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. Could relist, I suppose, but the arguments for Keep seem enough to suggest deletion might be undesirable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• El-Sharqeya lel-Dokhan → Eastern Company SC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• El Sharquia lel-Dokhan → Eastern Company SC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• El Sharqia Dokhan FC → Eastern Company SC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Many unneeded redirects for a club in Egypt called Eastern Company SC. The club's transliteration name in Arabic would be El Sharkia Lel Dokhan SC; so I believe that anything else except that should be deleted. Ben5218 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The arabic on that page is dodgy, some of which might stem from sharqia (eastern) vs sharika (company). Is El Sharkia Lel Dokhan meant to be Eastern tobacco or tobacco company? I'd be tempted to leave the redirects alone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The club is owned by a company called Eastern Company SAE, and according to their website, their name in Arabic is El Sharkia Lel Dokhan Eastern Company (الشرقية للدخان إيسترن كومباني). That company produces cigarettes and similar stuff, and it's based in Cairo; so I don't think it has anything to do with Sharqia Governorate. Ben5218 (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as possible search terms, given known issues with Arabic-English transliteration & discrepancy in spelling. GiantSnowman 12:11, 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 Real estate economics. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Property market → Real estate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect term not mentioned in target article, and not apparently identifiable as being synonymous with the latter's lemma. Hildeoc (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Real estate economics. feminist (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: Then, ideally, it should be taken care that the term "property market" is mentioned there, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of a "property market", "property" typically refers to Real property, which is synonymous with Real estate. It follows that an article that explains real estate markets is one that a reader searching for "property market" would find useful. feminist (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Feminist. At least in the UK, "Property market" is very nearly synonymous with "housing market" which redirects to Real estate economics and is used in several places in that article without the need for explanation. Someone searching this term will not be surprised by to arrive at that target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 9 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 越裔美國人 → Vietnamese Americans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate WP:FORRED, no affinity with the Chinese language. feminist (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:29, 4 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Qingshang → Gyeongsang Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is not called Qingshang in English. I attempted to make this into a disambiguation page for things which are actually called Qingshang in English, but was reverted. In any case I am fine with this being deleted too as the two topics actually called Qingshang in English have very little coverage in English Wikipedia. Or in theory it could be retargetted to History of Chinese dance or Guqin tunings. But it definitely shouldn't keep redirecting to the current target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK the Korean province does not apparently go by this name, but there are passing mentions of several things that are called this (or "Qing shang") about which we don't have articles yet. If this is a blue link of any sort though then it needs a see also or a ((Distinguish)) hatnote to the Qingshan disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 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 disambiguate.

• Redirect Homosexual pornography to Same-sex pornography
• Redirect Homosexual porn to Same-sex pornography
• Disambig Same-sex pornography

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Homosexual pornography → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Homosexual porn → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Same-sex pornography → Gay pornography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect that is the title of this discussion (homosexual pornography) currently points to gay pornography, which exclusively deals with the subject of male homosexual pornography, completely ignoring female homosexual pornography. I propose that this redirect be made into a disambiguation page with two entries: one for gay pornography and another for lesbian pornography (a subsection of lesbian erotica). Additionally, the sister redirects of the above (same-sex pornography and homosexual porn) should be changed to point to the proposed disambiguation page. Alternatively, same-sex pornography could be made the disambiguation page, and the remaining redirects retargeted instead. 114.75.69.38 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I actually really agree with the IP here. We should create a page (either DAB or otherwise) for Same-sex pornography since that is what people are trying to go with that search. This concludes my Ted Talk. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 07:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate at Same-sex pornography and redirect the other titles there per the nominator. Pornography doesn't have a sexuality itself and neither gay nor lesbian pornography is exclusively by or for homosexual people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 3 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) 10:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cartoon network original series and movies → List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redundant, pointless redirect. Cartoon Network original series and movies already exists. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 12:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a perfectly normal and perfectly harmless ((R from incorrect capitalisation)). Redirects like this one enable users to find articles they are looking for when using case sensitive methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Cartoon Network original series link is good enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because other redirects exist is not a reason to delete this one - it is a perfectly plausible way to find what is obviously the page people are looking for. Deletion will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ((R from miscapitalization)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:02, 2 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. A disambiguation page at Media file (disambiguation) would be a good idea as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Term not even mentioned in target. Hildeoc (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to MediaFile. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment retargeting to MediaFile would be inappropriate and cause confusion as it does not usually refer to that. Digital_container_format#Multimedia_container_formats is perhaps the best I've found so far. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig as MediaFile, several sections at List of file formats, Digital container format#Multimedia container formats, Video file format (target of the Media file format redirect) and others are all valid targets and MediaFire probably merits a see also. Thryduulf (talk)
  • 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) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 11#Media file formats. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While "media file" may not be explicitly mentioned, the target lists several types of media files so I do not think there is a problem with this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Thryduulf. I think MediaFile would be quite reasonable as a target, and it's clearly used to mean multiple other things, so I suppose a dab makes sense. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and disambiguate at Media file (disambiguation). The current target is the primary topic, but this discussion has revealed other topics which can be sensibly referred to by the same title. Deryck C. 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a page readers would think obvious to exist (and per Tavix). Do not redirect to MediaFile, which is very unlikely to be what the reader is looking for. A disambiguation (per Thryduulf) would be my first option. Also good a redirect to List of file formats with a hatnote back to a disambiguation - Nabla (talk) 11:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:OLD → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Why should this target AfD as opposed to CfD, FfD, TfD or any of the other forums that have a concept of discussions that should be closed after some fixed time? Delete as ambiguous. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because that is where it has redirected since 2008 and we have absolutely no reason for breaking the old links, nor taking people who use it to somewhere they don't expect. What it needs is a hatnote to Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles (WP:OLDEST) and links to the CfD and FfD pages (or to a page that combines all of them if such exists), but this is nothing that requires deletion. Ambiguity is not a reason to delete a shortcut redirect - just think how many possible places WP:A could theoretically point for example (Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Arbitration, Wikipedia:Awards, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Article wizard, Wikipedia:Anonymity, etc, etc).
  Normally rationales like this aren't very strong, but we always need to be very conservative about retargetting shortcut redirects - they are frequently found in discussions (old and new) where those familiar with the acronym don't look at the target when writing or reading the comment but those who are not do. If the target is changed then miscommunication happens because different people read different meanings depending on when they learned what the target is. Additionally you have people whose workflow will be disrupted unnecessarily and sometimes confusingly if the target is changed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Shortcuts are usually ambiguous and there is nothing wrong with that. We won't have very many shortcuts left if we trash the ambiguous ones. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf, and I agree that this could become some kind of disambiguation page if people are upset that it ignores CfD etc. — 🦊 22:56, 3 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.