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. The concerns about ambiguity are not shared by most participants. ~ mazca ^talk 20:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• US life on mars → Life on Mars (American TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Life on Mars USA → Life on Mars (American TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hmm, I'm not quite sure where these redirects should target. I don't think that they unambiguously refer to this television show. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Life on Mars USA was the title in television listings when Life on Mars (American TV series) was broadcast in the UK. See articles in The Times (The Times), Radio Times (Radio Times), The Independent (The Independent) TubularWorld (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Life on Mars USA given that American versions of British TV shows are commonly referred as that in the UK. Dominicmgm (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​Comment but couldn't this also refer to NASA's search for life on Mars? TheAwesomeHwyh 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that is unlikely, but if I'm wrong a hatnote can be added at the redirect target. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Life on Mars USA per above. No opinion about the other. Thryduulf (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think that the concern about ambiguity with NASA programs is enough of a concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 25 November 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 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't really understand this redirect. I think that it's supposed to be a plural but in that case, shouldn't this be at Unowns (a redirect I have now created)? Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't seem very plausible. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be an implausible typo._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:05, 18 November 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 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fashion mogul Michael Ball → Michael Ball (fashion)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In this redirect, the disambiguation precedes the title, which doesn't appear to meet any valid purpose of a redirect and fails WP:DABNAME. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as unambiguous and harmless. Googling for "Fashion mogul Michael Ball" as an exact phrase does find plenty of examples of him being referred to this way. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 10 November 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) 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SM Storyland → SM Supermalls  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, less than helpful to readers despite the obvious connection. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. There's brief mentions at SM City Fairview and SM Southmall, but unless the coverage at a single article can be fleshed out more I think that internal search results are preferable to a redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of SM Fairview and SM Southmall which were now close, SM Storyland also has a selection of standalone rides in various SM malls, not only the main SM Storyland, but the standalone rides of any SM Supermall branch. It is connected within SM Supermalls and part of SM Supermalls. Read more here: https://www.skyranch.com.ph/sm-storyland/storyland-mall-rides/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KapamilyaAdventurer (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 November 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. While a disambiguation page was drafted and gained some support, deletion appears to still have the most support _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free → Proprietary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nonfree → proprietary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Confusing as "non-free" does not mean "proprietary". Also, nothing links here and target is nominated for deletion. Coastside (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coastside: merged these two. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Free content as a ((R from antonym)). Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thryduulf's suggestion above. Plausible redirect. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to free content per Thryduulf. While "non-free" and "proprietary" are used as near synonyms in the specific context of software, the page proprietary is a big unhelpful disambiguation page that is unlikely to cleanly help someone searching for "non-free" if it doesn't get deleted, and while at least one of the specific usages - specifically proprietary software - do mention "non free" they are too specific to make a good target. When you have an antonym that's formed from prefixing "non" it's very easy for the reader to get the meaning via an ((r from antonym)), so I think free content is the best option here. ~ mazca ^talk 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If retargeted to free content I would tag with ((R to related topic)) in addition to ((R from antonym)).Coastside (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, with more thought, I disagree with retargeting. It might make sense to redirect "Non-free software" to "free content" as an antonym, but "non-free" is just an adjectival phrase and doesn't necessarily pertain to software. I still think it's better just to delete these confusing redirects.Coastside (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As this discussion has developed, with Proprietary being deleted anyway and turned into a Wiktionary redirect, I would now say I am fine either with delete or with disambiguate per Thryduulf's draft. Either is fine, the status quo obviously is not. ~ mazca ^talk 18:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Non-free" can apply to may things that aren't software. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No problem with non-free content redirecting to Free content, but non-free isn't an antonym of free content, but of free, and WP:NOTDICT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I tagget both of those redirects for speedy deletion per G8, since "Proprietary" was already deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Proprietary (2nd nomination). Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've un-tagged them, as there are suggestions other than simply "delete" or "keep". Primefac (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per WP:NOTDICT and lack of suitable targets. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I already voted to delete, but I'll introduce another suggestion, which is to Redirect to price system as a Related Word ((redirect from related word)). Thoughts? Coastside (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Or maybe retarget to Payment? Coastside (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mazca: and @Thryduulf: what are your thoughts after additional discussion? Delete? Redirect to Payment? Coastside (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose a straight redirect to payment or price system as that has many of the same issues that people see in redirecting to free content. I'm wondering about possibly redirecting to Free (a dab page) as it's the antonym of several concepts there or creating a separate dab-page as meanings like proprietary and payment are not really covered there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of a consensus for a better target, I would lean towards delete. While I broadly stand by my opinion on free content being by far the context this is most used in, I can acknowledge others issues with it - but other things, like Payment or price system, basically have the same issue in that they're reasonable but certainly don't cover all uses. We're kind of tying ourselves in knots trying to function as a dictionary here. ~ mazca ^talk 14:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Free as ((R from antonym)) or delete. Any target more specific than that misses some definition of "free", as the gratis versus libre problem illustrates. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free is a disambiguation page, and many entries, such as album names, dont' have non-free as an antonym. I think Mazca (talk · contribs) is right: we're struggling with a dictionary definition instead of a topic.Coastside (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I suggested disambiguation at this title. I'll have a go at drafting one tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G8. The target has been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there have been alternative options to deletion suggested here it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The redirects were deleted by Liz and this discussion closed. They were undeleted at my request due to this discussion being ongoing and lacking any obvious consensus (for anything) and the discussion reopened. I do intend to draft a disambiguation page, but don't have time now and may not until tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for this. I'm sorry if my actions disrupted this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I recreated the page Proprietary as an interwiki redirect to Wiktionary. I support deletion of this redirect as too ambiguous. Non-free can mean proprietary, but it can also refer to stuff that is not free to use under copyright law, or it can refer to stuff that you can't get for free. The many possibilities and the fact that we are not a dictionary means that we shuld delete the two redirects above. Aasim (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation page drafted at Non-free. I don't know whether non-free is or can be used as an antonym for any of the mathematics terms at Free (disambiguation), they will need to be added if so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The disambiguation page looks like an okay option, though it's always going to be a bit of a load of partial matches. Certainly better than the previous options. ~ mazca ^talk 18:15, 13 November 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Run (upcoming film) → Run  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently retargeted from Run (2020 film), no longer upcoming. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom since this 2020 film was already released. I've also found 15 more of these redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#More (upcoming "film name") redirects. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:53, 18 November 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 Taiwan Nationalist Party. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nationalist Party of Taiwan → Kuomintang  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nationalist Party of Taiwan is the synonym of Taiwan Nationalist Party (zh:台灣國民黨) instead of Chinese Nationalist Party (中國國民黨). Konno Yumeto 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until the TNP 台灣國民黨 article is developed. Kuomintang / Chinese Nationalist Party is far more notable as primary topic than a minor political party that started in 2003. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AngusWOOF. We don't have an article about the Taiwan Nationalist Party yet, but when we do a hatnote can be added at the current target pointing there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Taiwan Nationalist Party. Konno Yumeto 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Taiwan Nationalist Party per Konno Yumeto. Correct names take precedence over errors. (Admittedly there have been occasional proposals to rename the Kuomintang to this name [1], but that's such an obscure factoid that the Kuomintang article doesn't even allude to it, let alone mention this name at all). The hatnote handles any residual confusion. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Taiwan Nationalist Party. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 18:13, 25 November 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. Already retargeted to One Man Army by Rfc1394. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The One Man Army → One Man Army (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This currently redirects to One Man Army (TV series), but as the disambiguation page One Man Army shows, there are many other feasible targets. I first considered adding a hatnote to the TV series article pointing to the disambiguation, but that would imply that the TV series article is the primary topic here, and I'm not sure that's warranted.

Worth noting that searching for 'One man army' already goes to the disambiguation, it's only when you add the 'The...' (which doesn't even appear in the title of the TV series!) that you end up being redirected.

TL;DNR: I'm proposing that both searches (with and without 'The') should go to the disambiguation page. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rearget to dab per nominator. If there is any primary topic for the phrase including "the" it is the album by Radical Redemption (which I've added to the dab page), but the only content we have about that is a discography listing so the dab page is a better target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur and fix - I wrote the redirection for this eight years ago and have both no memory of having done it or why. My guess is either I saw a mention of the show or a reference, went to look it up, couldn't find it, and when I did find it, realized other people would probably be looking for it as well. Since that show has been off the air for all this time, I agree this should redirect to the disambiguation page (as I probably did not know about it then). As I created the original redirect, I'll change it to go to the disambiguation page, and as there is no longer an issue to litigate as there is no disagreement between the parties involved, I'll consider this issue closed as this grants the proponent all the relief he wanted and I have no objection. Thank you. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:36, 24 November 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 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden → Cabinet of Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The topic is not mentioned (and will not be mentioned) in the target article because ambassadors are not cabinet members. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden. It might redirect to Political appointments by Joe Biden, but that too is presently a redirect. There's just no content for this to redirect to at the moment. Sandstein 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending creation of an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete target article doesn't discuss ambassadors and those would be out of scope anyway. Hut 8.5 20:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the current target is inappropriate per above, and there is no way to add content elsewhere at the moment - there is no confirmation even about whom Biden wants to appoint (let alone whether the Senate will cooperate), just speculation like [2][3]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment notwithstanding this news [4] that Biden will promote the US ambassador to the UN back to cabinet rank (and the corresponding updates to Cabinet of Joe Biden#Ambassador to the United Nations), that article still is not an appropriate target for this redirect given that no other ambassadorial position is cabinet rank. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The redirect when redirected to that article doesn't even talk about the appointed Ambassadors, this probably violates one of Wikipedia's Rules. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 14:32, 19 November 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 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FT. hOVEY → Fort Hovey (Fort Curtis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Again, I generally don't view spelling/capitalization variants as harmful redirects, but this crosses the line into stupidity in my book. Nobody's gonna type this exact string in. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, not helpful. Sandstein 08:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete badly-formatted redirect. Alternatives exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 17 November 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. Speedily closed given the creator's agreement. Sandstein 08:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Star (newspaper) (disambiguation) → Star (newspaper)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Star (newspaper) is a set index article (a list of newspapers with a similar name), not a disambiguation page. Newspaper links should go directly to that article. Non-newspaper links would go to Star (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I musy have created this with a mis click while disambiguating.— Rod ^talk 08:29, 17 November 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 speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Macedonian Orthodox European Diocense → European Macedonian Orthodox Diocese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as implausible typo. Note that Macedonian Orthodox European Diocese is correctly spelled and already points to the same target. Place Clichy (talk) 00:10, 17 November 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.