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. Consensus against deletion was clear here. Participants, @Uanfala, Narky Blert, and PamD: please feel free to refine the target to a section, if warranted, and add or update rcats as needed. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nidha → Nida Plateau  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of this spelling in target. PamD 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The spelling is well attested, including on Wikipedia. Dh is not an unusual way to render Greek δ (see for example Romanization_of_Greek#Modern_Greek). – Uanfala (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. δ is pronounced "dh" in modern Greek; see Delta (letter)#Pronunciation, which also mentions the alternative romanisations "d" and "dh". Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 22 February 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 soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast food in israel → List of restaurants in Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename PamD 21:01, 17 February 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 soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fast food restaurants in israel → List of restaurants in Israel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No need to redirect from the non-capitalised version of every article or list title containing a capitalised placename. PamD 21:01, 17 February 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 Wiktionary:andromimesis. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Andromimesis → Trans man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Term is not mentioned in target, but is defined in the article Attraction to transgender people#Alternative terms. PamD 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:andromimesis (See Category:Redirects to Wiktionary for examples of this.) Oppose retarget to Attraction to transgender people because I don't think the article should be covering the term in the first place, it seems pretty offtopic/undue there. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to andromimesis per WanderingWanda and because the proposed target PamD identified doesn't really explain the term. If and when an article is warranted on andromimesis, we can easily remove the soft redirect soon enough. But, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects do two things: (a) they help to promote our sister projects and (b) they help to enforce the idea of what Wikipedia notionally is not. Doug Mehus T·C 23:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As we often do for disambiguation pages when that's an option, I have added the soft redirect below the target, and commented out the {{subst:longcomment}} to facilitate easy closure. Doug Mehus T·C 23:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would it not be a synonym for male impersonator (which currently redirects to drag king)? See etymology at wiktionary. I don't think that Drag king is a particularly good match though. Soft redirect to andromimesis acceptable. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: my vote remains the same, but just FYI that after researching the term I've significantly updated the definition at Wikitionary.
  • Old: From andro- +‎ mimesis...(nonstandard, rare) The practice of imitating a man, and thus of being an andromimetic.
  • New: From andro- +‎ mimesis. Literally “male imitation”. First put forward in a 1984 article by sexologists John Money and Malgorzata Lamacz...(dated, nonstandard, rare) The state of being transmasculine or a trans man. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WanderingWanda for doing that. PamD, as nom, do you have any objections to the soft redirect to Wiktionary? Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 22 February 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) 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dragtop → Desktop replacement computer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Most mentions of the term "dragtop" online seem to be software-related, and thus don't apply to the current target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the term has multiple meanings, the redirect can be changed into a disambiguation page. · Naive cynic · 21:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue right now is that as this term is not used at the target, and I can't find any relevant usage of it online, we don't have any evidence that this is actually a term used to refer to the current target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used for laptops that are too large, too heavy, or too power hungry relative to the battery size to be portable. Some of the online usage is here: [1] · Naive cynic · 21:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any use of this term. Most searches point to the use of computer dragging to the top or bottom of a screen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 14 February 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. No prejudice against recreation if the relevant content is added. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Luis Ángel Mendiburu → Silvio Frondizi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It's an {{R from relative}}, but the relative isn't mentioned at the target so the redirect isn't terribly useful. Delete unless a justification or a sourced mention can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Ost316: Can you give us any insight as to why you created this redirect and added Luis Ángel Mendiburu to surname page Mendiburu? He's not mentioned in English, Spanish or Basque WPs. I have found that he was an Argentine academic at National Technological University who was born in 1949 and murdered in 1974 by Triple A. I can't see anything more than WP:BIO1E here. