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 02:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Commonweatlh Stadium (Edmonton) → Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. Implausible typo. 117Avenue (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if someone's going to type in that entire string they would get to the suggested correct answer. No need to keep a typo version in those suggestions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I tend to mix up a keystroke from time to time and while I certainly agree that the automatic suggestion dropdown would likely prevent someone from getting this far in the first place, I don't find this redirect is causing any damage. In my experience I often know the exact name of an article but may accidentally transpose a letter, repeat a letter, skip a letter, or even hit a neighboring key instead. I don't particularly like the automatic suggestions list as it is, since it can be too slow or unorganized, but even if I did, sometimes I prefer to just type what I want in manually and go from there. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 56 hits last year suggest that this is indeed a plausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Come to think of it, I don't really understand how it appearing on the autocomplete dropdown list is such a problem if it still leads to the right place. Putting this here because this discussion was relisted and what dialogue had already taken place in it is now closed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's plausible, as demonstrated by the hits. Not everybody uses the search box; people also just type the pagename into the URL, and they won't get any indication that they've made a typo. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 21 June 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 retarget to Nelson Rockefeller#Memorials to Nelson A. Rockefeller. Consensus is flaky, so there is no prejudice against the renomination of this redirect soon. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nelson A. Rockefeller Center → Dartmouth College  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should this go back to Nelson_Rockefeller#Memorials_to_Nelson_A._Rockefeller? There's also a "Nelson A. Rockefeller Collegiate Center" at Binghamton University. [1] although the Dartmouth one is more prominent. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC) updated 21:27, 6 June 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 retarget to Template:Db-hoax. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Db-fake → Template:Db-t2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Could be G3 hoax, A11 made-up, U5 fake article, etc. Retarget to...something (I suggest {{db-g3}}), or disambiguate. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to {{db-g3}}. I agree, it's the best target from several available. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to {{Db-hoax}} Hoaxes are available but Db-fake now redirects to Db-hoax I will retarget to {{Db-hoax}} 66.87.68.228 (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the others. I'm quite surprised that this has ever existed as a redirect to any other legitimate speedy-deletion template. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 21 June 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 keep. There isn't a very strong case for deletion if the target is the only article with relevant information. The matter could be revisited if this ceases to be the case, but the whole issue is going to become moot as soon as the draft is moved to mainspace, whenever it becomes sufficiently sourced. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 21:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eirik Suhrke → Ridiculous Fishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Eirik Suhrke was a/the composer for Ridiculous Fishing, but ultimately, they are not related. He also worked on other games, such as Super Crate Box, Nuclear Throne, Downwell (WP:XY). Furthermore, the Ridiculous Fishing article holds no significant information on the redirected subject. — Delete. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Again, this isn't an "XY" if he isn't covered in the other articles, and the redirect will not confuse any reader. While I'd consider him best known for his work on Spelunky and wouldn't mind retargeting there, that article doesn't mention him as written. Ridiculous Fishing would be a close second, where his work is mentioned. If you're going to systematically go through my redirects, please make your noms more constructive. I have a draft bio at User:Czar/drafts/Eirik Suhrke ready for mainspace, though I'd prefer a few additional sources first.  czar 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move draft into mainspace which would offer our readers a lot more information about Suhrke than this redirect can. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Suhrke is independently notable as sourced, hence why I think the redirect is a better fit czar 17:00, 25 June 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kipper (politics) → UK Independence Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary disambiguation term, which wasn't even mentioned in the article until I added it just now. A mention in Kipper (disambiguation) should suffice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the term is being used by the BBC, The Economist, and UKIP themselves. UKIP are unquestionably notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point. Nobody is going to type "kipper (politics)" (including the brackets) into the search bar, and somebody looking for "kipper" in the context of British politics would be able to find their way to the UKIP article anyway. Of course UKIP are notable, that's why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Independence Party is a redlink. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think it's plausible that someone relatively politically uninformed, or newly politically engaged, or not from the UK, might read an article or opinion piece that uses the term and be baffled enough by it to enter the term into the search bar. (If that strikes you as wholly impossible, consider that such a person might enter "kipper" into the search bar, then see "Kipper (politics)" among the options on the drop-down menu, and select it.