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 by RHaworth per criterion WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Asis Mukhya → Genitive connector  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Asismukhya moved Genitive connector to Asis Mukhya and replaced the contents. The page should not have been moved. The talk pages were also moved. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:G3, page move vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2015 (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) 00:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Location map- → Template:Location map-line/draw line  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused template redirect, and it causes confusion due to similarity of other location map names Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above. This could cause trouble to others trying to make location maps (which is a hard task in itself), unless they want a location map for Nowhere (middle of). WP:RHARMFUL. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Scholarly Open Access → Jeffrey Beall  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

intentionally ambiguous orphan redirect Fgnievinski (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is certainly not intentionally ambiguous. Jeffrey Beall runs a website titled "Scholarly Open Access" so this is a perfectly valid redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The lay reader would expect to be redirected to Open Access (publishing) in general. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Scholarly Open Access" is a very unlikely search term for Open Access (publishing) in general. However, if you think there is a possibility for confusion, it could be easily solved by putting a {{Redirect}} hatnote on Jeffrey Beall. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The two articles do need to be linked by hatnotes, but I'm inclined to think that the redirect should be retargetted per Fgnievinski. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ed says it all. Please note that "Open Access (publishing)" (a rather unlikely search term in itself) redirects to the much more logical search term "open access". I hardly can imagine that someone interested in OA would search for "Scholarly Open Access". "Scholarly Open Access" (note the caps) is the name of Beall's blog and that is the appropriate redirect target. Any ambiguity can be resolved by placing appropriate hatnotes. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For if not, we should have Unscholarly Open Access and so on. Obviously WP:NOTBLOG, but the article is not a blog, it is describing the blog, which is fine: that being said, the target doesn't mention it except in the infobox, so it is a bit obscure in that way, and verging on WP:PROMO. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a short remark about the blog to the article on Beall. It is worth noting that this blog is considered a reliable source on matters of OA publishing (especially predatory publishing) and is used as a reference in several WP articles. (They don't show up under "what links here" as generally those references are linked directly to Beall himself). --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is all fine by me: I didn't want to do it myself as to do so could seem like a conflict of interest (or as we say in these parts, shitting on one's own doorstep). I have no interest in this article, in either sense of the word, so can happily take it from here if you want me to. Seems like a nice chap. I think the remark you added makes it better. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2015 (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. I'm sure this is the name of something stylish yet affordable at Ikea. Or was it that thing the orcs rode in Lord of the Rings? --BDD (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Färg → Color  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. It appears to be Swedish? I just created a disambiguation at Farg, but couldn't find anything called "Färg." -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't speak Swedish. Doesn't seem very Swedish to me, but I wonder a bit like e.g. Haagen-Dazs, which is American, whether they stook the accents on on purpose. I'll take a look. Berg is Swedish for place or hill, as in Carlsberg, and obviously cognate. Strangely I listed my bank Wells Fargo yesterday, so this may be just a weird one. The umlaut on the A is not Swedish, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oh we have fargblanche.com with the accent for some furniture stuff, so that would be a mix of Swedish with a needless accent and feminine French for white? Their furniture comes in colo(u)rs other than white. Si Trew (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PROMO. Not mentioned at the DAB at Farg. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN as suggested by nom. (I have no idea how WP:PROMO is supposed to apply here; it's a simple redirect from the Swedish for "color", and doesn't promote anything.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because those misled then to go to around the houses: fargcolor.com does not exist but many ending in .se do. So I guess that is my misinterpretation, so I withdraw that particular reason. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2015 (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, without prejudice against a batch nomination for the similar redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re (musical note) → D (musical note)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Only in the key of C major does the solfege syllable "re" go with D. In other keys, re goes with other notes. For example, in G major, re is A, and in F major, re is G. Georgia guy (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While that's true in movable do solfege, you're forgetting about fixed do solfege where Re does correlate with D. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The re-direct thus implies fixed do solfege is more important. Georgia guy (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The target acknowledges that the note is called "re" in fixed do and there's a hatnote to movable do in case of confusion. What did you want to do with this redirect? Do you want this deleted or do you think there is a better target for this redirect? I'm open for suggestions, which is why I haven't "!voted" yet. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo implies primary-topic dis-ambiguation. Do you understand why I say this?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you're saying. I'm just not sure if there's a better target outside of Re#Music. Even then, the entry on fixed do will link to D (musical note) and the entry on movable do will link to that general section on movable do solfege. I guess what I'm trying to say is the benefit of the status quo is that there is a specific article on "Re" in fixed do, but there's not in movable do. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disproof. The Supertonic article talks about the definition of "re" in movable do. Georgia guy (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want this targeted there?. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh does not go to a deer (a female deer), nor does Soh go to a needle pulling thread. So → DAB at SO, oddly Esso is not there which I always assumed was an abbreviation for Standard Oil. WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually checking the Esso article that does seem to be the case for S O. I had always thought so but only as a back formation, I never actually knew it. It's in the first para of the lede. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Re as far as legal cases go seems more likely, but is red. Perhaps delete as genuinely ambiguous. Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As much as lawyers and/or defendants may be said to sing, neither of those are likely to be more prominent topics for a title with (musical note) as a disambiguator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. Isn't it conspirators who tend to "sing" to the police? Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for consistency with Do (musical note), Mi (musical note), Fa (musical note), Sol (musical note), La (musical note), and Si (musical note). I have also just created So (musical note) and Ti (musical note) because I'm not sure why they didn't already exist. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with Ivanvector. My rationale was basically that I think these should be primary, and that (musical note) is a needless disambiguation when we do not have the shorter Re (note) and so on. But then I struggle to get a tune out of a bit of comb and paper, so I am no expert on this one. My main gripe was whether it actually targeted the right note. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not convinced by those wanting to keep purely for consistency. We could move all 10ish of those redirects pretty easily if there's a better target. I just reformatted Re#Music to include both fixed and movable do. I still don't think it's a better target than the status quo, but it's an option to be considered. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, we could move them all, but absent a very good reason to do so, we probably shouldn't. We could probably use a shorter disambiguator than "musical note" - "note" doesn't work because Re (note) is ambiguous with RE (e-mail) and wikt:re (amongst many other abbreviations); Re (music) could be ambiguous with a number of albums called "Re". At the same time, I am for consistency, so if we are to change the disambiguator, we should change it for all of these articles (the solfège notes and the letter notes A (musical note), B (musical note), and so on). Or we could just leave it at "musical note" which seems to work just fine. Also, the main article is musical note, so using "musical note" as a disambiguator ties everything together nicely. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2015 (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. Just Chilling (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nintendo Forums → Nintendo  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The Nintendo article doesn't contain any information about their forums -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK, although I don't think anyone is likely to create this article. Also per WP:NOTFORUM. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ivanvector --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:44, 20 July 2015 (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 The target has been created so it's no longer a redirect to a red link. No prejudice against a future nomination with a different rationale if anybody wants that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gnaphalium schomburgkii →Gnaphalium polycaulon  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirects to a red link. 333-blue 10:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The user created that red link while I was using the Twinkle. 333-blue 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The redirect was was to a page on Gnaphalium polycaulon, which I created maybe about 30 seconds later. Other editors have encouraged me to create the redirects for synonyms before finalizing the work on the page I am working on. I have followed this editorial advice and done this hundreds of times.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as the reason in the nomination no longer applies, without prejudice to a new nomination with a different reason if anyone wants that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2015 (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. This is a tough one. Numerically, it's an even split of !votes, and I see strong arguments from both sides. However, it's important to emphasize that redirects are supposed to be useful, not represent what is technically possible. Yes, this is the longest possible name we can get for the album given technical restrictions. However, no reasonable person would search for it this way. A redirect from the first sentence alone (i.e., this redirect without "You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture.") would be more reasonable, since this is the an understandable way to break up the title if one did not know otherwise. Instead, this particular title breaks in the middle of two sentences that are closely related. While there is indeed no detriment to keeping it, this could be said for nearly all redirects deleted under WP:R#DELETE #8. — Earwig ^talk 06:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (Note, since I doubt anyone is going to notice – wonderful edit summaries by Ivanvector – 1 2 3 4)[reply]

• The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. → The Boy Bands Have Won  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Recently created, ridiculously long title that is unlikely to be a search term AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:R3. Surely no one will ever search for such an insanely long title. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there is no detriment in keeping it, as there are other long redirects in existence on Wikipedia that function as this one does, as it is technically closer to the correct title than the title appearing on the actual page to which it redirects, and as those with Aspergers are more likely to search for this title than the title presented in the article to which it redirects.  allixpeeke (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Allixpeeke, why is this search term more likely to be used than the shortened term? The title of the redirect is not the full title of the album so this seems a bit arbitrary. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer:  That is the longest Wikipedia will allow a redirect to get.  Try making a redirect with even one more word of the actual title, and Wikipedia will stop you.  Insofar as it is arbitrarily limited, that is a problem with the way Wikipedia is set up, not a problem with the spirit of my argument.  