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I likely created it because it came up as a page with a incoming links when I ran User:Dispenser's Dabfix on Mendiburu. I chose the target because those pages referred to him as Frondizi's son-in-law and the murder did not have its own page, though I probably considered one of the incoming link pages as targets, too. If the redirect is seen as unhelpful, I have no complaints against deletion, though a simple edit to Silvio's page could make it mention his son-in-law like the pages linking to it do. —Ost (talk) 05:47, 10 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Foundational medicine → Alternative medicine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Most sources that I came across on Google scholar do not appear to use these terms interchangeably, with the arguably rule-proving exception of this FRINGE-looking blog post [2] (not sure why Google Scholar indexed it). I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source: [3] The RedBurn (ϕ) 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. The term is incredibly vague, and attempts to use it as a euphemism don't appear to be particular notable. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a better target can be found. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That 2008 blog post by Todd Cameron begins, 'I have coined the term “Foundational Medicine”', which indicates it was then a WP:NEOLOGISM. The citation found by The RedBurn is to a journal, Foundational Medicine Review, which from its prospectus looks distinctly non-WP:MEDRS and an attempt to repackage alternative medicine under a name withour negative overtones. I also found this link by Elizabeth A Wanek, who claims it as an unregistered trademark; the contents of that link speak for themselves. Although we do need to cover WP:FRINGE topics, this doesn't cut it for me; I would hesitate to include any of those citations in an article. Narky Blert (talk) 15:12, 18 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Headless drummer → Queen's University at Kingston#International Study Centre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Nothing in the article about any headless drummer. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment headless drummer could refer to the drummer of Headless (band), but is that the only band named Headless or are there other contexts for this phrasing? Even if not, do we target Headless drummer to Headless (band) or to the biographical article for the drummer of the band? In any case, has the band had more than one drummer? I will have to do further research before deciding. Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Band page shows two drummers, one having an article. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they both have heads? --kingboyk (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The ghost of a headless drummer haunts Edinburgh Castle, not mentioned in our article. Link. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. It is hard for me to imagine that people searching for a headless drummer are searching for the particular ghost in Edinburgh Castle instead of any other ghost in any other castle. With that being said, "headless drummer" in the context of "where is the headless drummer" seems more of a Google search rather than a Wikipedia search, but this thought-process stems mostly from the fact that the title is rather ambiguous. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doug Mehus T·C 02:51, 18 February 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 Wiktionary:porcelain god. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Porcelain god → Toilet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, not many pageviews [4], not evidence of usefullness. Hog Farm (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (was Rename without leaving a redirect to Porcelain throne) ​ which, I'd submit, is a much more common nickname for the toilet. Doug Mehus T·C 17:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think the redirect Porcelain throne should exist, feel free to create it. The redirect being discussed is a separate matter, because it was explicitly created by Gobonobo as a redirect from Porcelain god, NOT "Porcelain throne". It would, therefore, not be accurate to have the redirect moved to a completely different term as if Gobonobo wanted a redirect for "Porcelain throne" instead of the desired "Porcelain god". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Toilet god. I strongly oppose moving the redirect per my above response to Doug Mehus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support a redirect to wikt:porcelain god. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Retarget to Toilet god per Tavix' find.) In this case, the term porcelain god does not appear to be as widely used as porcelain throne is for the toilet. Thus, per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY, it's confusing. I think Tavix' proposed target is much better. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't retarget to Toilet god - this is a totally different subject, in the West exclusively relating to periods centuries before porcelain existed, and in East Asian cultures porcelain toilets are a very recent introduction. If we had a decent article on porcelain figure it would be better to send it there, as these often show gods. But we don't. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Delete per Johnbod). That's true; it's still WP:XY/WP:R#D2 thing. Deletion is best. Doug Mehus T·C 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to porcelain god on Wiktionary per Tavix' alternate proposal, who knows how to pull at my Wiktionary soft redirect heartstrings. At best, porcelain god is an unencyclopedic term, so article creation is unlikely. In the event someone creates a porcelain god piece of art and it's notable, then the soft redirect can be converted into an article. But, at present, I think Tavix' alternate proposal is best. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to porcelain god on Wiktionary per Dmehus and Tavix's alt proposal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to porcelain god on Wiktionary per Dmehus and Tavix's alt proposal. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft retarget to wikt:porcelain god as per above. J947 ^(c), at 05:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consensus is strongly trending toward the soft redirect alternate proposal of Tavix, so I've added the soft redirect to Wiktionary code below the current target, if that's the outcome. Closer need only to uncomment the substituted longcomment post-close. Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 23 February 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) feminist (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• File:C I D.jpg → File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is essentially a procedural nomination for Kailash29792 who had nominated this file redirect at MfD in this discussion, and then at FfD in this discussion as vague and ambiguous. I personally happen to agree; thus, per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY, I'm recommending we delete this useless file redirect. As well, it's unclear whether File:C I D. (1956 movie poster).jpg will also be nominated by the nominator, but I do note it's tagged as non-qualifying non-free image tagging. So, if that is deleted before this, then this can be speedy deleted per G8. Doug Mehus T·C 15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT, considering this redirect is a {{R from move}}. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the greatest of respect to Steel1943, I do note that there's no indication WP:FILEREDIRECT supercedes WP:R. Moreover, even if it did, there's no history to preserve, so this can be deleted per WP:COMMONSENSE, which I note is a suprapolicy in that it is said to be above all other policies and guidelines. This is just housekeeping. Doug Mehus T·C 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...WP:FILEREDIRECT exists for none of the reasons you just stated; it exists to prevent linkrot in external webpages from happening ... which has a rather high potential to happen with this redirect if it is deleted since this redirect has existed for over 7 years. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since File:C I D.jpg does not have any mainspace incoming links, and is a rather unacceptable file name, let's just delete it. Don't ask why, ask why not. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job there completely ignoring my comment, and making no effort whatsoever to dispute it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bad policy, to be honest. Other websites don't concern themselves with link rot in Wikipedia articles, so we have to have things like the Internet Archive bot to attempt to rescue such links. Moreover, Google does a very good job of updating the links in search results. Doug Mehus T·C 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Seriously Kailash29792, if you are going to keep making or supporting nominations like these ... as you have been for a few years now ... why don't you just go to Wikipedia talk:File mover (the talk page of the page WP:FILEREDIRECT targets) and start an WP:RFC to get the section Wikipedia:File mover#File redirects removed or rewritten? Since WP:FILEREDIRECT exists in its current form, every time I see a nomination like this, I'm going to vote for "keep" per this existing policy ... because, for one, it exists, and for two, because I'm not convinced that it's wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, it looks like Steel1943 already knows Kailash29792, and there's some history here. I do note that Kailash29792 has file mover permissions, so why not just move the file without leaving a redirect? For what it's worth, I do note that a Google site search for the URL returns only 1 URL, and using this backlink URL checker, the only inlink is from Indian Wikipedia. So, I don't see any linkrotting here. I think we can make an exception here to WP:FILEREDIRECT, per WP:COMMONSENSE, since no other websites link to this file. This would solve the ambiguity issue here in the URL. Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943. In fact, I find the redirect title is easier to digest than the current title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic collapsed discussion between Doug and Tavix that is only tangentially related

I agree with you there, Tavix, in that the current title is improperly punctuated and not that well named, but my concern is that would this redirect pass our naming conventions for the file? That is, can filenames be ambiguous and it's essentially "first kick at the can"? If so, then I'm wondering if maybe we should't rename the target file back to this file name redirect, suppressing the trailing redirect for the convoluted long filename? Doug Mehus T·C 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] File naming conventions is not something I care about, and is tangential to deciding whether or not to keep the redirect. I please ask that you at least attempt to do your required research before firing off a bunch of questions unrelated to the subject at hand and muddying the waters even further. -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. Let's collapse this discussion as it isn't helpful. Doug Mehus T·C 18:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT, although I can see the case for an exception. Hog Farm (talk) 20:02, 17 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Huckapedia → Mike Huckabee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, edit summaries of page history suggest this was a joke mentioned on the Daily Show once that did not get enough coverage to be mentioned at the Huckabee page without failing WP:UNDUE. Hog Farm (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not tagged yet, the redirect was put under full protection shortly after creation so I can't edit the redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page protection removed by Laser brain, Hog Farm. What I usually do in such cases is request page protection first, then nominate at RfD. See also Eric Dalby and Eric "Ric" Dalby. Doug Mehus T·C 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page tagged. Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Could possibly tag as {{R from meme}}, if it went viral, and its pageviews were substantiated by WP:R#K5. Doug Mehus T·C 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a minor bit of trivia that's not really notable in the grand scheme of Huckabee's life. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:00, 18 February 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 delete. By kingboyk. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adhesive Bonding (2) → Adhesive bonding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Relic of some sort of old round-robin move. R3 speedy deletion declined. Lithopsian (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless. This has had only 7 page views since July 2015. Glades12 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the uneccessary qualifier makes this useless. Hog Farm (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged with {{Db-g6}}. Seems to clearly qualify since it's an artifact left over from a round-robin page move. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this coprolite that was left over by a bot trying to clean up and just left a different sort of fossilized dung that was found by a stone eye of course. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Robert McClenon, word for word. Although, it's a good thing DPL bot doesn't check project namespace otherwise Robert would've gotten botslapped for linking to dung; else,

Speedy delete as either G6 per Steel1943 or G7 since the author has requested deletion and the only other edits have been the CSD and RfD taggings and an edit from a bot fixing a double-redirect. Should qualify under either criterion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I get that the discussion is archived but I wanted to give a quick thanks to @Lithopsian:, @Robert McClenon:, and everybody who took care of this redirect discussion. The CSD (under criterion R3) was justly declined as the redirect was not created "recently", but I failed to PROD or RfD the redirect after the CSD tag was removed. Thanks for picking up the slack, cheers! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:54, 18 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bitter gourd-shaped passion fruit → Passiflora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Previously targeted Passiflora kermesina, I can't find anything to suggest this is an actual plant name. – Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an unlikely search term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be a name used for P. kermesina. Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 18 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cerro Prieto geotherman field → Cerro Prieto geothermal field  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Typo PamD 11:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete typo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Typo and an unlikely search term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 18 February 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cerro Prieto geotherman area → Cerro Prieto  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Typo? PamD 11:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, given that a Search for Cerro Prieto is enough. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typo. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename typo. Was intended to be Cerro Prieto geothermal area. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:50, 24 February 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) 16:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop code → Blue screen of death  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not specifically mentioned in target and seems too general a term to redirect to Microsoft BSoD in particular. PamD 11:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous general term, and possible confusion with stop codon. Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ambiguous term, could refer to multiple things. Hog Farm (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. "Stop code" is the term of art for Windows crash codes, the Windows equivalent of Exit status. If the complaint is that it's ambiguous, then that just means that "Stop code" should be turned into a disambiguation page instead with an entry for Blue Screen of Death, which would also be acceptable if there are other encyclopedic uses of the term. SnowFire (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Going to have to agree with the fact that the title of the redirect is a bit ambiguous considering that the Windows STOP code term could also refer to a completely different thing, but I do think it can be turned into a disambiguation page like SnowFire suggested. Otherwise, like others have stated, I believe that a deletion may be suitable enough. Leaning for a delete. - pivotman319 (📫) 13:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with @Pivotman319 and SnowFire:, et al., that because it's ambiguous, blue screen of death, is not the best target for this redirect. I favour disambiguation, obviously, but if there are no suitable targets or a suitable disambiguation page drafted below the current target of stop code, then delete without prejudice to future recreation as a disambiguation page. Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 18 February 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. Counterpoint: I own a car, thus I own a transmission, thus this should really redirect to me. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Transmission owner → National Grid (Great Britain)#Control of the grid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Term not mentioned in target section, and seems too general to be redirected to a specific usage PamD 10:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to a page which disambiguates global electricity transmission system owner/operators; failing that,

