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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Thoenessen2016 → Template:Thoennessen2016  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:Thoenessen2016/doc → Template:Thoennessen2016/doc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I just completed a page move to fix the spelling of the author's name in this recently created citation template. Given that R3 does not apply to redirects created from page moves, I'm not sure if the old title should be kept as a potentially common mistake, or if it can be deleted (per G6?) as an unambiguous error (I know what was meant). ComplexRational (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (I created this -n- template three days ago). So not many external links will refer to it, if any. Also, it was created for a specific application (namely, ((Isotopes summary)) that nom had just created). This too signals low usage.

It even would be better to remove this one, to prevent more future usage of a misspelling (esp. from outside, i.e., links into enwiki). For this, speedy is preferred! -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this as a deletion request; I tagged both pages for G7. This discussion can then presumably be closed. ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 13 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 most. Helförin has been kept due to no consensus. Retargeting Holokaus as Ivan suggests would be WP:R#ASTONISHing, given that the Jewish Holocaust is the primary topic for Holokaus in Indonesian. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yn Deherree → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Manx language)
• Helförin → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Icelandic language)
• Holokaus → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Indonesian language)
• Rutsvamhumburu → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Shona language)
• Ulukawstu → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Quechua language)
• An Holokausto → The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Waray language)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The Holocaust does not have any affinity with these languages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and thanks for listing and linking the languages that was very helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as these are non-English languages not related to the subject. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helförin, per History of the Jews in Iceland#World War II (some Holocaust refugees ended up in Iceland). Retarget Holokaus to Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, often referred to as "the [forgotten] Holocaust of Indonesia". Delete the others - no doubt we could find some kind of atrocity or genocide against these peoples to point these redirects to, but I see no evidence of any being commonly referred to as "holocaust" and we're not a directory of foreign-language words which would be synonyms in English. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 5 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 International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stani bogat → Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subject not mentioned in target - this seems to be an international version of the gameshow - it could be a search term but per WP:RFOREIGN I don't think it's allowed? Polyamorph (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like I created this over 10 years ago when cleaning up after this AfD. I believe that at the time it pointed to an English article on the foreign language version of the show. I have no problem with deleting it if it is deemed not useful, or to violate the MOS. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to International versions of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? where this version is mentioned. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Tavix, and mark with ((R avoided double redirect|Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Bulgarian game show))), to provide for the eventuality of that article getting restored. – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and tag per Tavix and Uanfala. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 12 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 List of file formats. No prejudice against disambiguation if anyone wishes to create one. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Media file formats → Video file format  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Media file formats are not exclusive to video, see also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Media_file - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Media_file (probably by retargetting to the dab page that should be created at that title) as List of file formats, Digital container format#Multimedia container formats and Video file format at least are equally good targets for this likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Audio file format (either generally or the Audio file format#List of formats section), Timeline of audio formats, List of open-source audio codecs and Image file formats should also be part of this disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Media file format redirect should be created to point to either this title or the same target this redirects to. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference the Media file discussion has also been relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_17#Media_file (and still awaits further comment). Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of file formats, which lists file formats for plenty of different types of media. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate Media file (RfD) and Retarget there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:12, 13 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. Seems to be no suitable target for any of these. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Receptor 1 → R1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 2 → R2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 3 → R3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 4 → R4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 5 → R5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 6 → R6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 7 → R7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 8 → R8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 9 → R9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 10 → R10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Receptor 11 → R11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am seeing little or no affinity between these titles and the disambiguation pages they currently target. For the time being, I would retarget them all to Receptor (biochemistry), unless individual lists are made of the receptors actually numbered like this. bd2412 T 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at intitle All pages with titles containing receptor 1, brings up a number of articles. I don't think it would be valuable to redirect them to receptor biochemistry as they only list types 1-4 and it may be confusing as many of these are just a numbering scheme for the different receptors, like Metabotropic glutamate receptor 4 has nothing to do with type 4 nuclear. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to reveal search results. That would also have the effect of WP:REDLINK until or unless individual lists are made. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really convinced by either argument above. Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't about the "types" listed at Receptor (biochemistry)#Structure, but rather a naming convention, i.e. Death receptor 6 and Toll-like receptor 6 might be named DR6 and TLR6, respectively. With that in mind, Receptor (biochemistry)#Structure has no information on this, which is fine — it's a rudimentary naming scheme — so the content at the disambiguation pages is as far as I can find the only content we have on this. Not all of the dabs have the line, but many have do; I don't know why it stops at 11, but it does. As such, I think it's probably best to Keep these, and keep a line in each dab page to make it clear. I don't think individual lists would ever work, even using intitle searches, simple because the numbers aren't particularly meaningful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine a reader types in Receptor 1 and is taken to the disambiguation page R1. Tell me, please, what on that page is what they are likely to be looking for? bd2412 T 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing, obviously, but that's because the line was removed. As I mentioned above, that reference has been unevenly removed or kept from these pages over the years. My broader point is that there is even less content at the article (and unlikely to ever be), whereas the dab pages can provide some meaning while pointing to that article. It's certainly far from elegant to keep a dozen identical sentences in a dozen dab pages, but these aren't good WP:REDLINK candidates and there's nothing at the article to help a reader/searcher, so I figure keeping the mentions is the most helpful option we have. In the end, these are unlikely search targets — I don't think I've ever heard folks refer to "receptor 1" or "receptor 5" — so I'd probably favor deletion over retargeting, but it's been a decade and they aren't hurting, especially if there's a line at each respective dab. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:42, 5 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Room101 → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect guidelines and purposes. Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not valid how? What guidelines and purposes?  — Scott • talk 11:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a reference to Nineteen Eighty-Four, where Room 101 is described as: the thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. For one, it is simply not an accurate comparison, and, as WJBscribe said elsewhere, "we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums" in this manner. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe we should retarget it to WP:ARBCOM? Natureium (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: I'd support that. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meh it's not doing anyone any harm. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT - the target is not a project page about the works of George Orwell, and judging by political trends in the United States and broad swathes of Europe, not too many people are actually familiar with those references anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how you can delete something "per" WP:FANCRUFT which isn't even a guideline. And relates to mainspace. This redirect is also obviously not fancruft.  — Scott • talk 11:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not funny or useful Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per POLEMIC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a guideline for user and user talk pages, not redirects.  — Scott • talk 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not my type of humour. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least until the nom gives us a real reason. Also, who cares if we denigrate ANI via redirect? It already has a terrible reputation and deleting this redirect won't change that. Lepricavark (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lepricavark and it being utterly harmless. It does not denigrate ANI but even if it did that wouldn't be a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. No valid rationale given. SQL^{Query me!} 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Hilarious, but no, WP:ANI is not a torture room. At least it shouldn't be. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the type of humorous redirect that only people "in the know" are ever likely to use or see used, so I don't see any potential for misleading editors as to what ANI actually is. And really, if we would like to change how ANI is perceived as, then deleting an obscure humorous redirect is probably not the first thing we should try. – Uanfala (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as harmless fun and RIP Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, who created this and obviously had a sense of humor.  — Scott • talk 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Valid redirect which serves a vital purpose of reminding everyone to make Wikipedia a more friendly place. feminist (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This discussion has now been open for three weeks and no policy-based reasons for deletion have been advanced.  — Scott • talk 17:48, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Sangha357/Music to Make the Boys Cry → Diana Vickers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Music to Make the Boys Cry → Diana Vickers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. A couple of old cross-namespace redirects that don't appear to be useful. Page history is retained at Diana Vickers' second studio album. PC78 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep 1) There is no reason or benefit to deleting redirects from user subpages to article space unless the user concerned asks. Even if there is some exceptional reason why it's harmful in some way (and there is no evidence of that here) then it would be turned into a soft redirect. 2) I'm pretty sure the consensus is that redirects from AfC pages in Wikipedia talk space are kept, certainly I'm not seeing what benefit would arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) There is no limitation on redirects in the User: space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2) as talk page dependent on non-existent page (Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Music to Make the Boys Cry does not exist) UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: FWIW, "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" was essentially the former name of the "Draft:" namespace. In other words, the second redirect wouldn't be eligible for WP:G8 as a talk page of a nonexistent parent page as most pages that start with "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" do not have a corresponding "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/" page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right you are, struck. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, these are technically cross-namespace, but not in anyway whatsoever that matters; that term only really matters if it's likely to cause confusion, in particular for readers. These will not. More to the point, we have always left the redirect from the draft (or userspace) to the article, because it's useful for the creator (and reviewers and so on) and isn't harmful. Consensus is to keep draft->namespace redirects. WT:AfC subpages were drafts before drafts existed; there's no harm in keeping them, and G8 was never intended on applying to them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget user link to Music to Make Boys Cry and talk page to Talk:Music to Make Boys Cry, as they both exist, and the AFC accepted information box was placed back in 2012. If the AFC link is not formatted correctly, then you could delete for housekeeping as it doesn't seem to retain much useful history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 12 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.