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. as unhelpful searchbar clutter, failing WP:RDAB. ~ mazca ^talk 17:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Duck and Cover (film → Duck and Cover (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible typo, but is has existed for nearly 3 years so it does not qualify for R3. This becomes the venue. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If the user has made it that far in the searchbar, they'll see the properly punctuated one. This one is just search bar clutter. Hog Farm (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hog Farm says it all. Narky Blert (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 22 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiIndex → List of wikis#WikiIndex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect to a list where the topic is unmentioned. This redirect was created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex; however, there is no entry on the list to suggest that this redirect is necessary. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable topics that can be represented in a list are usually redirected to the list as an "R to section". However, this is a redirect that targets a list where the topic is never mentioned. Therefore, if there is no encyclopedic information about "WikiIndex" at the current target, then the redirect should either point to a different target, or be deleted. Alternatively, if somebody felt inclined to write a passage about WikiIndex as a list entry, then I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing the nomination. However, in the current state of List of Wikis, there is no reason for WikiIndex to point there. If the goal is to preserve the content in the history, then there is always WP:REFUND for when the subject receives more coverage. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47, Masumrezarock100, Clnreee, Spinningspark, Sandstein, Fa suisse, MJL, GermanJoe, Piotrus, Jstalins, CAPTAIN RAJU, 94rain, and Largoplazo: Just because you all commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiIndex. Reckon you may care about this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the topic is mentioned in the target, at which point consider my vote withdrawn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what I said in the original AFD: "Keep. I'm tempted by MJL's suggestion of a redirect to List of wikis#WikiIndex, but that is a list of notable wikis. Closing as redirect is tantamount to declaring it non-notable and will result in the list entry being removed. That will just leave a worthless redirect that will likely be eventually deleted." So thanks for the ping, but all I've got to say now is "told you so". The closer, User:ST47, paid more attention to vote counting than my brilliantly reasoned comment. @Rhododendrites: the person who removed the target entry in the list. SpinningSpark 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed it because, as the lead says (and as the HTML comments say, and what I would figure self-evident from this being the only non-bluelink), it's a list of notable wikis. Consensus at the afd doesn't change that. As such, delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since I've now been pinged here twice for no reason. Spinningspark's comment wasn't that brilliantly reasoned, consensus was clear, and we don't need a redirect to a page that does not mention the subject of the redirect. ST47 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the closure at the AfD last year was perfectly reasonable given the discussion, but ultimately the consensus was a little faulty because of the requirement of List of wikis to only list sites with bluelinked articles. As SpinningSpark points out, this basically ends up being a delete by default in the end. WikiIndex doesn't belong on the list without an article, and there is no useful reason to redirect a visitor to a list that doesn't include the thing they were searching for. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 25 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Middle-earth dwarves → Template:The Lord of the Rings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The template was recently "merged" in a recent TfD (in practice the other templates already had all relevant links) and this template now redirects to ((The Lord of the Rings)). That is bad as a just as valid redirect can be to ((Middle-earth)) or even to ((Hobbit)). Any result can lead to WP:ASTONISH. Since the template is unused, a better solution would just to delete the redirect. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Does WP:ATT apply to templates? If so, this likely needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Hog Farm (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, simply listing the Dwarves that have articles does not cross the threshold of originality. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going by Tavix's opinion, delete would be fine. Hog Farm (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a now-misleading template redirect that is unused and probably shouldn't be used in future. I agree with Tavix that putting the names of some dwarves into an existing template does not involve enough original thought to warrant any attribution concerns. ~ mazca ^talk 17:15, 25 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dwarves → Template:Middle-earth dwarves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No exclusivity for Dwarves in middle-earth. Such a generic name should just not be used for a specific fiction, even if it's Tolkien. Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Too generic for the target template, and is the leftover of a page move. No point in having this one, we might actually need this template name at some point. Dwarves are far from having an exclusive affinity to Tolkien. Hog Farm (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hog Farm, who summed up all the relevant points very well. This is not currently a helpful redirect, and I could at least imagine a use for the title in future outside of a strictly Middle Earth context. ~ mazca ^talk 17:17, 25 March 2020 (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 disambiguation page to Hoa Thanh. At the risk of supervoting, this seems to be the best way to resolve the issue raised here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoa Thanh → Hòa Thành  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) per WP:XY.

