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) 05:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of universities in Abkhazia → Category:Universities in Abkhazia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have a list of universities in Abkhazia, because there is only one university in Abkhazia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Abkhazian State University which clearly states that it is the only university in Abkhazia. Taking the searcher to the only entry in a list of 1 is better than implying we have no information on the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such list exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and remove the categories per WP:SMALLCAT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 8 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 Moon people. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not so sure if this redirect should exist. For one, there is no life on the Moon. (Yet.) For two, this term also refers to a fictional race of characters in Final Fantasy IV. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Final Fantasy IV#Setting Moon people Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are other fictional uses. See the search results. Sending users there or disambiguating would be more useful than keeping or retargeting to the Final Fantasy usage. Ultimately, it would be good to have something at Moon in fiction on this. Wiktionary accepts this as a general term for fictional denizens of the moon. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To Moon people then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moon people, which is a disambiguation. Venusian disambiguates to the planet and its inhabitants. It can also house a Wiktionary box.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 8 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 Moon#Earth-Moon system. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Earth and Moon → Moon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Earth and moon → Moon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY: Earth and Moon. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Per above, I'd expect that "Moon" is a better target than "Earth" since the discussion is more likely to be at the Moon article than Earth but I agree its still XY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the information below I lean towards refining it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and refine to Moon#Earth-Moon system. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine per BDD. The Earth-Moon system is exactly where I would expect this redirect to take me; and discussing both the Earth and the Moon it avoids any XY issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Earth's natural satellites → Moon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect essentially claims that both Earth has multiple natural satellites and that the target article is about multiple natural satellites that Earth has, both of which are untrue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep As functional as things like Prime Minister of the United States. The first sentence even says "Earth's only permanent natural satellite", which addresses the error. (Have we ever had temporary natural satellites, though??) --BDD (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Claimed moons of Earth might also be a suitable target if the redirect is suggesting the presence of multiple moons, though that would redirect a title connoting truth to a list of proven falsehoods, which is probably not ideal either. ComplexRational (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. Given Jupiter's natural satellites, Saturn's natural satellites, Mars's natural satellites, etc. exist it's not unlikely someone will expect the systemic naming to continue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above. Deryck C. 18:09, 15 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) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• People from St Helens → St Helens, Merseyside#Notable People, Families & Organisations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is ambiguous, given the number of places called St Helens at St Helens. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Multiple places, no primary topic AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:38, 6 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 Computer science. Deryck C. 18:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Computer Studies → Computer science  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Computer studies → Computer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. Redirect term not included within target. Hildeoc (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a synonym, can add the ((R from synonym)) template. Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: Firstly, I wouldn't be too certain about the synonymy; cf. e. g. [1] vs. [2]. In addition, one would also still have to find a proper way of including the concept "Computer studies" within computer ...--Hildeoc (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed the one redirect in my first post, so to clarify they both should redirect to Computer science. Polyamorph (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to Computer science, which is described as the study of computers. It is not be at all difficult to find sources using the phrase, "Computer studies" (in both capitalizations) to describe the concept covered under computer science. bd2412 T 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Then it should be taken care that the term "Computer Studies" or "computer studies" is mentioned there (in boldface) as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to Computer science: Having taught Computer Studies, Computer Science and Information Technology I have a clear idea of where one starts and one ends. We have some interesting issues here- firstly Computer Science has never been a science it really is a technology, information technology has never been a technology either. In the UK schools sense- lower school (to 16) studied computers doing Computer Studies, and upper school carried on and did Computer Science which was a university application subject. When Computer Studies was made compulsory- there was a massive shortage of teachers with analysis and programming skill- so that element was ripped out and the resulting Microsoft Office studies course that remained was called Information Technology or just IT. We have an inclusion issue here- the many have heard of IT and computer studies but never of computer science. For search purposes the redirect is correct, it is a common term that leads the reader to the correct term. ClemRutter (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to computer science as the most common phrasing of CS. Information technology is mentioned several times in that subject. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter and AngusWOOF: In this case, I would like to, once more, point to the relevant guidelines.--Hildeoc (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: There are some places on Wikipedia where no same man should venture! You just directed me there! I looked at Computer Science#Education to see whether the near synonyms were in bold. Me, who have been teaching CS to eleven year olds since 1981 see that: Since computer science is relatively new, it is not widely taught in schools. I now understand your comment. I can go in and edit that section but there will be knock on effects. The correct thing to do however is to place the redirect and fight it out on the landing page. I will put a target link in the education section- and copy across some of the comment I made above.

