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 Fry's Turkish Delight. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Full of Eastern Promise → Marco Fu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not entirely sure why this redirects to Marco Fu. Apparently it's a nickname of his (according to the infobox) but it's unsourced. Perhaps Eastern Promise would be a suitable destination, but I don't know if this phrase fits. I suggest full on deletion as an unlikely thing to search for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fry's Turkish Delight. That has used this as a slogan since the 1950s and is by far the primary topic when googling for the exact phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fry's Turkish Delight. A properly sourced long term advertisement makes more sense as a target than an unsourced nickname.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 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) 17:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kenneth Cowan (China Airlines Flight 676) → China Airlines Flight 676  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Apparently a victim of this crash, but of course not mentioned in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if they are not mentioned in the article the redirect has no value. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MilborneOne; we shouldn't have such redirects unless their subjects are described in the article. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MilborneOne....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:15, 4 December 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) 02:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lolcow → Kiwi Farms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear why this made-up word should redirect anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Make Into Article A “Lolcow” is an important word in common use. There are reliable sources for this word such as this article. DiAsNW (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this redirect is explained in the very first sentence of the target article, "Kiwi Farms, formerly known as CWCki Forums, is an American Internet forum dedicated to the ongoing harassment and stalking of online figures and communities it deems "lolcows"." Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not notable enough for a standalone article but a plausible search term and defined within the target. Guy (help!) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Sort of a WP:SURPRISE redirect, because Kiwi Farms isn't the only community that uses this term (see, e.g., [1] [2]) but the article does explain the term. An alternative could be to redirect to Wiktionary. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, made up it may be, but all the more reason to think people may search for it if they hear it and are unclear of its meaning. Seems a reasonable and useful navigational aid in that instance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target article does not define the term at all, it just uses it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:21, 4 December 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. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud! --BDD (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncle Billy → William Tecumseh Sherman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not the primary meaning of the title. Interstellarity (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or disambiguate. This was a well-known nickname for Sherman, as is made clear in the article. What does the nominator propose as another meaning of this title? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian: I think disambiguating would be the best option because there is also character in It's a Wonderful Life named Uncle Billy. Interstellarity (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. It turns out there are dozens of Uncle Billys. I've included some notable ones in a draft disambiguation page at the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 4 December 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. Specifically, there is consensus here that most of these redirects are basically close grammatical synonyms of each other, and should probably point to the same place as Jammu and Kashmir does, but in both this discussion, the no consensus Requested Move from last month, and in other discussions, there is not a strong consensus as to where that place actually is. The union territory is new and potentially still being contested; the state has a lot of previous baggage in terms of articles and categories linking to it with that meaning. There are two ways forward I can see here:

1. A disambiguation page at Jammu and Kashmir would solve the ambiguity but would be rather untidy given the number of incoming links.
2. Given some more time, it's likely that the dispute regarding the union territory will at least partially resolve itself, lending a future consensus either for or against linking directly to it.

In the mean time, all the targets are comprehensively interlinked via hatnotes, so readers will find where they're going, even if it isn't optimal. If a future consensus arises as to what Jammu and Kashmir should be pointing to, I would suggest that this discussion does provide support for all these other redirects being fixed to go to that same target. Until then, I am leaving them as their current mixture of targets, as there isn't an agreement to change anything in particular via this discussion, and all the targets are at least reasonable. ~ mazca ^talk 19:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jammu and Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• J and K → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• J&K → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu aur Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu and Kashmīr → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• جموں و کشمی → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• जम्मू और कश्मीर → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Jammu-Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• J & K → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu & Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu and kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu and Kashmir (India) → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu and Kashmir, India → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