I will agree that it would be better to have a redirect containing the full title, but Wikipedia simply won't allow it.  As such, this redirect is the best Wikipedia will allow.  allixpeeke (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BDD's comment in the collapsed section about redirects from full, long titles. I disagree that they are unlikely or useless, especially given the precedence that shows the existence of these redirects, especially the redirects to When the Pawn.... Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, uncommon but pausable. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the full title (or as much of it as we can have for technical reasons) and there is no benefit to deleting such redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this title is truncated for technical reasons, therefore it is not the full title. We usually don't keep long title redirects unless they're exact matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I verified that it is the longest title possible with Wikipedia's restrictions. However, when I tried to search for a title with a few more characters added to it, it gave me an error message instead of truncating it. Therefore, unless you know that this is the longest title possible, it's not going to be searched for. That makes it implausible, in my opinion. On the other hand, this is the closest we're going to get to {{R from full name}}, so I see where the "keep" camp is coming from. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typing the full title is one thing but a person using this a search term would also have to know what the maximum length of redirects are and know to stop typing at that point. The redirect is only about a quarter of the full title so the only way that the average reader would find this would be to attempt to type the full title give up about a quarter of the way through and decide to click hoping they get lucky. It's not necessary.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or follow a link. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All this does is clogs up the search engine, which is bad enough as it is. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (making official my sentiment) It's the closest a reader can get to the full title given our technical restrictions. We shouldn't be in the business of policing which works' titles are legitimate or not. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here is yet another example of a redirect that has a maxxed-out very long page title – there are many on Wikipedia and more being added everyday. Hmm, I still have 7 characters to go! – Paine  05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to that article, Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina is the full Portuguese title, not truncated due to technical restrictions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not quite – the article gives her full name as Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina, Infanta de Portugal, Duquesa de Guimarães. The names at the redirect and in the ibox are shorter versions of this, so doesn't it make one wonder why the "full name" in the ibox (and at the redirect) does not match the name given in the first section of the article? Curiouser and curiouser! – Paine  19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The redirect leaves off Infanta de Portugal, Duquesa de Guimarães, but otherwise it's a character-for-character match for her full name without her noble titles. There were some spelling mistakes in the article so I went to the source to check, but we've got it correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't really correct until the name in the ibox matches the name in the first section of the article. The source gives her full name as Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inès Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina, Duquesa de Guimarães, which does not match the article section, the ibox nor the redirect! And you're right about the restriction, because even the fullest possible name for her (the name in the article section) has 220 characters, and the WP restriction is 256. – Paine  20:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To reiterate part of what Tarvix said: unless a user is aware of the technical character count limitation, and is counting, they're not going to search for this. It's simply implausible. It's much more likely that they'd copy and paste the full term, rather than type the whole thing; and as Tarix stated it generates an error message, not getting the user to the target. It would be a different story if this were the exact title. This also wouldn't be useful as a pure wikilink, because it would be much easier to pipe using a shorter term, and the whole title would be wanted if already stating something that long.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tavix: You get an error? If I copy and paste the full title (not the redirect title) I get search results listing only the article, not an error message. Is it platform-specific? I'm on Win7 running Firefox at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Yeah, I get the same results. I was actually searching before using the address bar/URL (and I don't know why now...). If you add even one more character to the URL, you get an error message that says: "The requested page title is too long. It must be no longer than 255 bytes in UTF-8 encoding." I have Win10 (then Win8.1) and switch frequently between Firefox and Chrome so I'm not sure what browser I used earlier. (as an aside, I'm surprised you use Firefox. When I use Firefox, your leaf is yellow and when I use Chrome your leaf is red, so I just assumed you use Chrome because it's more "Canadian" when it's red.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it, so that might actually be an HTTP thing, although the search function seems to be able to parse super-long searches. I don't know. I'm surprised you get different emoji behaviour in different browers, I thought they were platform-specific. It's the solid maple leaf for me in Win7 Firefox and Win8.1 Chrome (I used {{red}} on it), and the yellow coloured leaf image on mobile. But that's ok, I like autumn too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just also tested, for what it's worth: you can't create a wikilink longer than the character limit either. The software ignores it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• stats.grok.se shows that the only traffic this redirect has been getting is from this very discussion. It's evidently not useful; hence, it should be deleted. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Though that's probably because the redirect was just created. Regardless, it doesn't matter if it's technically possible. It's not the full title, only the first two sentences. I could understand the first sentence alone, but this breaks off at the second sentence which is really weird. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:08, 12 August 2015 (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.