It's really obvious from Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) that "Hoa Thanh" is the non-diacritic form for both "Hòa Thành" and "Hòa Thạnh". However for some reason, Lithopsian keeps redirecting the page Hoa Thanh back to Hòa Thành. In the past, the disambiguation page hasn't been created yet, so it is acceptable that it should be redirect to the only article with the diacritics that correspond to that non-diacritic name. However, recently I've added the pages Hòa Thạnh and Hòa Thạnh, Tân Phú, so that redirect is clearly violating WP:XY.

In this case, it makes no sense to say that Hòa Thành is the primary topic for Hoa Thanh (disambiguation). If the page was Hòa Thành (disambiguation), then I agree that Hòa Thành is its primary topic. However, in this case the page name is non-diacritic, so Hoa Thanh may refer to both "Hòa Thành" and "Hòa Thạnh". The same applies to the disambiguation pages Tan Thanh and Phu Thanh. ChanComThemPho (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What.A.Mess. Hoa Thanh is in Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) as WP:PTOPIC - but it's a circular redirect back to that DAB page.

No more targetting or titling changes should be made to either page nor to any of the articles on the DAB page while this discussion is in progress.

Diacritics are a problem on Western keyboards. I know how to find vowels with acute accents on mine, but not ć. It does support the old Alt-Numpad trick, so that Alt-129 gives me ü. All well and good; but the Vietnamese alphabet is festooned with multiple diacritics used nowhere else on the planet, inaccessible to mere mortals.

Proposal. I see no PTOPIC for Hoa Thanh without diacritics. Hoa Thanh should be at the basename and Hoa Thanh (disambiguation) should be a WP:MALPLACED/WP:INTDAB redirect to it (which will require a WP:ROBIN swap). With that out of the way, clear up any residual mess. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'll not vote for a particular outcome as I'm sure the experts will reach the right conclusion. However, I will point out that I reverted the 1st attempt at the disambiguation page because it only contained the original redirect target and a bunch of locations that didn't have (English) Wikipedia articles. Another editor did the same thing, for the same reason. ChanComThemPho then created a one-liner at one of the titles and reverted to the dab page. I moved it and here we are. An IP has since linked several of the locations to Vietnamese WP pages. Lithopsian (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian, for the first revert, I won't discuss it but for the move (especially after I created an article for another locale named "Hòa Thạnh"), there's a lot to say. You moved the page and make Hòa Thành the PTOPIC for no good reason. It's too obvious that Hòa Thành and Hoa Thanh are not the same thing. You are working with Vietnamese articles here, and in Vietnamese, a single diacritic changed will result in a completely different meaning. That DAB has clearly no PTOPIC, so can you explain what is from WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which suggested that Hòa Thành is the PTOPIC ? ChanComThemPho (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I would like to add that Hoa Thanh may also refer to Hóa Thanh, which is another location 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:8A6:DD86:6E15:9978 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move disambiguation page to the base name, per Narky. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• God of Blood → Dwarf Fortress  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing that this be turned into a disambiguation page. Very strange that this currently targets Dwarf Fortress, which is only barely related to the subject. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which articles are you proposing to disambiguate this with? List of The Wardstone Chronicles characters#Siscoi is the only alternative I've immediately found, which is not enough to justify a disambig. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird. I would've thought there would've been a god of blood in some religion. I did find Gods of the Blood though, so thats already three pages that it could disambiguate to (Dwarf Fortress, List of The Wardstone Chronicles characters#Siscoi, and Gods of the Blood). TheAwesomeHwyh 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Keres. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, I also managed to find the page Blood for the Blood God. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The game is never referred to in the article just as God of Blood, it is always referred to as Slaves to Armok: God of Blood Chapter II: Dwarf Fortress. I almost said rename, but there already is a redirect called Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress. If I see an article named God of Blood on Wikipedia, I expect to go to a page about a god of blood in religion, not a game. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Blood god redirects to Human sacrifice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 12 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hugbunter → Dread (forum)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• HugBunter → Dread (forum)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The user who created this article also created HugBunter which also redirects to the same article. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Edit: I changed this from HugBunter to Hugbunter because HugBunter is the actual username. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hugbunter and leave HugBunter alone. Having 2 redirects where the only difference is that one letter is capitalized makes the other one useless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If HugBunter is kept, then Hugbunter should be kept as it helps capitalization AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added HugBunter to this nomination as either both should be kept or both should be deleted. I don't yet have an opinion which. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2020 (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 Cover. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Magazine cover → Cover story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It can mean either article (publishing) or a front cover of a magazine. It should be redirected to cover dabpage (or another target), converted to separate dabpage, or maybe remain as-is. However, the cover story dabpage also contains an entry that neither refers to nor implies a magazine itself, so the former two options would be more suitable for me. George Ho (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment kinda hard finding entries which would meet WP:DABMENTION: there's cover art, and maybe cover model. I really doubt "magazine cover" can mean "magazine cover story" in the first place; e.g. 99.9% of the Google hits for "wrote a magazine cover" disappear if you exclude "wrote a magazine cover story" [1]. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cover art. From the available options (especially those listed under "Media covers" in cover), I'd say that cover art may be the most appropriate target; possibly with a redirect-disambiguation hatnote linking to cover story. --Waldyrious (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Cover per nom. Cover art and cover model should be available to select from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to DAB page Cover. It's ambiguous, and choosing a specific target would be a good way of accumulating bad links-in. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 赤毛のアン → Anne of Green Gables (1979 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFOREIGN Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect would be appropriate because this is a Japanese TV series, and therefore there's a connection between it and the Japanese language. Regards, SONIC678 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sonic678, the fact that this is a Japanese TV program does give it an affinity with the Japanese language. Hog Farm (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. It's also used multiple times in the article, so it's not like it is unattested. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:42, 19 March 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cablegate → Template:WikiLeaks cable  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cablegate is a problematic pseudonym for the US diplomatic cables leak. This template was used in a handful of articles as a synonym for ((WikiLeaks cable)). I have replaced these redirects, so this is now used only in archived discussions. Guy (help!) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these unused template-space redirects: Template:Wikileaks cable

