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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are we sure that this is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for this? I mean, we even have Wikimedia Foundation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect to the broadest-scope all-encompassing article. The Foundation is part of the movement, but the movement is not part of the Foundation. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wbm1058. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 5 December 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 speedy delete. [Implausible redirect.] ... discospinster _talk 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• W i k i p e d i a → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely useless redirect. This redirect has almost no chance of being seen by anyone besides those explicitly looking for the silly redirect. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this sure seems pointless. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 4 December 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 move article over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently this is a redirect created several years ago without being reviewed. There aren't any signs in the target article that this is any type of other name, and an average of 10 pageviews per day (as reported by XTools at the time of writing) doesn't make this seem like a probable redirect from a misspelling. UnnamedUser (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ganj Dundawara (with an 'a') is the correct name of the settlement as per Indian government sources e.g [1] and it also has 321 K hits at Google, higher than the other versions of the name. Yesterday, while moving the article from "Ganjdundwara", I misspelled it as Ganj Dundwara (without the a). It would be logical to restore it to the original name Ganj Dundawara which was moved to "Ganjdundwara" in April 2013 without any discussion or proper edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, do you want to close this procedurally and move this to a requested move? UnnamedUser (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @UnnamedUser: an average of 10 page views a day is evidence of a very commonly used redirect - there are common typos that get less than that a month. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean 10 pageviews per every 30 days, or about 1/3 a day. UnnamedUser (talk) 19:15, 5 December 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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Luigi Heer → China Airlines Flight 611  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Mr Luigi Heer → China Airlines Flight 611  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A victim of the crash but not mentioned in the article because he don't have a WP article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note I've added Mr Luigi Heer to this discussion as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 5 December 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kalyanaraman (2014 film) → Venkat Prabhu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

That is not the film's title (https://www.indiaglitz.com/its-not-kalyanaraman-venkat-prabhu-tamil-news-102350) Kailash29792 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Seems like a clear cut ((R from incorrect name)) situation given the nominator's statement, but the redirect's target is a person and the redirect is not mentioned in the target. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after finding out that this redirect is a ((R with history)). I'd imagine that there is either a target for this redirect, or the history could be put in the "Draft:" namespace for now. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to its history. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see anything about this film at the target article. Combined with the sourced statement that the title is incorrect, we have a double-whammy where it's both misleading and an unlikely search term. ((R from history)) doesn't mean we can't delete. Is there any evidence that this film is still in the works? --BDD (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BDD summarizes well. Delete on the basis that it is both misleading and an unlikely search term. Cannot find evidence that the film is still in the works or that there is any development. ~riley (talk) 06:17, 17 December 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 retarget to Fire making. Consensus seems to be that this is the most logical, general target here. The target's hatnote to a disambiguation page Fire-raising in a roundabout way does link a lost reader to most other reasonable meanings, though it may be appropriate to expand the hatnotes. ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Starting a fire → Fire making  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I guess Fire starting and Firestarting should have the same target, but I am not sure that either of the existing targets is the best: considering the Wiktionary definition,Arson seems a likely candidate.

Fire starter is a stub article about a particular kind of starter used by hikers, and Firestarter is a disambiguation page. (I'm not sure the stub should be primary topic, but that is a separate argument: I've proposed a merge.) 94.21.78.76 (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the disambiguation in this area could do with a good top-down look with an eye to potential reorganisation as we also have Fire-raising (disambiguation) and Firing (disambiguation) which are terms overlapping with Fire starting and Fire making. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to dab pages. Starting a fire to Start a Fire and Fire starting can go to Firestarter which is a disambiguation. I'd recommend Fire starter go to the dab as well, and have Fire starter (hiking) disambiguated instead AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever happens, the present situation where firestarting and fire starting redirect to different articles is unacceptable. If the redirects are kept, the targets should be made consistent. JIP | Talk 14:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire making, the general article on the topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire making per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fire making is the most logical (imoh) target. ~riley (talk) 06:08, 17 December 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. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prusias is no longer a monotypic taxon, so there is no reason for this redirect to exist. Each species will now need it's own article, so this should be a redlink. Kaldari (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there's any need for discussion; just create a stub at Prusias brasiliensis. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seconded. I was going to update the genus page to show the new species added, but it looks like I already did that a couple of months ago. Sesamehoneytart 19:57, 4 December 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.