful redirects on en.wp if those transliterations are used in English language contexts or are going to be seen by English speakers in the absence of any language context. Someone using a transliteration of "Russian Federation" used only in e.g. Polish language contexts is going to be seeking information about the Russian Federation in Polish, not in English. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And then Rossiyskaya Federatsiya, Российская Федерация and Россия redirects to Russia and Rossija and Rossiya reference Russia, so why doesn't my redirect work? Barracuda41 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that begs the question of why those redirects exist on English Wikipedia. I think you've pointed to another 3 to 5 which need to go. My thoughts are that all 5 are heavily redundant other than "Rossija" and "Rossiya". I don't see why a native English speaker would even have encountered either version, but it's a DAB page referring to articles using "Rossiya" in their WP:TITLE. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, if the country speaks more than English or doesn't speak English at all, there should be redirects of its name in its official languages! If Espana, Italia, Deutschland, Polska etc work, why doesn't a ROMANIZED version of Россия (it's romanized for those who don't know the Cyrillic script in case you didn't know that, and that is totally fine on Wikipedia) work????Barracuda41 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If these terms are used in areas where Russian is or was spoken, there is a direct connection between these terms and the article subject and it is therefore perfectly okay to have redirects from foreign language terms to our local article for them.

Of particular importance would be a redirect from the term used in Russia itself, in Cyrillic as well as in all common transliteration schemes (there are several). However, with Russian's history in mind, this idea can be reasonably extended to terms from areas under (former) Russian influence. So, having the Polish term for Russia as a redirect would be okay, but this would not hold true for the Spanish term.

Wikipedia is an international project and the language entities exist only because of the language barrier (which we are trying to overcome). We can reasonably expect that people from Russian-influenced areas will use the English WP as well. And if they find a term in a book, they can rightfully expect that the term properly resolves to our local article about it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this principle ends when the redirect in question would cause a problem with other meanings in the English WP. In some cases an disambiguation page might be the right tool, in other cases, our local term takes precedence over the foreign one. However, such a conflict does not seem to exist for the redirects mentioned above, therefore there is no valid reason to delete them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone grees with me! However, the country names in their official languages list are just other examples of official country names redirecting to the English versions since this is English Wikipedia. With Russia (Россия) that's fine too but why not its long name's romanization (Rossijskaq Federaciq)?Barracuda41 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first two. #2 is a perfectly valid transliteration (see Romanization of Russian), #1 is quite plausible, even if no existing formal transliteration scheme that I'm aware of has both c for ц and ya for я. #3 is one of the ways in which a Russian speaker can informally type out the name if forced to use the Latin script, but I don't think anyone would expect that to work when searching here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it isn't that known, people who use the JCUKEN phonetic keyboard layout (you know what i mean, for example фывапролджэ -> fywaproldv ) would get "Rossijskaq Federaciq" if they typed "Российская Федерация". Barracuda41 (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2019 (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.