• Template:Wikileaks cable → Template:WikiLeaks cable  (talk · links · cable&action=history history · cable stats)

• Template:WikiLeaks-cable → Template:WikiLeaks cable  (talk · links · history · stats)

• Template:Wikileaks-cable → Template:WikiLeaks cable  (talk · links · history · stats)

Most of these were never used, one was used three times and I retargeted. There's little or not active use of the target template (the events are int he past now), so these seem to be unnecessary Guy (help!) 19:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all since 1) "Cablegate" and "Wikileaks cable" are apparently synonymous terms (they both are redirects that target the same target), and 2) the remaining three are literally punctuation variations (dash instead of space, etc) and/or capitalization differences for the target template page, meaning that deletion of those three serves no helpful purpose since they are not ambiguous, and thus them being deleted doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. "Cablegate" - United States diplomatic cables leak starts off its lead with The United States diplomatic cables leak, widely known as Cablegate, ... First obtain consensus on that article for deleting the word "Cablegate" from United States diplomatic cables leak if there's a claim that the word is problematic despite being widely used. That's the place for NPOVing and so on. With the redirects in archives: should discussion on talk page necessarily use hardwired URLs rather than templates? I've always assumed that templates exist for good reasons, including long-term maintenance; URLs can tend to change and be user-specific (e.g. the transformation from http:// to https:// thanks to ... Cablegate and the Snowden leaks). So I don't see any need to remove the redirects. Boud (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification - JzG/Guy says that the proposal is only to delete the redirects, not to delete the template itself. (Thanks for the clarification!) I don't think this modifies my arguments. I'm not an expert in template redirect notices, but it should be possible to create a notice (template) to discourage use of the redirected names and encourage use of the "main" names (if the standard is not felt to be strong enough); there could be various degrees of how strong the recommendation is (please/strongly encouraged/must) as a parameter to the template. Boud (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "JzG/Guy says that the proposal is only to delete the redirects, not to delete the template itself." FWIW, I'm quite aware of that, especially considering that this is a WP:RFD discussion, not a WP:TFD discussion. My stance remains unchanged. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2020 (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) 16:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The name for Egypt in...Estonian? Delete per WP:RLOTE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFFL, has no affiliation with Estonia. Hog Farm (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I think that covers the field. Narky Blert (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is coincidentally an Estonian word for Egypt. The author created this redirect as an alternative form of "Aegyptus", Latin word for Egypt. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Aegyptus as a plausible misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:RFOREIGN Cabayi (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my comment before saying this. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Double misspellings are rarely plausible. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The word is really obscure, the misspelling of i for y in the middle of Greek words is common, and it can be argued that the substitution of e for ae is not really a misspelling but an alternative variant. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Growing a Greener World → UNC-TV#Programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article contains no information about the TV series Growing a Greener World. Suggest deleting redirect so that a separate article about the TV series can be requested for creation. 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprentice525 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Because the article mentions the show, either create a new article per nom, or create a new section on UNC-TV that gives a summary about the show itself. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there is enough notability to create a standalone article, it can be boldly done. Same with expanding the programming section at UNC-TV to a paragraph or list entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's mentioned in the article, with a little useful information. A quick search turned up some possibly-RS sources which might support an article, though it would be necessary to weed out/prune away the promotional stuff (of which there seems to be lots). I've no objection at all to an article being drafted. Narky Blert (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (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) 15:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Catstodian → Human interaction with cats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Catstodian is not even a real word. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least for now. Whatever you mean by "real word", whether something is or is not one is irrelevant - what matters is whether people use it to find the current target. It's not a word I'd come across before, but I'm seeing plenty of uses in two senses (a person who acts as a custodian of a cat, and a cat who acts as a custodian of a place or thing) so it's plausible enough. The redirect is too new to see if it's actually being used. It's not doing any harm existing, so we should leave it in place for a few months until we can get some evidence of utility or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I know it is new, but the user who created this made other articles that were deleted because they were joke articles. With that, and a new redirect for a word that currently does not exist, I wanted to confirm this redirect was fine. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who created a redirect is irrelevant, as is whether other redirects were kept or deleted. Also, the word does exist as demonstrated by the many uses of it I found in less than two minutes of looking. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think nominating this redirect for WP:NOTNEO makes sense then? 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a term that is not described at the target. Someone searching this to want to learn more about it will not be able to find what they are looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism and not mentioned in news articles searches. Is it referring to any cat owner, a zookeeper of big cats, or a Cat behaviorist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another option if mentioned could be Retarget to Cat lover culture which talks about cat puns such as purr-fect. https://parade.com/969366/parade/cat-puns/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this will be retargeted to Cat lover culture, then that article should mention the word catstodian first. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article does not mention or describe the word. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's not mentioned in the target - which means that anyone clicking on this link will find zero information, useful or otherwise. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by useless WP:NEO that has no real meaning.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are a decent number of pageviews per day [[2]]. However, floof is not a real word (edit: argument I forgot to add listed below). 209.237.105.108 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that people so far are saying keep because of the number of pageviews. I do agree that the pageviews are good, but you should not just say the pageviews are good, therefore we should keep this (If this is always true, I could for example, make a new page called Black Poonther that redirects to Black Panther and then click on the redirect 2-5 times a day so that it seems like people are using it (If you can track the number of times a user goes onto a page they created please let me know on my talk page)). Since I made an additional argument, I would like for people to prove that they read that one as well when they say keep. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether it is a "real word" (whatever that means, wikt:floof has citations going back to 2002 for this sense) is irrelevant. What matters is whether people are using this search term to find this target, and it's clear they are. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – no adequate reason is given for deletion. Decent amount of pageviews is a good sign to keep the redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok the 2 main reasons I nominated this were because it is not a real word (Good arguments against that so far) and the fact that the same user created redirects to Cheetah like Zoom floof, Speedy Danger Floof, Turbo floof, and Speedy floof that were deleted with the reason being that Wikipedia is not a place for jokes and for WP:NOTNEO. I wanted to make sure that this redirect is all right. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the newly presented argument (other redirects were deleted) - please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each redirect is judged on its own merits, just because "Zoom floof" is not a plausible search term for "Cheetah" is irrelevant to whether "floof" should redirect to "fluff", regardless of who created it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good argument with the WP:OTHERSTUFF. Do you think though that it could be deleted for WP:NOTNEO? 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because (a) it's not a neologism (at least in the sense we mean it here), and (b) even if it was then the page views show that it is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The pageviews indicate that this is reasonable. Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of portmanteaus as listed there. It could potentially be a disambiguation given that some other articles use the term. On the portmanteaus list the terms either go to articles or wiktionary entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget per AngusFLWOOF, but I can imagine many people accidentally typing this instead of "flood". 94.21.10.195 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect to Fluff per Hog Farm and others. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:35, 19 March 2020 (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. A slight majority is in favor of keeping, with the rest voting for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Byzatine empire → Byzantine Empire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominated because of this redirect is a typo, but also because the editor who created it immediately recognized the error and blanked the page. Other editors reinstated it, whereas they should have deleted it as intended. Senator2029 “Talk” 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It looks as if creator was trying to do a ((db-author)) but didn't know the procedure. Narky Blert (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from misspelling)). It's by no means implausible, and early enough in the string to be helpful to searchers (unlike, say, the hypothetical redirect Byzantine Empirt). Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The Birla House is often misspelled Birla house. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible double typo. It says "Byzatine" as well as "empire". Anyone who types "Byzatine" in the search window will get "Byzantine Empire" with the correct spelling and capitalization as the top search result. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Bazatine" is a plausible spelling error, and search suggestions are only a thing for those people who use the internal search engine. There are a great many other ways to navigate Wikipedia, and some of them are case sensitive so the lowercase "e" version is also useful - not the everyone will know that it should be capitalised. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The first one is a plausible spelling error, and not everyone uses the shift key when typing anyway, so lowercase words aren't implausible. Hog Farm (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Byzantine Empire show up as the 2nd item when you enter "By" in the search, and 1st item for "Byz". This is unnecessarily propagating and perpetuating a typo. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible typo. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: what possible reason could there be for keeping an implausible combination of errors? We don't have redirects from Byzatine Empire, Bazatine Empire, Bazatine empire, Bizantine Empire, Bizantine empire, Byzintine Empire, Byzintine empire, Byzzantine Empire, Byzzantine empire, Byzantie Empire, Byzantie empire, Byzantin Empire, Byzantin empire, Bysantine Empire, Bysantine empire, Bisantine Empire, Bisantine empire, Bezantine Empire, Bezantine empire, Basmati Empire, Basmati empire, or any of a host of other errors that are at least as plausible as this redirect. Prior to this discussion, this redirect, "Byzatine empire" had received an average of 0.329 page views per day from July 1, 2015 to February 29, 2020—less than 1/3 of a view per day—and that was probably due to it being the only result in the search window under the spelling Byzatine. This redirect was created in error and deleted immediately by its creator. In over 13 years since then nobody's felt the need to create redirects from any of the equally or more plausible misspellings. What's so special about this one? P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd happily go to a restaurant called Basmati Empire! Well, these days I'd probably stick to delivery. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I'd argue that the casing is not an outright error—as an empire which was surely Byzantine, it's not wrong to label the Byzantine Empire a Byzantine empire—but am otherwise in agreement with P Aculeius's argument about the minimal page views. Yes, the redirect is old, but there's good evidence that the creator tried to immediately undo it. While I assume this will close as no consensus, I'd favor finishing what the creator tried to restart over 13 years ago. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sher-e-Ban National Cricket Stadium → Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reason to keep a wrongly spelled redirects. There is another redirect Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium which is often used. But this redirect is very unusual with a wrong spelling. So, requesting to deleted it. Sony R (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirecting from a misspelling is encouraged by WP:R#KEEP. Spike 'em (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This naming convention is often confusing one but it will be handy to keep it. Abishe (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirecting from frequent misspelling is encouraged. This bizarre form was made once, by an IP editor in this unexplained and unhelpful edit. It is as unlikely to occur again as it is for users to accidentally type Wemb Stadium or Wrig Field. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spike. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google exact-match search turned up a couple of dozen hits; none obviously WP:RS, but that makes it a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The Google results are all Wikipedia mirrors (Wikivisually, Wikiwand, etc.) besides one obvious rehash [3] of an old vandalised version of our Soumya Sarkar article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per RHARMFUL and K5. There is extremely little benefit to be reaped from deleting this redirect, and it is demonstrably helpful. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:16, 12 March 2020 (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 Imperialism. I find the reference to similar redirects and the note that imperialism and colonialism are not synonymous (albeit related) to be the stronger arguments. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• European Imperialism → List of former European colonies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• European imperialism → Colonial empire#European colonial empires  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The above two have different lettering cases but also different targets, which would befuddle readers. Regardless of different capitalization, the two should redirect to the same target. Either "list of former European colonies", "Colonial empire", or somewhere if possible. George Ho (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that they should both point to the same target. I suggest retarget to History of colonialism, whose lede mentions the five main European imperial powers. Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In some academic circles European imperialism is a valid and long standing course title and subject area, to redirect to a list seems odd, colonial empire or history of colonialism seems a lesser evil. JarrahTree 09:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to History of colonialism. Polyamorph (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Imperialism, as the term can be used to refer to international dynamics other than outright colonialism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Imperialism. This is consistent with Western imperialism, Modern Western Imperialism, and German imperialism which all redirect there. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:18, 10 March 2020 (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. I'll add a hatnote that may help. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Algorithmic design → Generative design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect target Algorithm#Design, where the topic exists as a subsection; Generative design, which is a similar topic; or should the redirect be formed into an article? I should mention that Algorithm design is already a redirect and is tagged with "R from merge", from which the content at "Algorithm#Design" is derived from. [4] Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It would be helpful to take note of the associated split discussion taking place at the Algorithm talk page, which may weight into the outcome of this RfD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - algorithmic design does mean generative design, the process of (artistic) design using an algorithm; it by that token does NOT mean the design of algorithms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am the one who submitted the redirect request. While I, too, believe that algorithmic design is practically equivalent to generative design [5] and semantically distinct from algorithm design, I could imagine a compromise in the form of a disambiguation page that links to algorithm design as well as generative design. — Batrachocottus (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2020 (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 Next Irish general election#Opinion polls. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion polling for the next Irish general election → 2020 Irish general election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer the next election, confusing buidhe 18:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Next Irish general election#Opinion polls. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix, that looks like a perfect fit. Hog Farm (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix - agreed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 19 March 2020 (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 convert Irma Gonzalez to dab and redirect the others there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Irma Gonzalez → Irma Elsa Gonzalez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Irma González → Irma González (wrestler)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Irma Gonzales → Irma González (wrestler)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I cannot discern a primary topic from the either the wrestler or the judge. They both get similar pageviews, but the page with less views is a GAN. Disambiguation could is possible, but there are still only two entries, so it will have to be clear that there is no primary topic. I don't intend for there to be a large discussion here, as long as there is consensus on where these redirects should target. However, there is no reason for some of these to target one article while the others target another. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate page at Irma Gonzalez as nom. The spellings are near identical that I don't see a reason to split the targets of these redirects in question. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nom. J947 ^(c), at 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Irma Elsa Gonzalez seems to not have the "á" in her name? or maybe I'm just not looking at this right?? ALso Irma Gonzales is an alternate spelling for the wrestler, is it also used in sources for Irma Elsa Gonzalez? I genuinely do not know. couldn't this be solved with a hat note one each of them? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wrestler is Méxican. In Spanish, it's written González. However, the judge is from United States, in English, people don't use accents like in Spanish, even if it's a Spanish last name, Like Colby Lopez or Pamela Martinez. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The WP:COMMONNAME for the judge seems to be either "Irma Gonzalez" or (Hon.) "Irma E. Gonzalez": my gsearch for her full name yields mainly mirrors/inclusions from Wikipedia. So I am not sure using her middle name as a disambiguator is a good idea, per WP:MIDDLENAME. If there's no primary topic then a DAB page is required per WP:NOPRIMARY, even if it has only two entries. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse the redirects and hatnote, so that the retired judge is at Irma Gonzalez and the wrestler at Irma González per WP:SMALLDETAILS. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate at Irma Gonzalez; retarget Irma González there as ((R from diacritics)) ((R from ambiguous term)); and retarget Irma Gonzales there as ((R from misspelling)). There is too much emphasis on trying to force WP:TOPICs WP:PTOPICs Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC) in WP:TWODABS cases when there isn't one. SMALLDETAILS based on a character most people don't have on their keyboards is a terrible idea; in this instance, I could well imagine bluelinks intended to relate to the judge being WP:EASTEREGGs to the wrestler. Narky Blert (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK. I've already checked the links and none goes to the wrong article.

