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 Jiading (disambiguation). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jiading City → Shanghai Jiading City Development F.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The football club is not the primary topic of Jiading City despite the article of the football club was initially located at that title and have a Afd. Jiading District is a former city ,(edit: Leshan, a prefecture-level city , is formerly known as Jiading) while the club with title sponsor name, should be "Jiading City Development", not Jiading City. Also the title sponsor actually known as Chengfa Group, use pinyin instead of translation as their "English name" Matthew hk (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the usage in the history book. Jiading [District] was notorious famous for Jiading massacre and other stuff in Qing dynasty. (edit 2, those book was about Jiading City of Sichuan AND Jiading City of )

Prazniak, Roxann. Of Camel Kings and Other Things. p. 140.

Burg, David F. A World History of Tax Rebellions.

--Matthew hk (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it's a suitable redirect. Hatnotes would be fine to point users in the direction of the 'District' article, if required. 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)GiantSnowman
• Premature. Once we have content about the history of Jiading as a city, the redirects should be changed. Currently it doesn't seem necessary to change anything —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be easily written at no time. @GiantSnowman:, would you mind read the modern history book i cited? Matthew hk (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: It seem i also mixed up which Jiading. Leshan, Sichuan is a prefecture-level city and is formerly known as Jiading. While the book Of Camel Kings and Other Things i cited, seem about Jiading City that administrate Weiyuan County in Qing dynasty in Sichuan. But the book also wrote "Jiading area (present day Loshan [sic] county)", seem more articles i need to add back content. Matthew hk (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: it seem the two books was about Jiading City of Sichuan of Jiading City of modern day Shanghai (historically Jiangsu or Zhejiang) respectively . For example, Roman Catholic Diocese of Jiading was for Sichuan not Shanghai. So, i suppose to redirect Jiading City to Jiading (disambiguation) instead and may be a RM of Jiading (disambiguation) to Jiading. Matthew hk (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. —Kusma (t·c) 16:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jiading (disambiguation) as it could refer to any of those regions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move Synergism (theology) to Synergism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Synergism → Synergy (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a good redirect: currently, that term only occurs within one single link (in section "Other"). Hildeoc (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Synergism (theology) to Synergism as primary topic and add a hatnote for synergy (all other entries of Synergy (disambiguation) seem unlikely). —Kusma (t·c) 19:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Kusma seems sensible. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:44, 11 March 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 Biff#Computer-related terms. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Make room for biff to make room for biff (disambiguation), no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views, view history shows that Biff (name) has consistently more views, though not enough to be primary. Paradoctor (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Biff should be the disambiguation page. Biff (computer) should go to Biff (disambiguation) as there are multiple computing-related biffs now, and the old Biff should be renamed Biff (Unix command). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, except that biff is not among the List of Unix commands. I think biff (notification system) would be a better fit. Paradoctor (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Biff to Biff (Unix) to allow for disambiguation. This is in line with many other commands in Category:Unix software and its subcategories. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 18 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dawn of time → Robert Silverberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dawn of Time → Robert Silverberg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The topic is not mentioned at the target (though it is apparently the title of book by the author). There are multiple options: 1) just delete the redirects, 2) retarget to Chronology of the universe (or a similar article) for people looking for info related to the age of the universe, 3) create a disambiguation page for the multiple possibilities (there are also likely to be other written works, songs, etc. with the title Dawn of Time). Gnome de plume (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Planck units#Cosmology to match Beginning of time. My opinion on this is solely because the aforementioned redirect targets where it does; it may be worth bundling Beginning of time with this nomination to determine a new target for that redirect and the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Dawn of Time to Robert Silverberg bibliography where it is mentioned. Delete Dawn of time: the redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Robert Silverberg bibliography, add hatnote to Beginning of time, and hatnote to The Dawn of Time album by Virgil Donati (no separate article for this album). Dab isn't useful yet since there is no dab mention of it for Beginning of time / chronology of the universe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 1 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed peel → Succade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Until recently, this redirect targeted Candied fruit. The redirect is vague in that it does not specify what type of "peel" it refers. It doesn't necessarily refer to "fruit peel" either. Delete as vague. Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Mixed peel" is not vague - it is the exact name for a product that is sold in every British supermarket with a home baking section I've been to. It always refers to the candied peel of citrus fruits - usually oranges and lemons. A one minute bit of WP:BEFORE would have told you that. It seems to be a type of Succade (a term I'm not familiar with), but isn't it seems mentioned in any article currently. I'll ping the food and drink project, as this is definitely something we should have an article or section on somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What Thryduulf said. My mother always seemed to have in her larder two plastic tubs, one of Glace Cherries, the other of Mixed Peel, both manufactured (IIRC) by Whitworths. These were used as ingredients in such things as Christmas cakes. the mixed peel was definitely citrus, mainly orange and lemon. There may have been grapefruit, but I don't recall limes. The peel was cut into chunks about 1/4" square by however thick the peel usually is on the fruit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a specific product and frequently sold under that "vague" name:- "Sainsbury's Cut Mixed Peel", "Tesco Mixed Peel". Waitrose article on "Mixed Peel", etc. Ubcule (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ubcule. —Kusma (t·c) 19:20, 10 March 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) 19:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cybele Palace (Madrid) → Cybele Palace  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible and unnecessary redirect, suppressed by Cybele Palace, Madrid. Moreover, it is first moved by a sockpuppeteer B dash (talk) 16:11, 10 March 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) 13:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Parent 2 → Mother  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Parent 1 → Father  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Artificial numbering of parents, no relation between number and role (see also Parent 2 -> Mother, nominated above). DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've combined the two nominations with essentially identical rationales and struck the now-unneeded part. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These relate to this news story from France, but the idea that "Parent 1" always represents "Father" and "Parent 2" always represents "Mother" is not supported by the sources - indeed the intent is to be inclusive towards families with same-sex parents. This means the current targets are wrong. If we have coverage of the French proposal anywhere then it might make sense to retarget them there but I've not finished researching yet. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The most coverage we have of this seems to be at LGBT rights in France#Education. It is mentioned at 2019 in LGBT rights#February but that's just a bullet point that could/should link to main coverage elsewhere so that's not worth considering as a target. Complicating matters though is mentions of similar proposals at LGBT adoption in the United States#Wisconsin and Registration of same-sex unions in Italy#Local civil union registries and other local initiatives, although both of these are passing mentions. The logical place to cover all of these might be a section at LGBT parenting, however the issue is not exclusive to LGBT people (it's designed to eliminate differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples) and there is no current mention of anything related. The Parent article seems to be too high level for this sort of thing and Parenting also feels a poor fit. Another wrinkle is that the terminology is also used in selective breeding, see for example Goldenoodle#Breed status and the infobox at Pione (grape). A disambig might be possible, I guess, but some sort of article explicitly about terminology for parents of different sorts ("father", "step-mother", "great-grandparent", etc) in different cultures is probably best - the only problem is we don't have any such article as far as I've been able to find. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No target really fits, though there may (I'm not sure, haven't started looking) be sufficient coverage to create an article about such proposals in different places. I recall reading an evangelical Christian publication a few years ago that points to this as a slippery slope argument against legalising same-sex marriages – this may mean that there is sustained coverage on this topic. Otherwise, I prefer deletion over the current targets. feminist (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, wrong per source mentioned above, and not necessarily related to LGBT parenting or similar articles. —Kusma (t·c) 15:16, 10 March 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.