In the UK Computing has been obligatory for children over four since 2013 (National curriculum) By 2013 there were serious doubts whether the KS4 NC could be achieve due to the 30% shortage of CD rather than IT teachers. Michael Jones Report is helpful. By co-incidence I was teaching CS/IT at his school around 2001. ClemRutter (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Thank you for your reply, but, since I'm not a native English speaker, I have to ask you for some clarifications: What exactly do mean by "no same man"? What does "CD" refer to here? And regarding the text you added in "Computer Science": What exactly is meant by the assertion that "provision was fractured" in the States?--Hildeoc (talk) 23:12, 9 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 keep. Deryck C. 18:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cartoon Network Original Series → List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as redundant. A better redirect already exists. No need for grammatically incorrect caps. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 12:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Neither redundancy nor incorrect capitalisation are reasons to delete a redirect and the current target is the best I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible search term similar to Disney Channel Original Series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 6 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) 05:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The tryicycle thief/ rhinoceritis → List of Rugrats episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as redundant. The Tricycle Thief / Rhinoceritis! already exists. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and redirects from plausible other capitalisations (such as this) are a Good Thing. Readers are not required to know our capitalisation conventions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an implausible typo, though, not just an alternative capitalization. CHEAP might apply, but in no way is this redirect a good thing. Sideways713 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too many errors to be useful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: If this redirect is fine, but unnecessary (as seems to be the consensus so far), then that opens the door for an endless directory of unnecessary redirects with typos and grammatical errors based on TV episodes. In this case, the proper redirect target would be to a specific episode or at least a specific season. Any time the target's title is modified, all redirects that point to it would also have to be modified to point to the proper target or be broken. I nominated this to lighten the workload. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spelling error + lack of spacing + capitalisation variant + missing punctuation = implausible. Any one of those is a good reason for a redirect, but maybe not any pair of them, and definitely not all four at once. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:RTYPO multiple typo issues to make it less plausible. Correct spelling will show up in search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 6 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) 05:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• THEORY OF SOCIAL RESPONSE: COMPUTERS ARE SOCIAL ACTORS → Computers are social actors  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Per WP:RCAPS UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a harmless ((R from move)). Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bizarre phrasing and caps. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Theory of social response isn't the formal pre-title of the phrase, but only used in some non-notable youtube video. [3] I'm removing that from the lead sentence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Qzekrom (talk) 19:49, 9 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) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 E100 → Googol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wrong space bar of 1E100 may be confused with other things of E100 B dash (talk) 16:15, 6 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) 05:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SelenaGomezVEVO → Selena Gomez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• NickiMinajAtVEVO → Nicki Minaj  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• BeyonceVEVO → Beyoncé  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Maroon5VEVO → Maroon 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ShakiraVEVO → Shakira  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ArianaGrandeVevo → Ariana Grande  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• OneDirectionVEVO → One Direction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• KatyPerryVEVO → Katy Perry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• TaylorSwiftVEVO → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• RihannaVEVO → Rihanna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• JustinBieberVEVO → Justin Bieber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• AdeleVEVO → Adele  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• EminemVEVO → Eminem  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page. Also they've discontinued adding 'Vevo' after the names of YouTube channels since last year. Its useless clutter.--NØ 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely pointless. I doubt anyone uses them to search for the artists. Erick (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added AdeleVEVO and EminemVEVO which should complete the set unless there is any I missed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As long as they are not used anymore in YouTube, I think that its fine.
