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) 14:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SNK-glish → Engrish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Presumably this is meant as a jab at the Japanese video game company SNK. However, this term is not discussed in the Engrish article, nor at the article SNK. Without any discussion of "SNK-glish" to be found, there is no reason to have this as a redirect. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't mentioned and the redirect could therefore be confusing: in any case I'd regard it as slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 1 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) 14:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone Pro → IPhone 11 Pro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with iPhone 12 Pro. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can see there isn't an "iPhone Pro" and this redirect is therefore ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:28, 1 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 Walpurgis Night (album). There's no consensus to delete, but retargeting to the album is a helpful improvement over keeping as-is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Walpurgis Night (EP) → GFriend discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

GFriend's new album Walpurgis Night is a studio album and not an EP. The creator of that page didn't wait for the confirmation and made a redirect explaining something false. This can then cause confusion to the readers. So I believe that this redirect should be deleted. HDORS (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not an EP. 109.8.42.7 (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Walpurgis Night (album). The difference between an album and an EP is not straightforward and there has obviously been confusion about which this release would be, so it is a plausible search term. However we should target the article about it not the general discography. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Walpurgis Night (album) per Thryduulf. I'll tag with ((R from incorrect disambiguation)). --BDD (talk) 14:22, 3 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) 14:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TWTD → Those Were The Days  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Also an acronym redirect that targets to the DAB page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ipswich Town F.C., with a hatnote back to the disambiguation page. twtd.co.uk is a prominent fan site for this football club, and searching for "twtd" on Google produces links to this site and other links to the football club well above any other initialisms, none of which are particularly prominent. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Those Were The Days (Fanzine). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless information on "TWTD" is added to Ipswich Town F.C.; otherwise it seems to be an WP:EASTEREGG. -- JHunterJ (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Ipswich supporters page is mentioned at the current target. "TWTD" is clearly a valid search term for "Those were the days" unless there is something else this can stand for? Not sure I understand the nom's justification as that relates to articles and their content, not to redirects. I don't see that any of the reasons to delete apply. If others feel it justified, I don't have an issue with retargeting to Ipswich Town F.C. with a hatnote, but that should only be done if mentioned there. A7V2 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous --Devokewater (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is another poor rationale by Seventyfiveyears so I'm explicitly separating myself from it. While it may be true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that has nothing to do with this redirect. A redirect from an initialism to a target that uses that initialism is definitely a plausible search term, and those redirects should be kept. In fact, ((R from initialism)) (and the sister ((R from acronym))) are used on thousands of redirect pages. That being said, I don't see a significant enough connection between "TWTD" and the disambiguation page for Those Were the Days. My searches confirm the Ipswich Town usage is probably the most significant. However, there is no mention of the term at that target and as a result I have removed that entry from Those Were the Days. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Search will get you to Ipswich Town if that's where you wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:47, 1 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 Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:New features → Wikipedia:Blocked users can edit their own talk page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't make any sense DemonDays64 (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests, which would be the page one would be looking for if they are wanting "new features". It includes Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests#Software deployment schedule, which explains when new features are deployed, as well as a link to the deployment schedule so one can see what features have recently been deployed as well as upcoming features to be released soon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Implausible target. Aasim (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests per Tavix. Having an implausible target is not a valid reason for deletion. This redirect can still be useful if a new target is assigned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. I'm also a little mystified that "New features" would redirect to a page that was marked historical over a decade ago. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Tavix. @Zeke: the target feature wasn't historical in 2005 when this redirect was created (by a page move). Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this title seems to have been created as a sort of early village pump, but only ever attracted one proposal to allow blocked users to edit their own talk page. It was moved three days later to Wikipedia:Blocked user edit exceptions, and another two days later to the current title. Readers are clearly not looking for new features (or anything else) at this title: the page has had 81 hits in total since mid-2015. It's plausibly a shortcut for what Tavix proposed but just as likely to really any of the extant village pumps, and if nobody has seen fit to point it to a more appropriate target in fifteen years it's not likely to be useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Tavix. Hut 8.5 19:09, 27 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 Kuwait#Administrative divisions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrative divisions of Kuwait → Kuwait#Governorates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The section doesn't exist, and the topic is not discussed, as far as I've seen. I'm not sure Kuwait even has any administrative divisions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kuwait#Administrative divisions. There appear to be two types of divisions (governorates of Kuwait and areas of Kuwait), both discussed in that section. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the ip. I think Vatican City is the only country in the world without administrative divisions of some sort. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Kuwait#Administrative divisions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 1 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 keep. This is not a valid delete reason for a project-space redirect. – bradv🍁 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:LATE → Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not mentioned at the target. I also found a film named "Late Night" and some other related stuff. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:41, 26 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oh That Gus!", Inc. → Jon Harmon Feldman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• UPD: Now mentioned, not sure the redirect is plausible with the quotation marks though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I first thought "rename without the quotation marks", but they are seen on screen (google it). – Fayenatic London 09:06, 22 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 the Current roster section of the respective articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Giants Depth Chart → New York Giants#Updated Depth Chart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Baltimore Ravens Depth Chart → Baltimore Ravens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#San Diego Chargers Depth Chart. No such content appears on Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 14:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget respectively to New York Giants#Current roster/Baltimore Ravens#Current roster, both of which have an external link to an updated depth chart for the respective team. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget per Ivanvector. I'm not thrilled about relying on external links, but they seem likely to stick around, and I suppose the regular rosters convey similar information on their own. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 3 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) 14:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Bummer Vacation → Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not the real title of the book, nor an alternate title; it started as a hoax and returns almost no search results. Since the start of the year, this redirect has had only 13 visits in 10 months. I nominate this for deletion. Scrooge200 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G3 and LaundryPizza. Back in 2008, when Dog Days was still upcoming, this was assumed to be the title of the book. It's strange why this title has survived all those years since someone first speculated this when the real title was revealed. I don't know if there's anything with that title planned, but for now, we can just do without this hoax. Regards, SONIC678 05:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a real name for the target. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:59, 27 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alice Morgan → J. P. Morgan Jr.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unable to find any reliable sources for her existence. Only mentions of Alice Morgan appear to come from books on ghosts. Greyjoy ^talk 06:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate this (since there's also the Luther protagonist of the same name, and possibly some other people with the same name, but I'm not sure how many there are to make this option viable) or weak retarget to Morgan family#Junius Spencer Morgan branch since she's mentioned there. Otherwise, delete this if neither of these work. Regards, SONIC678 17:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not the best to redirect to Morgan family#Junius Spencer Morgan branch as that seems to just be based off the fact she was included in the J. P. Morgan Jr. article, I removed her from the Morgan article due to no reliable sources but missed the mention in the Morgan family article, will remove now.Greyjoy ^talk 05:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disambiguate per Sonic678; drafted below the redirect. Not opposed to deletion either since these WP:DABMENTIONs are pretty insignificant, but I don't think retargeting to any one of those mentions is a good idea. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disambiguate based on draft currently at redirect. Greyjoy ^talk 05:28, 29 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.