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But such a person doesn't see that in the search bar. At the moment, you get kipper, Kipper the Dog, Kipper (TV series), Kipper tie and Kipper und Wipper. You might then try searching for "kipper ukip", which will gives you kipper, kipper (disambiguation) and finally UK Independence Party. I can't see how a bracketed term will help at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably people using different platforms see different things, or a different number of things: using Chrome in Windows 7 I see the five pages you listed, plus this one, KIPPERS, Kipper (musician), Kipper Cariappa and Kipper Herring. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just typed "kipper" into my search bar and it's the sixth option on the drop-down list in IE as well.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Used 130 times in the first 5 months of the year demonstrate that people really do use it. We have no way of knowing in what way they use it, but they could guess the page name, find it in internal or external search results, see it in a drop-down list, follow the link from kipper (disambiguation) or follow a link from a page external to the English Wikipedia. It really though doesn't matter how they found it, just that they use it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if no-one types it in, these are no the only uses of redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep - While this is a bit silly, the redirect appears to be genuinely helpful, as stated above, and I don't see harm in leaving it be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 19 June 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 retarget to Anishinaabe. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anihšināpē → Saulteaux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Would it make more sense to target this to Anishinaabe? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should just do it. It's a Neelex redirect, we deleted 50,000+ of them that made no sense. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Anishinaabe. There's no reason (and no citation) to have it redirect to Saulteaux. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Anishinaabe, as it's a more precise target. Absolutely no need to delete this. It could be argued that the title is in English, since it is a linguist's way of writing a non-English word in English. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:52, 14 June 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 delete. If someone is able to find sources to show notability, feel free to write an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinderella Phenomenon → List of video games based on anime or manga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Game is not mentioned at target list, making this more confusing than helpful. Reading about the game, it is not clearly based on any anime or manga. It also doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The game is based on both traditional fairy stories and other visual novels, so it wouldn't even quality to be on the list even if it was particularly notable. I agree. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable game by non-notable company Dicesuki. Articles only show it in Kickstarter status. WP:TOOSOON for independent notability. [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I may be misunderstanding this, and sorry to the previous contributors if I am, but my Google searches show that the game appears to have been released, and has been reviewed here, here, here and here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspots and Wordpresses aren't reliable source reviews. Medium is potentially good. Can you get ones from more notable sources like IGN, Eurogamer, etc.? Also it's visual novel styled, but isn't based on any particular manga or anime. I would suggest making a draft article out of this if you think it is still notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 6 June 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 weak consensus to keep Belgiu as a typo, no consensus for Belgio. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 21:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Belgio → Belgium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Belgiu → Belgium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I believe these two redirects should be deleted per WP:FORRED. The first is the name in Italian, Venetian and Ligurian; the second is the name in Sicilian, Sardinian and Corsican. Italian is the only one of these languages to have any connection with Belgium that I have discovered, and that is weak - simply being a language spoken by around 2% of immigrants to the country. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on Belgio. It's a borderline case. Yet foreign relations between Belgium and Italy are a topic with some history behind it, with the Free Belgian forces specifically deployed against Italian fascists in North Africa. Both nations are now members of NATO and a wide variety of pan-European entities. As far as people of Italian descent in Belgium, they're a significant enough group that Elio Di Rupo became Prime Minister, gaining international media attention as the first openly gay leader in charge of a whole nation in modern history. Even if the ethnicity's numbers are around 5% or so of the overall population, that's still a huge number of people. There seems to be enough there to justify having an Italian language redirect. I'm alright, I suppose, with deleting Belgiu. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete botg. Useless and per precedent. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Belgiu isn't meant to be a foreign language redirect, it's a typo redirect. It was created at the same time as other redirects missing the last letter: Peppermin, Canad, Afghanista, Total Eclipse of the Su, McGill College Avenu, and Dostoevsk. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belgio. I would've thought it more likely as a typo redirect for Bellagio. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first as foreign-language redirect as well as unlikely typo, but Keep second as a likely WP:RTYPO. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. As pointed out, Belgiu is a possible typo. As to Belgio, I have no concerns with foreign-language redirects where they are harmless and there is one obvious target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both: Belgio because, per CoffeeWithMarkets, the Belgian–Italian connection seems close enough that WP:FORRED doesn't apply; and Belgiu as a plausible typo. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both' harmless and potentially useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 18 June 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. Consensus is for this template shortcut to be made namespace-specific: when viewed it would appear as a disambiguation page, but when transcluded it would redirect to a different template based on the namespace in which it is used. In the file namespace, the target template should be {{Di-no source}}. Consensus is less sharp in the case of the article namespace, but {{Citation needed}} has stronger arguments in support than {{Unreferenced}}. The behaviour in other namespaces hasn't been discussed, and I'm bringing it up on Template talk:No source. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 21:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:No source → Template:Di-no source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Nosource → Template:Di-no source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] Added by George Ho (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently redirects to one of the speedy deletion templates meant for files that lack sources. However, the template was misused. Also, "No source" looks misleading, and the redirect page is currently template-protected. Either it should be retargeted to Template:Unreferenced or Template:citation needed, or it should be deprecated. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Unreferenced or Template:Citation needed. Template:No sources redirects to Template:Unreferenced. On the other hand, e.g. Template:Citations needed redirects Template:Refimprove, hence a case could be made to redirect this to Template:Citation needed (i.e. to differentiate based on singular vs. plural). Ambiguity is allowed when it comes to non-mainspace shortcuts, so I wouldn't support deprecation. Lastly, ~625 links exist, including some which appear to be part of a template based message that was posted on user talk pages in the mid-2000s; remedying those in some way may be due if this is to be retargeted. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... how about disambiguating it? --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As ambiguity is allowed when it comes to non-mainspace shortcuts, and it would no longer serve as a shortcut if converted to a disambiguation page, I don't think that's the way to go. We also don't do that for similar shortcuts like the ones I mention above. I'm leaning towards retargeting this to Template:Citation needed. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, it could be turned into a dab. This is currently done with {{SPA}}, which links to {{ESP}} in Mainspace and {{spa}} everywhere else. Since the template use seems to be namespace-dependent, the same could be done between Filespace and "everywhere else". Primefac (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Sure, it could be. However, it would no longer function as a shortcut, which basically deprecates it (i.e. use it would hardly if ever see use). It would only aid those searching for a template, which can be handled through hatnotes when necessary. Furthermore, the same argument could be made to disambiguate every ambiguous title outside of the mainspace (e.g. most shortcuts are, especially single letter ones). This sort of thing has come up here before (in regard to the Wikipedia namespace; couldn't find it offhand), and I've consistently opposed disambiguation outside of the mainspace; ambiguity is acceptable and allowed when it comes to the projectspace. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy, I think you're misinterpreting how {{SPA}} works. The template page itself may look like a dab page, but when transcluded it either transcludes {{spa}} or {{ESP}}. Thus, it still is a shortcut, albeit with different outputs based on namespace. We have dozens of templates like that (hell, most of the XFD templates throw up a huge error if it's in the wrong 'space. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I did not realize that, thanks for pointing it out. Taking that into account, I'm also alright with disambiguation. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Unreferenced as that one is where {{No sources}} goes. Someone seeing Unreferenced would see a huge banner, and then figure out whether they really mean that or citation needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per my response to Godsy above. I agree that having {{no source}} be used in the article space can be confusing, but it also makes sense to have it link to a file-specific di-nosource. See {{SPA}}. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Template:Citation needed. To say an article has no sources (in the plural), is to say that it is unreferenced, but you wouldn't use that term in the singular. Therefore, the only plausible option to me would be Template:Citation needed, as it would imply that a single source is needed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still needed in the file namespace (I haven't fully investigated whether that's the case), I'd be okay with a namespace specific disambiguation, such as the one Primefac described. That being said, in mainspace the template should be {{Citation needed}} -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - Added Template:nosource as part of this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Checking the "what links here" suggests to me that this template is also used for files. So merely retargeting the redirect is not a solution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Make name-space specific this was the primary location for the tag for files with no source, and we should try to avoid damaging history. However it is very close to "no sources". The code I have added to the template page should be a good first cut E&OE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  
• I was notified as the original creator. It was made to tag images that had no sourcing information over 10 years ago. I have no idea what it is used for now and hence no preference on what happens to it. Secretlondon (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This is a perfect example of why disambiguation templates can be useful.  !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 June 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.