Delete per above. Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. "Transmission" could refer to at least electricity or broadcasting. (Disease, telecommunications or automotive power seem less likely in context.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:38, 18 February 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 per G7. (non-admin closure) J947 ^(c), at 03:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• *Hosanagar (Vidhana Sabha constituency) → Hosanagar (Vidhana Sabha constituency)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Typo PamD 10:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: deleted. PamD 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete typo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as U1 - user requested after you moved the article from the incorrect name to the correct name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clutter; can't find the U1 request. J947 ^(c), at 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as low probability typo. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI didn't realise I could CSD any sort of redirect. Twinkle doesn't offer me U-1, but I've just put it up for G-7. PamD 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And it has been deleted.PamD 23:41, 19 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary measures → Provisional measure of protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Too general a term to redirect to a specific legal term. Leave as a redlink / search term. PamD 08:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This term is ambiguous and this redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Could refer to steps taken before undertaking almost any action. Narky Blert (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doug Mehus T·C 14:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above and this. J947 ^(c), at 04:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. This is, as stated above, maddeningly vague. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too ambiguous to be useful. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - wiki is supposed to be a reflection of usage in the external world, such as the press. Thomson Reuters reports "preliminary measures" to be common usage for Provisional measure of protection.^[1] I added the redirect because of Thomson Reuters. The other people above should not be allowed to delete a redirect based on their "feel" for the language. As a worst case, maybe a disambiguation page could point to Preliminary measures (ICJ), which would then be a link to Provisional measure of protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnovvig (talk • contribs) 04:50, February 19, 2020 (UTC)

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aart Awards → National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This needs to be deleted, as it is a misspelling (Aart - obviously a typo). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as typo. Anyone typing into the searchbox will find the page they want long before they get to the 'aa'. Narky Blert (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low probability typo. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the points raised by the nom, Narky, and Pbsouthwood. All very true! Doug Mehus T·C 15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; has helped a decent amount of people. This needs to be deleted, as it is a misspelling makes no sense whatsoever. Why delete? J947 ^(c), at 04:59, 21 February 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 Restore Isengard, retarget back to Isengard#Literature. A lot of back and forth in the history here, but I think consensus is clear. This restoration should not preclude a good-faith nomination of Isengard for AfD; if it is deleted, then we can reconsider whether Treegarth should be deleted or pointed to Rohan. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Treegarth → Rohan (Middle-earth)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

If I remember right, this is what the Ents turned Isengard into, but Isengard no longer has it's own article. Delete unless the entry "Treegarth of Orthanc (Ents)" at Realms of Arda is considered to be a useful retarget point. (For those users who are confused, this is a forest in the Lord of the Rings). Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Realms of Arda#Treegarth ({{R to anchor}}. It's not very rich content, but that's fixable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, we love the Ents dearly, but this really is a very minor detail, and there's nothing on Treegarth anywhere, and I mean in the shelf of academic books on JRRT that I'm looking at while I'm rewriting a whole lot of ME articles. I think we'd best delete this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Retarget proposed by SMcC looks good to me, and it's got an anchor already. Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus and SMcCandlish: The proposed retargeting point has been deleted at AfD. I'm assuming this affects your !votes. Hog Farm (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm Are there any other other Middle-earth articles which mention the Realms of Ards and/or Treegarth? That would be my second retarget option as I see little prospect this title would be used elsewhere, so it's a harmless and cheap redirect to retain. Doug Mehus T·C 14:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus Typing "*Treegarth" (which should bring up all mentions) into the Wikipedia search bar brings up just this redirect. It's mentioned I think a solid once in LOTR, so I'm not surprised we don't discuss it. Hog Farm (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Isengard as an article (and retarget Treegarth back to it). Isengard was turned into a redirect about a week ago and I think this needs to be reverted: the locality features very prominently e.g. in the films, and the current scattered mentions in Rohan (Middle-earth) aren't doing much service to readers searching for the topic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Isengard and retarget per Uanfala. Blanking an 11K article which has been around since 2003 without either opening a discussion on the Talk Page or going through WP:AFD strikes me as unilateral.

