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 deleted per G7 by Athaenara. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sindou Department - Kénédougou provice → Sindou Department, Kénédougou Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Speedy delete per R3: implausible typo in a redirect from a move I performed of a recently created page. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speedy delete, I modified parent link in the page, Departments of Burkina Faso too. 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs)

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) 04:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List ofgenerating stations in Manitoba → List of generating stations in Manitoba  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Another one that is missing a space and thus very unlikely UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This resulted from an accidental typo during a page move, and the typo-maker corrected his own error within minutes by moving the page again as soon as he realized he'd made a typo. So no, there's no need to actually retain this. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 4 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) 04:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IOS 13 → IOS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is fortune telling. If iOS 13 will exist in the future, it's not even supposed to be announced for another 6 months. They may or may not even be using the same naming scheme. Natureium (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as usual for such discussions such as this one, no difference here as it leads to no information on the topic and thus a reader searching for it won't be helped in the slightest way. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:39, 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) 04:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Computer system (disambiguation) → System (disambiguation)#In information technology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is actually not a dab, but instead just a redirect to a dab. That only creates confusion. Hildeoc (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are no backlinks.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is not apparent that the phrase "computer system" is ambiguous. Computer system redirects to Computer, which seems like common sense. Of course, it is possible to have a system of computers, but that would still primarily refer to "Computer". I see no evidence that operating systems are commonly called computer systems. bd2412 T 19:24, 28 January 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) 15:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disintegration of the state Somalia → Somali Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete unused and poorly worded Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 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) 15:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently untitled sixth Artemis Fowl book → Artemis Fowl: The Time Paradox  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete No longer currently untitled. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:46, 28 January 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) 04:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Sports News → August 2008 in sports  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Wow. Unmaintained for over 10 years. Just wow. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't the best place to look for sports news. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a ludicrous redirect. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This originally started out as a harmless and logical redirect to Portal:Current events/Sports — what happened is that in August 2008, the portal as it existed at that time got pagemoved to the "August 2008 in sports" list, so this was redirected there accordingly because double-redirect, and the portal was subsequently recreated in a new form without ever actually having this redirect pointed back to it. But if it's been ten years without anybody ever noticing this at all, then it's clearly not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 4 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) 04:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Current Roster Ironi Nahariya → Ironi Nahariya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Current & Former Professional Athletes From Maryland → List of athletes from Maryland A – M  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Structure, symbol, capitalization, no inbound links all make these very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm technically the creator of the Maryland one, but only by virtue of moving the page to a more correct title format after somebody else created it at the now-redirected title — at the time, the rule in force was that the page's original title always had to be retained as a redirect for GFDL attribution reasons, except occasionally in the case of an extreme policy violation (e.g. a title that was disparaging or insulting to the subject) that was serious enough to override the regular rule. But that's since been deprecated, and page move redirects no longer have to be retained if they're not actually useful. So, yeah, there's no reason why either of these actually need to be held onto at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure why these were combined, as they really have nothing to do with each other, but neither redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 14:50, 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 retarget to Princess Allura. Same case as the other Voltron characters today, but in this case, disambiguation isn't needed. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess Allurra → Princess Allura (Voltron)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Princess Allurra should be redirected to Princess Allura (Voltron) as its about the same person. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:18, 28 January 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 retarget to Sven (Voltron). See my note on Zarkon below, and Talk:Sven (Voltron) for the matter of the new page name. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sven Holgersson → Sven(Voltron)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sven Holgersson should be redirected to Sven(Voltron) as its about the same person.. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:15, 28 January 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 retarget. What you've effectively done is turned a redirect into an article, which doesn't need discussion here. I'm confident no reasonable editor would want this redirect pointing to a more general place now that an article exists on the character. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• King Zarkon → Voltron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