• Delete Agreed, it's useless clutter. Qzekrom (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above obsolete, like retaining old website links. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 9 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) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• E Agta → Aeta people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "E Agta" not mentioned in it's targeted article. Implausible search term, as seen by the page views of the redirect. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's not clear what the E means in E Agta. Is it an extinct language, as in Languages of the Philippines, of which some variants of Agta are classified as E, or an external language (E-language). Or is there an Eastern Agta? Or is it something to do with Gem AGTA Codes? [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 7 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) 05:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Goel Ratzon → List of Jewish messiah claimants#21st century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not even mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:55, 6 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. Deryck C. 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Infinite Zero albums → Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This cross-namespace redirect used to target Category:Infinite Zero albums but CfD has determined this should be deleted. The closer retargeted the redirect to Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums which contains a single entry (and I imagine might also be a CfD candidate). CfD participants are @UnitedStatesian: and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated Category:Infinite Zero compilation albums for deletion (if I had known this one existed too, it could have been bundled). Infinite Zero albums can then be speedy deleted per WP:G8. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment consider Infinite Zero to go to American Recordings (record label) but at this point there isn't much to say about the album listings. Infinite Zero isn't even mentioned on Henry Rollins. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MAS 78 → FAMAS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not present in target article. PamD 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because FAMAS first use in 1978, so they may be called MAS-78, just like MAS-49Scout MLG (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then mention in target article with reference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The name really should be mentioned, but straight synonyms are one of the few cases an ((R without mention)) is acceptable, IMO. A reader familiar enough with gun culture should be helped and not surprised by this; one who isn't but reads something like "Bob was shot with a MAS 78" shouldn't be confused. If someone's wondering "why do they call it a MAS 78" we'll still fail them. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I tend to agree with BDD here. Deryck C. 14:26, 14 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• American Studies Journal → American Studies (journal)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

American Studies (journal) (ISSN 0026-3079) is not American Studies Journal (ISSN 2199-7268) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, is the second one notable enough for a stub page? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their self-description, I would say they do. It's got a relatively long history (1960, as the American Newsletter, then American Studies Newsletter from 1983+, then American Studies Journal from 1996+), with circulation in the 20,000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be mentioned at American studies#Associations and scholarly journals for now. (The ((main)) there, unfortunately, is a surprise redirect to a category.) --BDD (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but redirected there would still be a bad redirect per WP:REDLINK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Any future stub/article could then occupy the title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it's plausible to call a journal named "American Studies" "American Studies Journal". Until the other journal gets an article, I see nothing wrong with the current set-up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:31, 17 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 Dire wolf. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should be changed to redirect to Dire wolf as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I'm not sure it's obvious to most people that the spelling without a space refers to the Game of Thrones creature and not the real one. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? "I'm not sure it's obvious" is not one of the primary topic criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dire wolf as above since that already has the hatnote to Song of Fire and Ice as well as the dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Same question: while the hatnote does indeed exist, is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)? The status quo also serves reader navigation, and possibly better. And if readers primarily use the non-spaced version for the GoT creature, the improvement would be to retarget Direwolf to List of Game of Thrones characters#Animals as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and add hatnotes to that section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone made a fictional monster and called it the Cavebear, would we also redirect it to the fictional monster and not Cave bear? I think some WP:COMMONSENSE is warranted in this situation where the real creature should take priority if it even so much as a chance of being confused with the fake one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing counter to WP:COMMONSENSE being asked, so we needn't beg the question. If someone made a fictional monster and called it "cavebear", would the readers who have so far made it to cave bear without touching the redirect from cavebear[5] suddenly be seized with the desire to omit the space? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider that the direwolf is named after the real dire wolf and is defined as a larger relative of the wolf https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Direwolf Also the redirect to GoT characters does not go to a page where they explain what the heck a direwolf is. The reader is left to guess that perhaps direwolf in GoT is similar to a dire wolf. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  JHunterJ, I think it would help the case if the direwolf in GoT is actually defined somewhere in the opening of the characters list paragraph or in Westeros, like "A number of characters retain wolf-like pets called direwolves." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The things you suggest to consider do not consider what the reader is seeking when they enter "direwolf" in the search bar and go. The addition of information might indeed change the case either way, but given the current information, the question still remains "Is there any indication that people are spelling the real creature without a space (to make it the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am calling for the addition of that information. It's like if someone made up a fictional race of creatures called "vam paires", which are essentially vampires. Doing general searches would assume they are looking for vampires or vam paires in equal proportions. If the result is a link to the characters list, and the only thing it said was "JHunterJ is a vam paire", "Angus is a vam paire", then we're not getting any more knowledge about the creature, so might as well just look at the vampire page. With GoT, people search for direwolf and want to know how it differs from dire wolf or whether they are essentially the same. A presented definition would be better than no definition, and would even sway searches to look for direwolf as GoT primary topic with hatnote pointing to the dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As a followup to this, I attempted to add "direwolves" subsection with an explanation to the List of GoT characters page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (i.e. continue pointing to the dab page) per JHunterJ. I don't see any evidence Dire wolf is the WP:PTOPIC for "Direwolf". feminist (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given lack of indication to retarget. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per cursory Google searches, I think that the prehistoric creature is more of a primary topic than the GoT version. We can always a hatnote anyways. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think based on the comment that you intended to !vote Redirect? Regardless, "we can always hatnote anyways" is a valid option with the current arrangement, with retargeting to the GoT creature as primary topic, and with retargeting to the prehistoric creature. But a cursory Google search would indicate retargeting to GoT, not to the prehistoric creature.[6] -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hatnote on dire wolf page already exists for the GoT creature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dire wolf as primary. I don't think it's fair to say that "dire wolf" = the extinct canid and "direwolf" = fictional creatures. Searching an external search engine for "direwolf" minus Game of Thrones and Song of Fire and Ice gave me plenty of references to the dire wolf. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting "direwolf" = fictional creatures. I'm saying it can be either the extinct species or the GoT creature, and neither is the PTOPIC, so the dab page is the best option. feminist (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dire wolf. The extinct species is the primary topic and the hatnote covers the other. On an aside, I always presumed the direwolves present in Game of Thrones were simply a fictional extant version of what is extinct in the real world. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:11, 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 keep. But reverse the redirect from "Alabama (band)" to "Alabama (American band)". (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alabama (band) → Alabama (American band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was recently retargeted to Alabama (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation (due to the existence of Alabama (Canadian band)). I reverted the change as undiscussed, as there were incoming links. I have since resolved all incoming links, and bring this here for the appropriate discussion. My opinion is that the American band is the primary topic of the term either way, and perhaps Alabama (American band) should be moved back to Alabama (band). Precedents for this would be Nirvana (band) and Kiss (band), both at those titles despite other bands by those names in other countries. Alternately, the recent retargeting could be restored. It seems like an incorrect half-measure to maintain the redirect pointing to the further disambiguated title. bd2412 T 13:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine either way the redirect goes, however I don't think there is much consensus for partly disambiguated names such as Talk:Pendulum (drum and bass band)#Requested move 24 November 2018 and Talk:On the Road (2012 film)#Requested move 17 December 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. The only two situations with partially disambiguated disambiguators which I know of are Jane Seymour (actress) (versus Jane Seymour (Canadian actress)) and Thriller (album) (versus other titles at Thriller#Music). Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect. Alabama (band) should be the article title of the American band because it is definitely the primary topic for bands named Alabama. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect per Tavix. The American band is clearly primary among bands, and as noted there are many other examples where one article is not primary overall but is primary within a topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse redirect per Tavix. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alabama (disambiguation) as a ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) since Alabama (Canadian band) exists. A reader forced to land on a certain band page when there are multiple notable bands of the same name can potentially be harmful of the reader arrives at the wrong article. Considering that there are multiple notable bands makes "Alabama", readers who look up this term would be better served by arriving at the disambiguation page to determine what subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation page. I don't think the argument for primary topic is sufficiently strong here. Deryck C. 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse per Tavix and WP:TWODABS: The Canadian band has one album and two singles, and just barely meets the notability threshold. The American band is much better known. --NYKevin 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current setup allows the vast majority of readers to reach the band they want, and also shows them that there is more than one band named Alabama. Compare Thriller (album). My second choice would be to reverse redirect. feminist (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move target article over the redirect (i.e., reverse). The hatnote means someone looking for the Canadian band is one page away, regardless of whether they go first to a disambiguation page or one about the American band, and someone looking for the American band goes straight there. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, with no massive objection towards the reverse proposed (even though it's partial disambiguation, it seems like people don't hugely have an issue about that with bands, just see Kiss/Nirvana/Oasis for some examples.) Pointing to the DAB page does nothing but hinder readers. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alabama (disambiguation) as a ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) since Alabama (Canadian band) exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Reverse. No particular objection to where the article page is, as long as the primary redirect goes there. Clear primary topic here, and a hatnote is enough. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Reversing redirect since PDABs are confusing and fail WP:PRECISION. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse retarget as above. American band is primary topic. Twodabs and disambiguation can apply. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 6 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) 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Crap Muzik → Trap Muzik  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Can't see for the life of me why this redirects there. Perhaps an attack redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not an alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could refer to any kind of crappy music. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It indeed looks like an attack redirect to me, a baffling way to criticize a well-known album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 7 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.