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 delete author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pénitencier de Litchfield → Orange Is the New Black  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED, I'm not familiar with any series named L'orange ç'est le noir nouveau _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a mistake on my part. I wanted to create this page for the French version of Wikipedia. Thank you.Paul Morère (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Paul Morère[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 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokémon Photo Booth → List of Pokémon video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Pokémon video games#Pokémon Project Studio with an Rcat "to section," preferably in an Rcat shell, as "photo booth" is a likely synonym or intended destination for "Project Studio," which is mentioned in the target article. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: I oppose retargeting this to List of Pokémon video games#Pokémon Project Studio. I just discovered that the subject mentioned in the nominated redirect has a WP:REDLINK issue; the subject it describes is not the same subject in List of Pokémon video games#Pokémon Project Studio. The subject at List of Pokémon video games#Pokémon Project Studio is a computer program made in 1999, whereas the subject of "Pokémon Photo Booth" is a mobile app made in 2016. Steel1943 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The game is listed at List of Android games, but retargeting there doesn't seem like a good idea since it has no other redirects for individual games. Assuming that the list is only meant to have notable games, it's possible this one shouldn't even be listed there, since we have no coverage, though I'd also assume that any official Pokémon game will meet GNG. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2019 (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 00:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Glitch City → Pokémon (video game series)#Codes and glitches  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and seems WP:NEO for games glitching. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to VA-11 HALL-A, a quite good indie game that takes place in a setting known as "Glitch City". Totally unrelated, but still plausible as a search._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While VA-11 HALL-A is the only article that mentions a "Glitch City" on Wikipedia, it doesn't have any significant coverage in that article and the Pokemon usage is by far and away the primary topic for the term and almost everyone searching for that will be surprised and/or confused by reaching something unrelated. We should not imply we have any content about this when we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly per Thryduulf, although the game is not the only article that mentions a Glitch City—see search results. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2019 (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 Pokémon Company. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokémon USA Inc. → Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pokemon USA Inc. → Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Note: Pokémon USA Inc. is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it's a plausible typo being the U.S. subsidiary's official name. Also, while short, editor Jennytablina contributed to the target article by way of this redirect so there could be attribution issues and the need to preserve this redirect with the "with history" Rcat tag. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...But, as a redirect, it is unhelpful due to lack of any information at the target article. If you are concerned about WP:CWW, your best option is to advocate to either 1) get the attributions moved to another title that is a plausible search term (which I don't see plausible in this case since the title would have to match the edit history, which would most likely bring us back to the reason why I nominated these redirects in the first place) or 2) restore Pokémon USA Inc. as an article and then nominate it for WP:AFD. But, I don't see the point of either one of those actions as necessary, considering that the article was live for only one day ... over 13 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it a typo? Glades12 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to The Pokemon Company where they are mentioned._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: I support this retargeting option per this list of incoming redirects to The Pokémon Company for consistency. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2019 (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. We can revisit when the ambiguity becomes more than hypothetical. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In Dutch → List of Walt Disney Animation Studios short films#1946  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• In Deutsch → Dalida discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

While both of these are the titles of songs, I think they are rather surprising targets. We don't have In French, In English and so on, however we do have wikt:in Dutch for example ("in trouble or disfavor"), which came up in the search results from sister projects.

In general, typing "In language" into the search engine returns the article for the language within the first few results, which might be more helpful than sending people off to list articles. The first is linked in three Disney-related articles, the second not at all. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In Dutch (and create a replacement In Dutch (short film) pointing at the current target). Weak keep In Deutsch, since that's not a phrase in English and is only very rarely used in German (see here for an explanation, in German of course). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, given that the current targets actually cover topics by those names, and no one has suggested any other targets on English Wikipedia. We don't have In French or In English because there's no topics by those names. Hatnote List of Walt Disney Animation Studios short films#1946 for wikt:in Dutch if required, or disambiguate if anyone actually finds other topics by these names (good luck trying to find anything among the 50,000 Wikipedia search results on "In Dutch"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both: these are actual titles (film and song, respectively) and not likely to be confused with anything else. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per above (although refining the second to Dalida discography#Compilation albums couldn't hurt, especially since people seem to be confused about whether it's a song or album). "In Dutch" has the potential to become a disambiguation page at some point, because it's also the title of a Vanderbuyst (d:Q2267840) album, but that shouldn't happen until the band has an article here. - Eureka Lott 15:44, 15 December 2019 (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) 18:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• High Legh primary shool → Knutsford  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Topic isn't mentioned at the target, and the title is both spelled wrong and capitalised wrong. Reyk _YO! 11:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 14 December 2019 (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) 18:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Microbiology → Template:WikiProject Microbiology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused redirect. It does not follow the standard name convention for banners. Magioladitis (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would expect a template with this name to be a navbox for microbiology topics, not a redirect to a WikiProject banner template. Plantdrew (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused, not useful, and with no history that needs to be preserved. For what it's worth, it looks like Template:Virus and Template:Metabolic pathway are in the same boat... Ajpolino (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as a non-standard and unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews) project banner redirect. An editor seeing the code for a transcluded project banner in the edit window should be able to immediately identify that it is a project banner based on its name, and not have to wonder or double-check. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 16 December 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Interplanetary Transport System → SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Interplanetary Transport System is the 2016 concept of the SpaceX Starship. I propose to retarget this to Starship development history#Interplanetary Transport System. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note Starship development history#Interplanetary Transport System was separately created in November 2019 by Soumyabrata, so content fork may apply. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a fork of SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure. It was abridged from the nonexistent ITS launch vehicle. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like ITS launch vehicle got merged previously to Starship development history per Talk:ITS_launch_vehicle#Merger_proposal AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the redirect was strange the whole time. The title is the name of a former rocket concept, it should go to an article about a former rocket concept. --mfb (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Now that we have an article about the abandoned launch system concept, separate from SpaceX's Mars colonisation ideas, yes it's better to redirect to the rocket. Not to SpaceX Starship though, but as suggested, to the specific article about the historical concept. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 14 December 2019 (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.