King Zarkon should be redirected to Emperor Zarkon as its about the same person. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:41, 28 January 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 disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Osmotherley → Osmotherley, North Yorkshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The base name (Osmotherley) redirects to the disambiguated name (Osmotherley, North Yorkshire) which it can't per WP:UKPLACE and WP:PRECISION. Either the base name should be a DAB or the North Yorkshire village should be moved to the base name. The village in North Yorkshire is larger (the Cumbrian one isn't even an OS settlement) and gets significantly more views [[1]] so per WP:2DABPRIMARY the NY location could easily be moved there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert redirect to dab (but with no strong feelings against the alternative of a formal Requested Move of the NY title to undisambiguated, with the resulting necessary cleanup of incoming links). The NY title was the result of a to-and-fro of page moves in 2005-6, which ended at the disambiguated form so that the redirect was needed - probably against policy even then. The Cumbrian one is a civil parish, with population of 302 compared to NY's 668. (Found both census figures on NOMIS, no time to add right now, might get round to it) PamD 11:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Both places are tiny, under 1,000 people, so I don't think we have a strong enough claim to a primary topic. As an aside, I started looking for a place in New York until I realized that all the references to NY were "North Yorkshire". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:19, 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 retarget to Suicide Six. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suicide 6 → U.S. Route 6 in Connecticut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see how this redirect related to the article to which is's redirecting Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 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 for now. There's consensus that splitting these seasons should not be discussed here; discussion may continue elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Resident (season 2) → The Resident (TV series)#Season 2 (2018-19)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• The Resident (season 1) → The Resident (TV series)#Season 1 (2018)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should The Resident (season 1) and The Resident (season 2) be articles, or redirects to The Resident (TV series)? User:Silveirinhabs created articles on the seasons. They were then replaced by redirects by User:TheDoctorWho. Silverinhabs has now submitted drafts via Articles for Creation. TheDoctorWho stated in an edit summary that the articles had been undiscussed splits. This RFD can provide the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Draft:The Resident (season 1) and Draft:The Resident (season 2). Robert McClenon (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to oppose creation of the above articles at this time. The two articles provide no information such as production, broadcast, critical reception, home media, etc. There's a general consensus at MOS:TV that television articles should only be split when there is enough information to warrant a split. For a example of a well-written season article see Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 9). If necessary a list of episodes article should be created first unless the AFC draft can be expanded. TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is rather peculiar at best. Since creation of these articles involves splitting out content from the main series article, such splits are normally discussed on the talk pages of the article from which the content is being split, not from what is really an unrelated venue. I'd oppose discussing the split here on procedural grounds. Discussing the split at the series article's talk page will maintain a historical archive there, in the most relevant place. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:AussieLegend - Okay. You have made a useful suggestion that when I review further drafts that are splits from parent articles, in particular television seasons (which are common draft submissions), I should take the discussion to the article talk page rather than the RFD. I suggest that this RFD continue here, and that either the RFD or a link to the RFD be included on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I still oppose. The discussion should be carried out on the article's talk page, as it is for every other proposed split. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a note on the article talk page notifying editors of this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the creation of these new articles and agree with TheDoctorWho Public. If anything, this should be split to a LoE (if and only if the series is renewed for a third season). - Brojam (talk) 04:53, 2 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) 17:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Data transmission rate → Bit rate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Data transmission rate denotes a general concept of which only one specific manifestation is dealt with in the given target article. Also, the lemma in question is not included there. Hildeoc (talk) 06:04, 28 January 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) feminist (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 7440-34-8 → Actinium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• 7429-90-5 → Aluminium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-35-9 → Americium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-36-0 → Antimony  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-37-1 → Argon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-38-2 → Arsenic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-68-8 → Astatine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7439-89-6 → Iron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-22-4 → Silver  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 7440-23-5 → Sodium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This is an implausible search term with 34 pageviews in the last year. There is no need to have CAS number redirects for every substance, especially for uncommon substances such as actinium. ComplexRational (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How common is the use of CAS numbers as redirects for primordial elements or common compounds? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it isn't very common; the pattern appears to be alphabetical order rather than abundance/application. I included all the ones I found for elements in this nomination. ComplexRational (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pending the creation of a new WP:RCAT template for such redirects, probably titled ((R from CAS number)), which would be similar to ((R from E number)). Paine, you want to do the honors? Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, be glad to. Looks like these were created 10 years ago by an editor who's been registered for 15 years. The creator is still active, and we need to hear from them because someone will have to monitor the maintenance category. Also, maybe Merovingian can let us know if there are any more of these to be created and why it is a good idea to keep them? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  18:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: ...Well, I didn't know if you saw this or not, so I went ahead and created Template:R from CAS Number (seems that the "N" in "Number" is capitalized) and Category:Redirects from CAS Numbers. I haven't been heavy into WP:RCAT maintenance lately, so feel free to fix these if I screwed something up. 😂 Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehh... I can see these being reasonable search terms if google doesn't consider them equivalent. Natureium (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the principle that redirects are cheap, and that CAS numbers are well-known and occasionally used in chemistry and can't do any harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no wrong redirects claimed in these. How is CAS number not a search term as nom states? Sure there may be other reasons to delete, but they are not mentioned here. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 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. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sister Solana → SZA (singer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term not mentioned in target article. PamD 23:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not. Here’s some backstory. In December 2018, a few days before Christmas, some unknown hoaxer put an “album” of old unreleased-for-a-reason leaked tracks by SZA (and Beyoncé but that’s another story) onto streaming services like Apple Music under the pseudonym “Sister Solana” leading many people to believe she dropped a surprise album. I created this redirect out of an abundance of caution, because social media was going wild about it. Of course SZA and her record label filed a copyright complaint and it was taken down the same day. So at the most, it should just be a blip in her article. Reliable sources covered it. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I appreciate the background, but it seems a bit too trivial to mention in SZA's article to me. FWIW: "Sister Solana" is currently mentioned at Mfalikuivahaas, but there is insufficient sourcing and context there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:56, 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Throttle (musician) → September (Earth, Wind & Fire song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The music artist is not mentioned at the target. I would expect something about them at the articles for the record labels they were signed to, but no information there either. 66.87.148.40 (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does G7 apply here? I am the creator of this redirect and aside from me, only one other user has changed its target. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless Frosteh also agrees to deletion (I've just alerted them to this discussion) this is not eligible for G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as G7 doesn't apply (pending Frosteh's vote) per Thryduulf. There is a mention of the artist at Oliver Heldens, but it's confusing to redirect one music artist to another completely different one from a reader's perspective. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment (yes, my ISP jumps me between IPs): Can someone please keep an eye on this page? Another IP wrote an article over this redirect, which has now been reverted, and it’s likely this might happen again because of this music artist’s fanbase. 66.87.148.176 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, there are many other articles for Monstercat artists (I would link the category but don't know how to without setting the category of this discussion page) that redirect to the main Monstercat page, so I changed the redirect when I noticed the inconsistency. My vote would be to keep the redirect but retarget it to the main Monstercat page. Sorry for any trouble I've caused. Frosteh (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this action is that Throttle is not even mentioned at Monstercat, and likely won't be mentioned there for a while as he is not a "current artist" (which the list at the moment only contains artists that released on the label in 2019), and there isn't a sufficient source to use to write up a blurb about his time with the label among the other list of referenced artists. Writing up a "former artists" section to justify such a redirect has already proven tedious for users who have edited the page in the past, and was one of the many reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat (3rd nomination) was even a thing. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as misleading. 2600:1702:3440:B60:F812:8D08:FC01:717A (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1702:3440:B60:F812:8D08:FC01:717A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List ofsoap operas with LGBT characters → List of LGBT characters in soap operas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 05:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not implausible, I made it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete - No affinity for the omission of a space in that part of the title. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How much do we pay for the redirect? The usual answer is that redirects are cheap, therefore:
• Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, considering that this list only shows 2 such type of redirects, and we shouldn't start a precedence of creating such redirects. 19:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Implausible and flat out erroneous redirects like this one clog Special:AllPages results, where there is no automated way to filter them. If there is no cost, why do we have speedy reason R3 for recent ones? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible typo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:11, 31 January 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) → Wikipedia:Article titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

RFD-ing this solve it seems that there was prior discussion (per the redirect's edit history) that resulted in this redirect targeting where it currently does. However, it is a bit unclear what the "(identity)" disambiguator is meant to refer to in the present target.

Long story short, this redirect has several incoming links, and the intended target seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Page history for the redirect shows that it started as a redirect Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) created from a move, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) was itself moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (failed proposal). Based on what I'm seeing, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Identity (proposal) probably shouldn't have been G7'ed in the first place. Pinging SMcCandlish. feminist (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NC guidelines and MoS guidelines are not the same thing (though the former are, on "style" matters, derived from the latter – they explain how to interpret the intersection of WP:AT and WP:MOS on particular matters). We have no NC page for identity issues, and it's not helpful to redirect to a failed MoS proposal about the same general subject as it pertains to in-article content; that failed proposal is old historical stuff we keep around "just because", and it doesn't constitute advice to follow, or an ongoing debate to take part in.