They are ambiguous. Sharouser (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert Jammu and Kashmir into a disambiguation page that would list Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). Redirect all the other listed redirects to the disambiguation page, and have the article mainspace links currently pointing to the redirects pointed to Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), as appropriate. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jammu and Kashmir. That is too delicate a topic. A proposal to move was made recently, but did not achieve consensus. There are several thousand wikilinks to that page title, which need to remain functional. Retarget all others to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). They are only search keys (mostly useless) and do not affect the Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore status quo. The newly minted union territory is not the primary topic (as shown in last week's RM linked by Kaituilya3), and the creation of a dab page at the primary title would at best be premature at this stage (see this discussion). All the redirects listed here are modifications of the term "Jammu and Kashmir" and should point to to the same article that Jammu and Kashmir points to (which is currently Jammu and Kashmir (state)), we can't have one typographic variant targeted at one article and another variant pointing to a different article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert Jammu and Kashmir into a disambiguation page, agree with DeluxeVegan. Redirecting it to a state that no longer exists in the present-day map dosen't make sense to me. For now, I think it's best to keep Jammu and Kashmir (and all its naming variations) as a WP:DAB until the newly formed "union territory" gains further significance. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I really dislike the idea of Jammu and Kashmir being a disambiguation page. It would be better to have a WP:CONCEPTDAB article about the geographic region—compare to Ireland. We could also have a Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation) to list the various political entities with that name. All that said, the status quo is quite bad. "Foo" should not redirect to "Foo (bar)". --BDD (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article about the region already exists at Kashmir. It would not be the best idea to redirect Jammu and Kashmir to that page, though, as the term is more commonly used for the political units, and sparingly to refer to the geographic region. DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. Retargeting there sounds like a pretty good idea now that I think about it. Probably not for the "India" ones, though, since they're much louder about implying a political entity. Keep in mind that for much of our global readership, there's an awareness of a "Jammu and Kashmir" that's a disputed region, for whom any specific provinces and territories will just be subtopics that they can look into if they have further interest. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not too sure, but would not be opposed to such a set up. Either way, the status quo is not sustainable. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all but the last two to Kashmir. My discussion with DeluxeVegan above explains my rationale; in a nutshell, it's that many readers as a starting point will be looking for the geographic area and won't want to get bogged down with the details of specific administrative units. Keep the last two, where it does sound like a reader would be looking for a specific administrative unit, and it makes sense to give them the current one. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please see the related article Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh boy. Yeah, there's a whole ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Jammu and Kashmir with lots of subcategories and pages that could be affected by this. I don't think an RfD is the best venue for such a far-reaching change. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The premise of the above vote is based on a wrong assumption. 'Jammu and Kashmir' is NOT Kashmir. 'Jammu and Kashmir' is just the name of only the Indian controlled part of Kashmir (which the Indian government has now reorganized on this 31 October to 'Jammu and Kashmir' and 'Ladakh', the source of all this confusion). It doesn't include the Pakistan controlled Kashmir (Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir) or China controlled Kashmir (Aksai Chin, Trans-Karakoram Tract). In short, the term is almost never used for the whole Kashmir. Redirecting to Kashmir would be totally factually inaccurate. Imagine redirecting England to the United Kingdom. A reader with only a very basic understanding of the administrative setup may confuse the two, but thats not a reason for a redirect!
• On October 31 this year, the Indian government split Jammu and Kashmir into two, a smaller Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Now we have many topics that share the same name 'Jammu and Kashmir'. I would support a page to differentiate the Jammu and Kashmirs, a disambiguation page.
• I also don't see a need to touch the non-visible category pages and their subpages. All the categories and their subordinates can only refer to the current administrative unit. For example, the 'Places in Jammu and Kashmir' category is obviously referring to places in an administrative unit that currently exists. Srinagar is a place in Jammu and Kashmir union territory, not Jammu and Kashmir state, since the state no longer exists. A similar logic applies for all the categories. Subpages like 'Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir' will also be about graves in the existing administrative unit, and so on. The is no scope for a 'Mass graves in Jammu and Kashmir (former state)', so moving wouldn't be required in any of these cases. 2.51.188.240 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Most categories, including the ones I referred to, are visible to users and are meant for their navigation. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Kashmir. These need to target the general article on the region, and the Kashmir article is able to fulfill that role. As far as navigation, the article includes the timeline for the administrative units, and it appears Kashmir (disambiguation) also includes everything that may be considered "Jammu and Kashmir" for those who may want to take that route. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 15 December 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 Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian-administered Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh → Jammu and Kashmir (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Indian administered Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Indian-held Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Indian Administered Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Indian-controlled Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• India-administered Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Indian controlled Kashmir → Kashmir  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We need to seperate an article. Sharouser (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, which most of the links are already pointing to. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds reasonable to me. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm rethinking this as I thought through my vote in the above section. While Kashmir#Current status and political divisions is a reasonable target, isn't Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) better? It describes "a region administered by India". And I don't know if there's a difference with Indian or Pakistani English, but to me, the terms "administered" and "controlled" are fairly neutral and responsible, not raising as many red flags as something like "occupied" would. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) is only one part of Indian-administered Kashmir; it would also include Ladakh, a larger region in terms of area. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions per above. The whole geographical area and the associated political disputes are so complicated and overlapping that targeting an article section specifically discussing that complexity seems the only option. When you overlap areas that have disputed control, and a variably defined geographical area that doesn't match territories named after it, there just doesn't seem to be a real alternative for an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 13:10, 15 December 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Orlando Airport Marriott → Marriott International  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can find no specific mention of this property. Marriott Hotels & Resorts#Location of properties in the US lists two hotels in Orlando, but doesn't get into specifics. Orlando International Airport has a hotel, but it is a Hyatt Regency. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Looking just at the English Wikipedia I am unable to even verify this hotel exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is the Marriott Orlando Airport Lakeside which is near the airport. But with no mention of this at the target article, a reader is not going to be well-served by being redirected there. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 4 December 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dutch encyclopaedia's → List of Dutch encyclopedias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dutch encyclopedia's → List of Dutch encyclopedias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dutch encyclopædia's → List of Dutch encyclopedias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not a plausible time to use an apostrophe. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in Dutch: plurals that end on -s but where writing the s immediately after the singular form would cause a change in vowel sound get written as 's instead. (For example, zebra - zebra's, paraplu - paraplu's) That said, delete this redirect as nonsensical anyway, because although the Dutch language may be highly relevant here, neither encyclopedia nor encyclopaedia exist in Dutch; the Dutch word (encyclopedie) doesn't have a plural on -s; and even if it would have had an -s plural, it wouldn't require an apostrophe because -ie- doesn't get changed in Dutch pronunciation by adding an s after. AddWittyNameHere 00:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely per above. Seems like a bad grocer's apostrophe joke by someone who saw a correct Dutch pluralisation such as camera's and overgeneralised it. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, with thanks to AddWittyNameHere for that very useful comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It is a malformed plural in English, and AddWittyNameHere's comment clarifies that it isn't even a proper transliteration or plausible Dutch search term. ComplexRational (talk) 15:01, 30 November 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.