Irma González is not ambiguous. The judge is never referred to that way. We use this approach all the time, e.g. Gúa vs Gua vs Guà; canape vs. canapé; borek vs börek. There's no reason to redirect that to a DAB page.

SMALLDETAILS actually says " The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages..." (my emphasis). There aren't currently hatnotes because there's no ambiguity in the article titles, only the redirect "Irma Gonzalez". 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's the job of the editor to check links per WP:TESTLINK." A counsel of perfection; but, many editors simply do not do so. That's why there's currently a backlog of 10,611 known bad links in WP:TDD (in June 2010, there were 961,936 [sic]). That's why I and other editors have to my knowledge fixed 100+ bad incoming links to each of multiple WP:PTOPICs. That's why another editor and I about a year ago ran a project to fix a subset of bad links to surname pages: we found and fixed about 1,500; it took us a fortnight. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but there's all kinds of ways editors can make bad links and surprises. We're still expected to follow policy and guidelines that have consensus.

When it comes to titles that vary only by diacritical marks, the consensus seems to be that those marks are enough to disambiguate. So, while it may be the case that "Irma Gonzalez" is ambiguous, it is not the case that "Irma González" is ambiguous. Were it so, then Gúa and Guà (to repeat the example I gave earlier) would be ambiguous and should target the disambiguation page at Gua.

Now, if we hatnote, some readers get the right article first time and the others are one click away. If we disambiguate and redirect both Gonzalez and González there, no readers get any article the first time and all readers are one click away. We've made the reader experience worse for all readers, and better for none. These are not big articles, so bandwidth is not an issue. It's just a better reader experience to hatnote them rather than disambiguate. We shouldn't visit editors' past sins onto readers. We've also potentially broken external links. Simply reversing the redirects and hatnoting avoids all of that.

The basic question is: does the misspelling of "Irma González" (without the diacritical mark) count towards WP:NOPRIMARY? 85.238.91.68 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added a ((redirect)) hatnote to Irma Elsa Gonzalez, without prejudice. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. I'm of the opinion that we should disambiguate at the base title by default whenever there is significant disagreement about the primary topic. Deryck C. 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Deryck Chan. This will establish a baseline which will make it much easier to gauge primary topic in the future. I strongly reject the SMALLDETAILS argument and the obviously false argument that foreign-language diacritics are never used in English. I have a coworker who uses one in a Spanish name, and he's a native-born American with no accent. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Reverse, and Retarget, respectively. The accentless redirects should target the judge and the wrestler's page should be titled "Irma González". Personally, I find the WP:SMALLDETAIL a naturally elegant way to disambiguate. Anyone looking for the other topic will be presented with a hatnote, but ~most will find the topic they want right away without having to fumble through a disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 17 March 2020 (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) 15:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Named route → Special route  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target, I don't think that these terms are synonymous. Off the top of my head, I could name a handful of non-special routes in the US that have non-numbered names. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. –Fredddie™ 02:14, 19 March 2020 (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 using the excellent draft produced by Shhhnotsoloud, which seems to have gained a consensus. The plural will be retargeted to point to the disambiguation page. ~ mazca ^talk 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Haligonian → Halifax  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Haligonians → Halifax, Nova Scotia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know where these should point to, but they should share the same target. feminist (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Target both to DAB page Halifax as ((R from ambiguous term)). Haligonian is a demonym both for Halifax, Nova Scotia and for Halifax, West Yorkshire, as mentioned in those articles. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate at Haligonian, redirecting the plural there. A draft is provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Shhhnotsoloud. It's not practical to provide for the ship at Halifax, and it's conceivable we could add to that page further, though I didn't find any other uses just now. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above (changing !vote). Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2020 (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 procedural close. As the nomination states, this redirect's title is currently the proposed move location listed at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#Requested move 17 March 2020. For one, tagging this redirect with the ((Rfd)) tag caused the aforementioned move request to appear at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Possibly incomplete requests as an error. For two, having this discussion open while the aforementioned move discussion is also open splits and fragments the discussion pertaining to this title, which in effect confounds and creates issues with consensus building and assessing. (For these reasons, there should only be one XFD or move discussion open at a time per title to prevent such issues.) After the move request closes, if there are still concerns with this redirect (if it is still a redirect after the move request closes), this redirect can be renominated since at that time, an RfD for this title will/should be the only open discussion for this title. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Epidemiology of COVID-19 → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Epidemiology. Epidemology has its own section on the page about the virus, so why is the redirect going to country/territory instead? Although this could easily be retargeted, I am listing it here because of a move discussion that involves this page (See Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory#Requested move 17 March 2020). Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:00, 18 March 2020 (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.