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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Other uses (disambiguation) → Template:Other uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per G14, its target is not a disambiguation page. G14 tag was declined by Uanfala. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This redirect exists, I assume, so that the link at the top of the documentation of Template:Other uses doesn't display in red. If the documentation is rewritten so that there's no need for this redirect, I'll be fine with its deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Rewritten. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But Delete anyway. A red link in the example usage is perfectly fine; creating a redirect just to avoid that doesn't help anything. If someone really cared about that, it would be better to just leave a blank page than a redirect. I've updated the doc per above, so there's probably no other reason to keep this anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is not an example usage, Template talk:Other uses is a widely used template. Having red link causes confusion. Crashed greek (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Crashed greek, please read WP:PTM and WP:G14. Using the other uses template does not create its disambiguation page. Just because this other uses template page exists does not mean that it needs a disambiguation page, nor are there any links to disambiguate it. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect's usefulness in documentation outweighs a strict adherence to G14—especially given that we're usually a bit more lenient on Template-space redirects. I have no idea how WP:PTM is relevant here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tons of templates' untranscluded forms link to redlinks, look weird, don't render properly, or even throw errors. That's fine. If someone's confused by the redlink, the documentation should clear that up. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the benefit. The redirect is likely to cause just as much confusion on the template page as a red link would, and I would prefer a red link to a circular one. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 20 October 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. I will refine to the Australia section, which seems like a no-brainer as long as we consider there to be no primary topic. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manly, Australia → Manly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Manly, New South Wales is the primary topic for "Manly, Australia" (see pageviews) and this redirect should therefore be targeted there, with a hatnote to the other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The threshold for a primary topic should be a lot higher for redirects from incomplete disambiguation. The redirect receives barely one view per day, so I don't think there's a large number of readers getting unreasonably inconvenienced by it. Refining to the section of the dab page will, of course, be a good idea. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Which "oppose"? Do you mean "keep" or "delete"? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I probably should have made good on my general intention not to use bolded !votes. Here, I'm opposing the nominator's proposal for retargeting. I support the current target. – Uanfala (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose in favour of redirect to Manly#Australia on the dab page and let the user disambiguate it for themselves. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Manly#Australia per Kerry. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed and let a ((redirect)) hatnote disambiguate it as per usual. The threshold is not higher (let alone a lot higher) for redirects from incomplete disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, with a hatnote there to the disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. The Manly in New South Wales is the clear primary topic for the search term and so users should be redirected there. A hatnote to the dabpage will suffice for everyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the threshold for primary topics with partial disambiguation, users will expect to be taken to a DAB if they search for a qualified title and it terms out that its still ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 19 October 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) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• EQ3 → Palliser Furniture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Both EQ3 and Palliser appear to be furniture companies from Winnipeg, but otherwise I can't find a connection. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 11 October 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 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Www.en.wikipedia.org → English Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This isn't even a real domain name. Trying to access it shows a "server not found" error 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I doubt someone looking up info on this site would considering typing this non existent URL in the search bar.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We already have en.wikipedia.org. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:37, 12 October 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 Wikipedia in China. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia in PRC → Chinese Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to the disambiguation page Wikipedia in China, where two possible meanings are presented to the reader. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. Obvious and uncontroversial. --MarioGom (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom and MarioGom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 15 October 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 withdrawn — I did not read closely enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is incorrect. Chlorimide is the diradical =NCl, as in 2,6-Dibromoquinonechlorimide,^[1] while this article is about the molecule NHCl₂. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 11 October 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 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Wars: Fall of the Resistance → Star Wars: The Last Jedi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The title of the film "Fall of the Resistance" is not mentioned in the target article elsewhere, leaving the connection unclear. The Resistance survived at the end of the film nor collapsed neither dissolved during the film, leading to the next film Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker which shows their decisive victory against the First Order with the help of their galaxy fleet. Chompy Ace 02:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Back in 2016, there was speculation that Star Wars Episode VIII would be titled "Fall of the Resistance." [1] Obviously, those rumors weren't correct. - Eureka Lott 03:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Without these rumors being mentioned at the target, the redirect is useless. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rumoured title that had been forgotten.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 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.