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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tang (drink)" → Tang (drink)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely search term due to the quotation marks after the disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete created in error, unlikely typo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As recorded in the edit summary, there is a link from a blog on the Internet which erroneously includes the trailing doublequote, and the redirect was intended to deliver visitors from that blog to the right page on Wikipedia. If that is not a good reason for a redirect to exist, then please delete the redirect. Pat Conheady (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuk → Fukuoka Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not sure as to whether a disambiguation is needed. I think we all know what this could be a misspelling of. --Nevé–selbert 10:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine as a redirect to the airport, just like FUK. The misspelling of "Fuck" was added in 2010 and promptly reverted. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Add a hatnote at the airport article if you want, though I would disagree with that. feminist 15:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. The mis-spelt obscenity is at least as likely to be the intended meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (to reveal search results) or disambiguate as in addition to the airport there's at least one person with that name: Fuk Li. Given that the airport doesn't show up at the top of the search results, I'd imagine disambiguating to be the better solution. – Uanfala 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no mononyms or organization acronyms that override the airport code. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate; there are intentional misspellings of the obscenity to be found in articles (e.g. Fuk Wat They Talkin Bout, Psychopathic Rydas#Duk Da Fuk Down Era (2007–2010), Chris Reifert#Eat My Fuk), not to mention numerous uses as an element in Chinese place names (Tong Fuk, Hung Fuk Estate, Fuk Loi (constituency)) and personal names (Fuk Li, Ho Fuk Yan, Khoo Fuk-lung). There are also several people surnames "Fuks" (added to Fuchs (surname). bd2412 T 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've drafted a minimal dab page below the redirect. Of the people I've only included Fuk Li. I don't understand Chinese names, so I don't know if the Fuk for example in Ho Fuk Yan is a personal name (in which case it should be included) or an element of a name (in which case it shouldn't). I haven't included links to the places, as they all appear to be WP:PTMs. – Uanfala 11:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Tong Fuk, Hung Fuk Estate, Fuk Loi (constituency), Ho Fuk Yan and Khoo Fuk-lung would be PTMs, as "Fuk" only form part of their names. It's similar to how Chi does not include Ho Chi Minh City. feminist 11:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as proposed. I've edited the draft disambiguation page. Deryck C. 13:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per BD2412. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The caps version should still refer to the airport as the only notable usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus, default to keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthropogenic effect → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Anthropogenic effects → Human impact on the environment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 16#Anthropogenic behaviours. I would imagine if "behavio(u)r(s)" and "activity(ies)" are too vague, then "effect(s)" would also be. I do want to stress that the last discussion had a few "because Neelix" !votes, but Anthropogenic effects is NOT a Neelix redirect (although he did edit it). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - because of what I said last time - these terms are grammatically incorrect. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: about 240 real hits on google books for "anthropogenic effect", I've skimmed through the first 50 or so and they all seem to unambiguously be in the context of the human impact on the environment. – Uanfala 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anthropogenic effects as a redirect, Delete Anthropogenic effect. The same would apply to Anthropogenic impacts vs impact if it pops up somewhere. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep the plural and not the singular? This can be tagged as incorrect name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both; harmless. A reader coming across this term in a book might want to look it up here, and we should at least point them somewhere educational. bd2412 T 03:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 already deleted by Wbm1058. Deryck C. 13:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranjit Mangal Singh → Ranjit Mangal Singh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was created by a new user who wanted to create an article with the same name, now at Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh.

I could not find a list index page that this might have been copied from, but none of the content here is correct. The Ranjit Singh link is to a different (historical) person than the modern-day entrepreneur and the See also section is all red links. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppress redirect and move out of the article space without leaving a redirect. Most likely, this should be moved into the "Draft:" namespace. If the name is to match the intended title in Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh, the page should be moved to Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh(name); however, I don't support that due to the lack of a space between the title and the disambiguator. In the page's current state, it looks like it should be moved to Draft:Ranjit Singh (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Ranjit Singh (disambiguation) already exists. The nominated page seems to want to be that disambiguation page, but it's not, and I cannot decipher the page to be anything else. Steel1943 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Oh, I thought the best course would be to delete the redirect entirely. It was created by mistake or misunderstanding, there's no significant edit history, and it's just a technicality that it doesn't fall under one of the CSDs for redirects. The Ranjit Singh (disambiguation) page already exists]]. If the draft Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh is accepted, it gets moved to article space exactly where this redirect is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. There's no point moving this anywhere, as there's nothing to preserve: there's one unsourced line about the name, which should be covered at Ranjit, and one line that looks like an erroneous given-name-page entry, but that territory is already covered by Ranjit Singh (disambiguation) and in addition to the dab there can't be a given name article any more than there can be for names like "John Williams". – Uanfala 08:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No other people with Mangal as middle name to dab. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.