The result of the discussion was retargeted by nominator. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Prenatal development. The conceptus advances to embryo and then fetus (US English) (or foetus: UK English), so the redirect "Unborn baby" to "Fetus" is an over simplification. The existing page "Prenatal development" has similar meaning and has extensive explanations of prenatal development. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you may edit the redirect yourself (and your suggested target looks like a sensible one, so go for it). If you don't want it deleted - and it looks like you don't - listing here is not needed. - Nabla (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nomination is about where the direct goes to and not about deleting anything. I would rather the discussion here took its course. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - RFD is a place to nominate redirects if you want them deleted. If you just want to change it, I suggest you be bold and change the redirect to prenatal development. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've always wondered about that - if XfD is all about deletion, why isn't it called "X for deletion" instead of "X for discussion"? That would've avoided the confusion we're seeing here. --JaGa^talk 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, it is a bad example of how sometimes wikipedia builds 'consensus'. It used to be 'deletion' (e.g Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion redirects here since the page was moved, 3 years ago) but after an extended 'war' over the deletion process they ended up with these names. (I left WP by then for a while, fed up with the whole process, and the uncivility of a few) So it is an euphemism, mostly for historical reasons. - Nabla (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look at the line at the top of the page which says this of for redirects "proposed for deletion or other action". I checked this before listing it here and "other action" is what I nominated it for. I am not sure why people think this is for deletion only, as the explanatory text on this page includes "other action". Snowman (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CCC. It is not too late for an old consensus to be superseded by an new consensus, and anything confusing can be updated or clarified. I think that this page should make it clearer that this is for redirects for discussion and not exclusively used for deletion. As far as I know, there is no where else where controversial changes to the targets of redirects can be discussed, however, if there is somewhere, please let me know where it is. If there is nowhere to discuss controversial changes to the target of redirects, perhaps it will be left to individual editors to make bold edits to make the changes without a consensus. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • And what, exactly, in the non-existent discussion at the non-existent Talk:Unborn baby, or the non-existent reversions in the edit history of the redirect, made you think that there was contention? What made you think that anyone would have reacted differently to how Nabla reacted, had you made a note on the talk page? You've typed far more text, and wasted far more time, your own and that of other people, here than you would have expended by simply boldly editing the redirect to re-target it, noting your reasons for doing so in the edit summary and (if necessary for reasons of length) on the talk page as you did so. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The lengthy and rather complex discussion is hear on the talk page of the relevant WP project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#an_interesting_conundrum_-_fetus_vs_unborn_baby. I do not think that I am waisting anyone's time, and I am helping to sort out a problem of understanding what this discussion page is about. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I will take the above discussion together with the on-going discussion on WP Medicine talk page as WP:Snowball and change the link as I had nominated. I would add, that I think that the text on this page indicates to me that this is the correct page to discuss a change of a target of a redirect. Nevertheless, I think the discussion on this topic could have been better and should not have been marred by questions about what this talk page actually is for, nor suggestions that it was the wrong place for this nomination. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Incidentally, please withdraw the allegation that I have waisted anyone's time. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (unindenting) I agree the page name may be misleading but, as said before, it is so mostly for historical reasons, probably better not to rock that boat now. You'll notice the page's content is actually about deletion, and that this page is listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy and {{deletiondebates}}; so it is used when deletion is an option, though the result may be a retargeting of the page. When you think deletion is not an option -i.e., the page is worth keeping, only its content may be better some in other way - it is certainly better to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution' process. It points to several places to go and discuss such changes, namely discussing it first on the talk page or some other relevant place (e.g. a WikiProjet), using Wikipedia:Requests for Comment, etc.. - Nabla (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This only redirects to A1 because A1 is in the last part of its name, which isn't a good reason, especially considering there aren't any comets listed on the target disambig. This should be a redlink. JaGa^talk 16:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or possibly retarget to Comet#Comet_nomenclature as the current target does not include whatever it is that is being redirected. PaulJones (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment personally, I prefer delete, because on the article Comet West you get the false impression that an article for this comet exists. I'm hoping a redlink would encourage someone to create the article some day. --JaGa^talk 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a redlink - it's only redirected to A1 because its proper name is "C/1771 A1" which is a really weak reason, especially considering the comet isn't even listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is linked by an article, but there is no mention of the trailer park (and probably never will be) in the disambig. It should just be a redlink. JaGa^talk 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete all Nabla (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 Group → A1; Group A-1 → A1; Group A1 → A1; A1 group → A1; A1 Group → A1

Another unlikely A1 redirect that isn't listed on the disambig. JaGa^talk 16:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A1 used to have a link the Russian "A1 Group" until this [1]. More generally, A1 was much longer at the start of December,[2] with several of the other redirects, such as the bakeries --Rumping (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks. So the A1 page was cleaned up but the redirects weren't. That explains the huge list of oddball redirs to this disambig. Unless we want to restore that content, the leftover redirects no longer makes sense. I'll post more of them here in the future, unless there's a good reason not to. --JaGa^talk 03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the company is notable, we ought to have a stub for it, and retarget the redirects to that. If not, delete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "A1 Middle Eastern Bakery" on the target disambig page. JaGa^talk 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above rationale. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "A1 Lebanese Bakery" on the target disambig page. JaGa^talk 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above rationale. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "A1 bakery" on the target disambig page. This should just be a redlink. JaGa^talk 16:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above rationale. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "A1 bakery" on the target disambig page. This should just be a redlink. JaGa^talk 16:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above rationale. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Two are listed at A1#Music_and_dance. --- User:Docu

Unlinked, and there is no A1 album as far as I can tell. JaGa^talk 15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator (see below). — Gavia immer (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to an article with the exact same name. JaGa^talk 15:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, potentially useful: it's not in fact the "exact same name", but a redirect from the Cyrillic letter А to the Latin A. There's also the parallel Greek Α1. Having them seems sensible enough, since the dab list contains several items that would be natively written in Cyrillic or Greek, respectively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Well, you learn something new every day. How could you tell it's the Cyrillic? --JaGa^talk 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Type a Cyrillic A into your browser's search box and see if it matches. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the Cyrrillic A should be explained on the talk page of the redirect for those who might forget to type a Cyrillic A into their browsers search box. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I originally created it as a redirect to A1 TV channel (Macedonia), since that's the first google hit and I didn't see any other uses for a Cyrillic "А1" on the dab page (i.e. Russian or Serbian things called А1). What does everyone else think it should redirect to? BalkanFever 06:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I only called for its deletion because I didn't know about the Cyrillic. I'm not sure how a nomination should be properly withdrawn, but if someone wants to do it, I would not object. --JaGa^talk 07:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.