IMO Isengard is at least as significant a location as, for example, Bree. Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chiswick Chap:, the user who redirected Isengard. Hog Farm (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tsk, tsk, Chiswick Chap. Hog Farm, should we trout him? :-P Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Isengard as an article per Uanfala. We have to be very careful with deleting these Middle-earth redirects. If they were legitimately always just redirects, then deletion is fine. But if they contributed to a merge in some way, we need to preserve them per WP:ATT. Doug Mehus T·C 17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Isengard restored, that's something that should be taken to AFD. Hog Farm (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment I fully support retargeting to Isengard now that Isengard exists again, as the content is very applicable there. Hog Farm (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm: I'm going to revert your edit until this places out. This should close as restore by whoever is non-involved, assuming that's the way this unfolds. Though it seems likely, my understanding is the subject and targets shouldn't be altered until closure performed. Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Restore Isengard as an article.
  2. Add at least a "Do not confuse" mention at the top of Orthanc with a link to the restored Isengard (where the Orthanc of Middle-Earth is the most prominent feature but not the only one). (Or else create Orthanc (disambiguation) but I doubt that such a two-way disambiguation page would be useful.)
  3. Retarget Treegarth to the restored Isengard and make sure there is a mention there about the forestry operations done there by Treebeard et al. at the end of Saruman's reign and IIRC afterwards.

  — Tonymec (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore/retarget; Tonymec, et al., said it all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. 2bis. Retarget Orthanc (Middle-earth) to the section describing it in the restored Isengard. (The text at The Two Towers#Title, its current target, assumes you already know what it is, which is not encyclopaedic procedure.) — Tonymec (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, that text is OK as an explanation of what the volume's title alludes to but not as a definition of Orthanc. — Tonymec (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to whatever stabilises as the right place. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  2ter. Check the "What links here" list of Orthanc (the medical software) for misguided links meaning the tower at Isengard. — Tonymec (talk) 14:49, 18 February 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) feminist (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero G flight → Reduced-gravity aircraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For one thing, objects in space flight experience less gravitational pull than the target. But it's not a good search term for that either, so I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The term "zero G flight" appears as if it could apply both to flying spacecraft (with a microgravity environment) and regular planes known for high altitude trips (with a weightlessness analogous but different to space travel). I'm not sure. It's possible that the general article 'weightlessness' might work as a retarget? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I created that redirect was not because it is technically correct, but because it is a layman's nickname for the technology. You see the name "zero G flight" or similar pop up in media and elsewhere as a non-technical buzzword, and it's also the name that several providers use. The term even appears in the article many times, including in the references. It's a clearly non-trivial alternative name for the subject. Gaioa (T C L) 08:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Variants of this term do occur in the article. There might be a case for a hatnote but it seems to me that this redirect is OK. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and vague per @Rosguill and CoffeeWithMarkets:. This reminds me of the inflatable module redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As an "enlightened layman", I understand "zero-G flight" as meaning a part of a flight where the aircraft's (or maybe spacecraft's for that matter), well, the craft's trajectory is such that people inside it, if they aren't belted down, experience "free float" relative to the craft. I'm not sure I would think of looking up "reduced-gravity aircraft" to mean the same, even if it is the accepted technical term. — Tonymec (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Zero G Flying" is another way to describe the type of flying up and down sinusoidally to experience weightlessness, or "zero gs", during the portions of the flight going down. The term "Zero G flight" rarely describes spaceflight, even if you are technically "flying" with "zero gs". Searching for "Zero G flight" somewhat proves the latter point, even if I would like to steer away from addressing google hits. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A YouTube search turned up several videos which have that term in the title; and 'Zero-G' science by the European Space Agency, which is about reduced-gravity aircraft. It's the same subject as vomit comet, which also redirects to reduced-gravity aircraft. Narky Blert (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per obvious search term for the vomit comets. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Headbomb. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:44, 18 February 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 closed without action. There was some discussion between the nominator, Hog Farm and the other participant, Tonymec, between potentially adding a section to the current target article. However, neither participant knew what the best course of action would be. Given the length of time this redirect has been in existence and from the discussion, it's clear that there's no harm in keeping this redirect, at least for now, as an {{R to article without mention}} and {{R from fictional location}}, without prejudice to renomination in the future or boldly retargeting as there was no consensus, or even agreement really, on whether deletion was either best or even necessary. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rushdown (Middle-earth) → Misty Mountains#Valleys and rivers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context anywhere. Has always been a redirect, so deletion will cause no WP:ATT issues. If deleted, Rushdown (disambiguation) should be updated (and possibly deleted). Hog Farm (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page has recently been made into a redirect to Moria (Middle-earth)#Geography, which means that the target anchor Misty Mountains#Valleys and Rivers does not exist anymore. IMHO either the latest pre-redirect version of Misty Mountains should be restored, or else an appropriate new section should be written somewhere and made the new target of this redirect. — Tonymec (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymec: The bigger question is if creating a section to discuss this would be WP:UNDUE. This river isn't even important in-universe, just a name on a detailed map and a brief reference or two. Hog Farm (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: OK, at this point I don't know what the best course of action would be; what I know is that the current state of affairs, with a redirection to a recently vanished anchor, is not desirable. It mustn't stay that way, something should be done about it. I'm not sure what. — Tonymec (talk) 23:49, 17 February 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 Captain Walker. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Captain Walker (character) → Tommy (The Who album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There seems to be mention of a "character" in the article, but since this is an album with songs (there is a song called "Captain Walker"), is this redirect misleading since there is no visual character to note? Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Captain Walker is the titular protagonist's father and is a notable character in the original album as well as in later material based off of it. I suppose it might make sense to refine things specifically to 'Tommy_(The_Who_album)#Synopsis', where the Captain is described as a character in relation to the other characters. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Captain Walker. Three are fictional characters on that page. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the dab page per Hyperbolick. Doug Mehus T·C 22:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Hyperbolick as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to dab page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. J947 ^(c), at 04:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Hyperbolick · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Captain Walker#Fictional All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 10:12, 21 February 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 L'arca di Noè. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Arca di Noè → Noah's Ark  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Noah's Ark has no clear association with Italian. Delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also not found anywhere in the text. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to L'arca di Noe in light of the new discussion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to L'arca di Noè as {{R from short name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: Would the album or the song with that name be primary topic? The article for the song states that it peaked at #3 on the Italy chart. Hog Farm (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: IMO there's a very strong argument for no WP:PTOPIC and a DAB page - 2019 pageview analysis. Narky Blert (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case for a primary topic isn't really for this RfD. Anyway, leave it alone: having no primary topic will result in a pointless disambiguation page with only 2 entries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to L'arca di Noè as {{R from short name}} which has a wikilink to Noah's ark early in the lead. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to L'arca di Noè as {{R from short name}} per Narky and Shhhnotsoloud; otherwise,

Keep per WP:RFFL. This is one of those exceptions. Doug Mehus T·C 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not retarget. It is Italian for the Ark of Noah, and is not intended or used as short for that Italian song. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We commonly redirect from a title without an article, definite or indefinite, to one with an article. I've seen countless examples in languages such as Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. (When Orfeo turns up in Disambiguation pages with links, as it does from time to time, it almost always means L'Orfeo.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to L'arca di Noè as {{R from short name}} per Narky Blert et al. looks reasonable enough to me. ComplexRational (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Narky Blert · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:49, 18 February 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 Yazidi Book of Revelation. Consensus could not have been clearer. Participants, feel free to add or amend the rcats after closing. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Al Jilwah → Book of Revelation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Appears to be a reference to the Yazidi Book of Revelation, not the Christian Book of Revelation. I'd like consensus before retargeting to make sure though. Pinging DGG, the user who retargeted this to its current target. Hog Farm (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retarget to Yazidi Book of Revelation per nom. A Google search was full of hits confirming the identity. Narky Blert (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. See my opinion below, it applies to both entries. — Tonymec (talk) 02:23, 18 February 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 Hidden Way. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hidden Way → The Fall of Gondolin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A bit ambiguous, as we also have The Hidden Way as a page. I would imagine the silent film would get primary topic over the fictional alternative name, so retarget there. No point in disambiguating with only two topics, per WP:ONEOTHER. Hog Farm (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom as {{R from short name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - I agree. As stated above, the silent film appears to be the more notable entity. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:28, 17 February 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.