  Background: IIRC, the failed proposal began as an NC idea then quickly broadened to non-title, in-article content matters, and thus became a MoS proposal. It languished for several years, and I proposed adopting parts of it (into MOS:IDENTITY) a year or two ago, and that idea was rejected, so the draft is just a dead stick now. Given the length and ranco[u]r of debates at WP:VPPOL about such identify matters, this is probably not surprising. It would take mountain-moving consensus at this point to get more identity-related stuff added to any WP:P&G pages.

  As for incoming links, unless they are about the proposal as such, they should be changed to point to WP:Naming conventions (people) if they're about biographical article titling matters in particular, or to WP:Manual of Style#Identity if they're about identity issues in general; those are the actually pertinent, active pages. Some others that might be good replacements on a case-by-case basis are WP:Manual of Style/Biography and WP:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. If WP:Naming conventions (identity) is kept, then I don't object to redirecting it to the failed MoS page, since that's historically accurate because the draft originated as an NC proposal. I just don't think doing that serves any actual editorial purpose.
  PS: "(identity)" isn't a disambiguator, per se, in the name of this page, but a subtitle. I don't know why the NC pages were named in this manner (compare MoS pages, which are in the form "WP:Manual of Style/Whatever" not "WP:Manual of Style (whatever)"), but they were, and oh well.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity or delete. I just don't see the value of redirecting to a dead proposal when the name implies something current. And MOS:IDENTITY would apply to titles too. My priority is minimizing confusion for editors who would be inclined to cite this in current discussions. If there's concern about how this would affect archived discussions, I'd rather delete than retarget to the old proposal. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity where the current guidance is located. I spot checked a few uses of the redirect and I didn't see any major issues between what has been cited in the past and what it says now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Electric mouse → Pikachu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Besides the fact that there have been more "electric"-type mouse-like Pokémon created since Pikachu (like Dedenne), the term could be confused for the subject at Computer mouse or even electric toys that are shaped like mice. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, he is not a mouse, he is a pika. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pika or not, pikachu is canonically a mouse pokemon. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Optical mouse, feasible that some may search for the optical mouse at this title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computer mouses are "electronic" as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then how about redirecting to Computer mouse? That covers both electric mice (and a better mousetrap or two). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd consider that a better option since it's a higher-level topic. (I'd think deletion may be a better option to let search results provide answers for the term, but Computer mouse is preferable.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Computer mouse - the only entry on Mouse (disambiguation) that is plausibly electric. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no mention at all of an "electric mouse" at Computer mouse or at Optical mouse per WP:R#PLA. This should be done to show how (if at all) the name is connected to any redirect target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no compatible target. "electronic mouse" may be could redirect to computer mouse, although same can be said by appending the word to every electronic device in the world. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Page views don't show anyone going there at all until it was nominated for deletion. No one will ever search for this. Dream Focus 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a reasonable target to me. Sure, computer mouse or optical mouse may be electric mice, but nobody refers to them that way. Each is simply a "mouse" because, by definition, there is no non-electric version. Nearly all references to "electric mouse" are either to pikachu or to "electric mouse traps," the latter of which is an inappropriate target for this redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are these references though and why are they not present in the article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to computer mouse. That's what I expected this to point to based on the name. Natureium (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not retarget to computer mouse per Amorymeltzer. Keeping or deleting both seem OK to me. —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both Computer mouse and optical mouse are not the compatible targets. --B dash (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pikachu have at least been described as "electric mice" (most mice not being electric) which is more than any computer mice have been. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you provide a reliable source that backs this up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per above discussion. --158.182.178.60 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)— 158.182.178.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak keep It definitely shouldn't be retargeted, as computer mice are never referred to as electric mice. Pikachu at least have, so it makes sense, but I don't feel too strongly if it should be kept or deleted. I would oppose retargeting though. Smartyllama (talk) 14:48, 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.