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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hallucinations (Angels & Airwaves Song → Angels & Airwaves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Missing bracket so not a useful redirect. Some edit history though not significant, was originally a very short stub that was swiftly redirected. PC78 (talk) 21:43, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Greatest U.S. Enemy → North Korea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Generic term which could mean different countries, perhaps even different ideologies at different times in history. Even at the current moment in history, whether this term would be identified as N.K. is dubious (China? Russia? Iran?). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subjective, unencyclopedic and could easily change. Geolodus (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Opinionated, unencyclopedic, and as Geolodus said: It can easily change. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Russia, Soviet Union, North Vietnam, Great Britain/United Kingdom/British Empire, Iran, China and Mexico at least probably have or have had claim to this title at some point, and that's just counting countries - drugs, communism, Native Americans, obesity, illegal immigrants, climate change, etc. could all have had the term applied to them at various points by various people too (many controversially), and then you have the various people named Public Enemy No. 1. A list of people, places and things considered by some to be the greatest enemy of the United States at some point would be significantly unwieldy and tricky to define let alone maintain. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to either Foreign relations of the United States or Foreign policy of the United States with preference to the former. The term is too subjective to be meaningful. I was looking for a more appropriate redirect but these were the closest I found. The list that Thryduulf mentions above, if it existed, would be it, but it doesn't for the reasons they mentioned. - Paul^T+/_C 14:54, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Main namespace → Wikipedia:Namespace  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Portal namespace → Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete We don't have any similar cross-namespace redirects for any other namespaces, and anyone who knows what a namespace is will know how to get where they want without these redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But the intended users of these redirects, I'd assume, are not people who already know what the main mainspace is, but people who don't. A random newbie who encounters this term on a talk page or in an edit summary might not even know it's wikijargon rather than some general technical concept. – Uanfala (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main namespace, Keep or retarget Portal namespace to match. One of the main reasons for keeping some cross-namespace redirects is for the benefit of those people who have not yet learned about what namespaces are and I agree with Uanfala that this is the most likely group of people who will use these redirects. There isn't any encyclopaedic topic they are in the way of or could be confused with, so the information page about namespaces is clearly exactly what someone using "main namespace" is going to be most helped by. I think (but am less certain) that that page will also be most helpful for those searching for "portal namespace" but deletion certainly is not the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If they are usefull, why aren't they used...? Anyone who would link to it, most likely uses wp:Namespace instead, if they think it needs clarifying. Also, if you do not know what "main namespace" is and you search for it, you'll quickly find out Namespace which links to wp:Namespace. - Nabla (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Nabla; not a useful XNR. The few uses of it for which it was actually intended were broken in January 2011 when someone being "helpful" redirected it to an article. They were indeffed a week later and the damage was never fixed, which is presumably why the redirect was forgotten.  — Scott • talk 14:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nabla: It's useful for people searching, having seen or heard the terms, not necessarily following links. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 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 Soft redirect after move to projectspace. I read a rough agreement here that the redirect shouldn't be in mainspace, and since most of the delete participants use the cross-namespace aspect of it as a chief argument, I think moving to projectspace (Wikipedia:Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11) and a soft redirect should be acceptable to all parties. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11 → Wikimedia Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Wikipedia:In Memoriam or something along those lines may be an appropriate interproject redirect, but a page in the mainspace is not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to project space and Soft redirect to meta (possibly after a move to project space, I'm in two minds about that). There was a September 11 Wiki hosted by the WMF, but was made read only in 2006, moved (at some point) to a non-WMF site and is now offline. There is a suite of (mostly historical) pages on meta - see m:Sep11wiki - but they are not easy to find so soft redirects from en.wp would be good if there is no complete list of former WMF projects anywhere in mainspace (I've not found any). Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics and strikeout added Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of mention. Given this is a mainspace redirect, I do not support retargeting to any other namespace. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I changed the target of Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11 from Wikimedia Foundation (where it is not mentioned) to meta:In Memoriam which redirects to meta:Sep11wiki (where it is mentioned). AnomieBOT III then changed the redirect to a soft redirect before another editor added a short pages monitor long comment. @Godsy: then reverted my edit with comment "Plain Template:Soft redirect is not used in the mainspace. Additionally, a cross namespace redirect is not appropriate in this case." I can't see why the first statement is true—neither ((Soft redirect)) instructions nor Wikipedia:Soft redirect say don't use it in mainspace—but if it is then didn't the bot get it wrong? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cross-namespace/wiki redirects should be held to a higher standard; out of idealistic sense of preserving the fourth wall we'd prefer to have none, but have accepted some out of necessity. This is an obscure, obsolete project, and "Wikimedia In Memoriam 9/11" returns almost no Google results. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've clarified my reccomendation above that this be moved to project space (without leaving a redirect) and then soft redirected to meta. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to meta:Sep11wiki. sep11.wikipedia.org was an important milestone in the history of Wikipedia, so it would be nice to maintain redirects to a place where readers can find information about this obsolete memorial site. Deryck C. 14:11, 27 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 Rat#Fiction. There is no consensus in this discussion but keeping the redirect in its current state is clearly inappropriate. I am picking an option using my best judgment, but this RfD should not be construed as binding on the page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rat creature → Bone (comics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

retarget to rat. "Rat creatures" are frequently found in fiction and other topics, and is not restricted to the comic book "Bone". [1][2] 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• restore disambiguation page as there are several uses of "rat creature(s)" not listed at rat or rat (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The page has just been deleted by Fastily. Would they mind restoring it? – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a request at WP:REFUND for this to be restored - the G7 criterion used to delete the page does not apply when someone has objected to deletion (as I have done above). Fastily's user talk page very strongly indicates that they are not interested in discussing their deletions, directing people to WP:REFUND. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has now been restored by Anachronist. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to rat (disambiguation). Let's not reinvent the wheel. Otherwise, I concur with Thryduulf. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @MattLongCT: The rat (disambiguation) page is already long and rat creature contained entries that were not on that page and at least some of them should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Rat per nom. The general topic is more or less covered by Rat#Fiction, and the entries that Thryduulf refers to are simply examples of fictional creatures who are rats. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if as its own article (per Thryduulf), OR delete, as anyone looking for "rat creatue" will easily find "rat", redirecting is mostly useless. - Nabla (talk) 11:36, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Angels - Australia) → The Angels (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Face To Face - Australia) → Face to Face (The Angels album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Face To Face - Australia album) → Face to Face (The Angels album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete all. Missing brackets so not useful redirects. All have some history due to a now-blocked user either creating them or using them as duplicate articles, but it doesn't appear to be the case that any of this content was merged so they are not required for attribution. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 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 retarget to Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WOOD → Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork. This is a relatively important essay. It'd be a better use of the shortcut than an inactive project page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget but add a hatnote at the target. We should always be very cautious about retargetting shortcuts as this has the potential to massively disrupt old discussions and new discussions where people add links intended for the original target without knowing it has changed - leading to confusion (and sometimes worse). However in this case there are very few links that would be broken and an inactive project is unlikely to gather new incomming links, especially as the current target hasn't advertised this (or any other) shortcut since at least 2014 (I haven't looked earlier). The redirect did get 26 hits last year, so it's not totally unsused, and while we don't know that those people were looking for the Woodworking project it's possible so there should be a hatnote link to it from the new target so they can get there if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, while I agree we should be careful with these sort of things, I found only a single instance this shortcut was used. I am not sure we would necessarily need a hatnote for this sort of thing, but I leave that up to you. I know that personally I was one of those people who typed WP:WOOD into the search bar, yet I was expecting Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork per my nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  When a shortcut has had the same target for over a decade then it deserves a hatnote. The single link is why I'm supporting the retargetting not suggesting a hatnote at the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotcha, then I would say then that I agree. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork already has among its shortcuts WP:Woodwork (and I think WP:WOODWORK in all caps should be created). "WOOD" is not so obvious a shortcut for an essay about alternatives to deletion that it is warranted to capture it from its longtime target. --Bsherr (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. Far more useful per pageview statistics. Though I agree with the general principle that WP: shortcuts should not be retargeted when there are many inbound links because old discussions should not be modified (a restriction that doesn't exist in the article space). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 24 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.