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) 01:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesse fonseca → Kumbia Kings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in its targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searches refer to non-notable business people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:51, 12 February 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) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL → COBOL  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ADD 1 TO COBOL → COBOL  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion. This is the punchline of an obscure computer programming joke, along the lines of "if the language after C was called C++, then the language after COBOL should be called ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL". I can't imagine who would look it up and even the joke isn't all that well known; I could hardly find it in print sources via searching Google Books. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On first glance this is very implausible, but it's been around since 2002(!) and got just over 300 hits last year and not quite 100 more the previous year. This suggests that there is some value in keeping it, or at least doing something with it other than deletion. I'm not immediately sure what that something is though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is referenced in reliable sources [1],
• Delete. While this joke is better known in the COBOL community, I agree it is still to obscure too keep this redirect. Googling for sources doesn't turn up any notable reference to this joke, so I don't think we can even include it in actual COBOL page.EdwardH (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling for sources doesn't turn up any notable reference to this joke, so I don't think we can even include it in actual COBOL page. John C. Mitchell mentions it in one of his textbooks [2]. (FOLDOC also cites an impressive-sounding source for the joke - the ACM SIGPLAN newsletter for April 1992 [3] - but that actually turns out just to be a reprint of a Usenet post.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you google "ADD 1 TO COBOL" this redirect is what pops up and could explain the views (though I don't know with certainly if that was true before the nomination). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A pointless relic of Wikipedia's early days. Stan (talk) 04:42, 12 February 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. The community can't decide whether retarget or disambiguate is better (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Parturient → Childbirth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parturition → Childbirth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parturiency → Childbirth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Partuition → Birth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Parturient" isn't mentioned in the target, so someone who searches for this in search of a definition is left none the wiser. This might be best converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary, or deleted so that the Wiktionary entry appears alongside possibly useful Wikipedia articles when one searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, parturition is mentioned (in the infobox). Childbirth is human parturition, while "parturition" redirects to the article. I would expect "parturition" to redirect to birth instead, because that would be more accurate. And I would therefore also expect "parturient" to redirect there (note that one of the links from "parturient" is in Cotswold sheep). Treat as a veterinarian matter, therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I retargeted parturition from birth to childbirth yesterday, because it's mentioned in the latter but not (or only in a reference) in the former. Perhaps I should have brought it to RfD instead. Some dictionary definitions of "parturition" define it as synonyous with childbirth (e.g. Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Britannica), though some don't (Cambridge), and Collins treats childbirth as part of the American English definition but not the British English. If you or someone else were to add a mention of the word to the birth article I'd be happy for parturition to redirect there. (There's a separate question of whether a mention of "parturition" at either/any target is sufficient for a redirect from "parturient" to be useful; my feeling is that it is not.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the issues lie in the articles, not the redirects. As for utility: if a user tries a term in the search box, and gets nothing at all, they are no further forward. If they are sent to a synonym and don't know why, they are still somewhat informed. It depends which search they use, they may find places an uncommon term occurs, and learn from context. I would have thought that adding a dicdef of "parturition" to birth, as a veterinarian term, would be a service to the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possibility of "getting nothing at all" though, apart from in the very unlikely event of the wiktionary entry parturition (or parturient) being deleted. So long as the Wiktionary entries exist they'll be shown in the sidebar of Wikipedia searches. I agree with your final sentence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arms & Hearts: remember that not everybody will see search results (it depends on how they arrived at the title and what platform they are using at least), and not everybody see sister project links - e.g. I don't when using the Android app. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Horse breeding and right whale link to parturition; we need to make sure that the target talks about birth of horse and whale children. wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Turning this into a Wiktionary redirect implies moving Parturition (Star Trek: Voyager) to primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 30#Parturition closed as retarget to Birth. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Reverting to the disambiguation started by Neelix in November 2006 seems like the best compromise solution (the Star Trek Voyager episode "Parturition" was written with the specific goal of resolving Neelix and Paris's animosity, and dealing with Neelix's jealousy over Kes once and for all). Just replace the one line:
  • Parturition, the act of giving birth to a child

  with two items:

  • Birth
  • Childbirth

and add in a ((Wiktionary)) link for good measure. –wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget back to birth per the previous RfD and the above since the term is not specific to humans. I think the Star Trek episode is best handled with a hatnote since "birth" would be the primary topic in my opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:29, 1 February 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) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Adélie Linux → Alpine Linux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete this redirect, it makes no sense (reasons 5 and 10). While Adélie shares a few similarities with Alpine, the two distros are not related; Adélie's origins lie elsewhere (the project started as a Gentoo overlay). Furthermore, Adélie isn't even mentioned in the Alpine article. The founder of Adélie also thinks the redirect should be removed, and commented on its talk page. --FalconL (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Disclosure: I'm on Adélie's core) Adélie at one point did a lot of work to be somewhat compatible with Alpine, but was never a fork or derivative of Alpine Linux. In addition, it has rather different use-cases. We're not yet notable enough to have our own Wikipedia page, so this can't be solved by someone simply doing some research and fleshing things out. Therefore, I'm in favour of deletion of the redirect until such time as we make it big, or at least get mentioned in a few trade rags :) Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 02:14, 12 February 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) 03:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvo (comics) → List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Salvo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No information at target. There was a decision to delete this article in 2010 ([4]). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) The same can be said of Static (Marvel Comics), Elysia (comics), Tartarus (Marvel Comics), and Seth (Neo). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:43, 3 February 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. (I shouldn't have relisted it.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox GAA player3 → Template:Infobox Gaelic Athletic Association player  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and not a good redirect name as ((Infobox GAA)) has itself been moved and there is no GAA player2 for there to be a 3. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 3 February 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. (I shouldn't have relisted it.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nordic cuisine → Category:Scandinavian cuisine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Scandinavian cuisine → Category:Scandinavian cuisine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nordic cuisine and Scandinavian don't really exist (or at least if they do, no-one has yet written an article about the topic/s). The category has 5 entries which are not really about Scandinavian cuisine per se, and splits into subcategories for constituent nations. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:04, 3 February 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) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 10^40 → Names of large numbers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirecting randomly created numbers are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, especially since 10^40 doesn't have a name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since 40 is not divisible by 3 (the number doesn't have a name that doesn't include "hundred"), and it's not Googol (10^100, a large number that's a exception to the "divide power by 3" naming convention). Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1039 which contains an entry for 10⁴⁰. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It says "Cosmology: The Eddington–Dirac number is roughly 10⁴⁰." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:44, 13 February 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 The City That Never Sleeps (nickname). Per WP:RELIST, I see consensus, so I'm closing this prior to 7 days passing the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• City That Never Sleeps (city) → List of nicknames of New York City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Makes no sense to have this, especially because it redirects to a page where the word "city" is already in the title anyways. Seems redundant to have the word city twice in the same title. Goveganplease (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the 1953 film City That Never Sleeps refers to Chicago. Otherwise there could be a disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to (nickname). Good find! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The City That Never Sleeps (nickname) which states "the term has been applied to other cities". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. If this were applied to only one city it would be a good search term for that city, but as there are multiple such cities this is best thought of as a ((R from incomplete disambiguation)). Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget' per above two comments. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:00, 10 February 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.