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. Killiondude (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 (Expected Events) → 2007  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely redirect © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete–there is no calendar called “Expected Events”. And I’m not even an expert on non-Gregorian calendars! LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2003 (MD Storylines) → McLeod's Daughters (season 3)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely redirect. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: MD could stand for lots of things, but McLeod’s Daughters is not on the disambiguation page. The only TV or radio show on that list, MDs, was cancelled in 2002. This would be an appropriate disambiguation only for the year 2003 on a calendar named “MD Storylines”, for which we have no article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:12, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• VWG → Volkswagen Golf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It could also refer to the Volkswagen Gol or the Volkswagen group or other Volkswagen vehicles that start with G Luna935 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 吉利支丹, 切支丹, キリシタン → Kirishitan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Confusing & unlikely: three different spellings of the target all mashed together into one title. The three spellings individually (吉利支丹 and 切支丹 and キリシタン) all exist and point to the same target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as highly unlikely. PKT(alk) 18:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what about the other 5 permutations?
  • 吉利支丹, キリシタン, 切支丹
  • 切支丹, 吉利支丹, キリシタン
  • 切支丹, キリシタン, 吉利支丹
  • キリシタン, 吉利支丹, 切支丹
  • キリシタン, 切支丹, 吉利支丹

Then there are 6 more with only 2 of the spellings, and you’ll have to multiply by the presence or absence of commas to get a total of 36 different redirects. What’s next? 切支丹 (吉利支丹)? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• CAT:BR → Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as broken redirects  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Quite an obscure abbreviation (for Broken Redirects). The hatnote at WikiProject Brazil, where WP:BR redirects, doesn’t mention broken redirects. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete If this did have plenty of incoming links, I would have voted keep, but since there are no links outside this RFD, I don't see this redirect having much use. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the primary shortcut for the target page for the last decade. This is category space, not Wikipedia space and the shortcuts don't have to line up, and I'm not seeing a competing category on Brazil that would require a shortcut. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, they don't have to lineup, so it isn't confusing. Being obscure isn't really a reason to delete either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 25 December 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. Considering the result of the RM as well, I don't see consensus to change the status quo in the way proposed. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Madonna (album) → Madonna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There has been some controversy about where this redirect should redirect involving Netoholic and Patar knight, and now me. See the history of the redirect. Anyway, here's what I think.

First, this term, Madonna (album), is currently the subject of an RM discussion at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017 where I have proposed that it be the title of that article. So really that discussion should be resolved before we change anything here, because if the proposal passes, redirect will be deleted to make room for the article to be moved here anyway.

Second, there are three potential uses for Madonna (album) - two relatively obscure albums named Madonna, and Madonna's first album. There should be no question that Madonna's album is the primary topic. That is, anyone who links with [[Madonna (album)]] would reasonably expect it to go to the article about Madonna's album (and not a subjection of some dab page). So if the RM proposal does not succeed, this should remain redirecting to the article about Madonna's album. --В²C ☎ 02:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it. It has no incoming links from mainspace, and nor should it ever. Anyone who links to it should see it as a redlink. Anyone who types it into the search box (an unlikely event!) should have the Wikipedia search function invoked, which only happens if the redirect is deleted. Today's top five results, and daily average pageviews are:

1 Madonna (Madonna album) 521

2 Madonna 11327

3 Madonna albums discography 13156

4 Erotica (Madonna album) 11389

5 Madonna (entertainer) 9970

The #1 result is the least likely wanted on average. It is an old, not topical, album. Anyone lost or "searching" would be better served by #3.

The search function should be allowed to work, and relied upon, for everything less than obvious, and probably the obvious too. The search function algorithms, data, and live data collection and processing is far superior to a few editors guessing at PrimaryTopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The option to delete such redirects was considered and rejected in the discussion preceding the inclusion of [[WP:INCDAB]] in WP:D. Note that that discussion applies specifically to "pages on Wikipedia that have "incomplete" parenthetical disambiguation and no clear primary topic". Unfortunately, that qualification did not make it into the WP:INCDAB text that was actually inserted, however the failed effort to make WP:PDAB a guideline, along with incomplete disambiguations of primary topics that are accepted as titles, like Lost (TV series), demonstrate where community consensus is on this issue. In any case, deleting such redirects was rejected on the grounds that others will be tempted to create articles at them. --В²C ☎ 19:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote goes against how parenthetical disambiguation work on Wikipedia. For example, a redirect like "X (foo)" is meant to search for articles named or referred to as "X" in the the field/class/medium "foo". It's essentially shorthand for "X the foo/in foo". So "X (film)" is for films named X, not films by X. "X (politician)" is meant to refer to people named X who are politicians, not politicians connected to X. Madonna (album) refers to albums named "Madonna", not albums by Madonna. And if there is a primary topic for X in the field of foo, we should direct readers there like in this case. Linking to Madonna albums discography via hatnote would be justified though (i.e. "This is about the album, for other albums by Madonna see...for other alums named Madonna see...")

The use of search results is misleading for the same reason. The proper comparison is to look at the pageviews of albums named "Madonna" from up to December 1, when the Requested Move was started and this redirect was redirected away from the Madonna album. We get 592 hits per day for the Madonna album, 17 for the ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead album, and 9 for the EP by Secret. The album by Alisha Chinai was only created on December 1, so discounting the first day where all the content was added in a series of edits, pageviews from December 2 to now, it averaged 9 daily hits.

So taking these numbers into account, we can reasonably divide the number of hits for "Madonna (album)" pro rata, adding 17 hits to the Madonna album, and 1 to the other uses. So finding the percentage would be (592+17)/(592+17+9+1), which gives us 96.97% of page views in favour of the Madonna album. And that number doesn't account for factors in favour of the Madonna album, such as people perhaps mistakenly going to Madonna (EP), thinking that Madonna's debut album was an EP, only to find themselves at a page about a South Korean album, or that the Alisha China album page was only created the day of the RM, meaning that it's pageviews are going to be inflated by RM participants going to that page (I know I checked that page several times during the course of the RM and this RFD). So the first prong of "what are readers likely to be looking for" of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied, and it's pretty clear that the Madonna album is the most encyclopedically notable and culturally significant of all the page.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: discussion moved from Talk:Madonna (album). feminist 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Madonna (Madonna album) as the overwhelming WP:PTOPIC for this redirect title. feminist 03:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close (defer) this RfD as premature. Wait for the close of Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Madonna (album) is clearly the topic of the article currently at Madonna (Madonna album), as noted by Feminist above. So, yes, this redirect should, as a minimum, redirect to that article. However, as I noted in the proposal at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017 the current title of that article is unnecessarily redundant and silly looking, so this title would be a more WP:CONCISE and better choice as title of that article, not merely a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it. That said, resolution of this discussion should wait for that one to be decided first. --В²C ☎ 05:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a separate issue. Even if the Madonna album stays at its current name, this redirect is a separate page. If a search term (e.g. "Madonna (album)") has a primary topic, then the page at that term should point to the primary topic to aid our readers, regardless of the actual title of that page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it’s not to be closed ... Point to DAB page. Inherently ambiguous. No primary topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to Madonna#Albums and EPs - This situation is explicitly described at WP:INCDAB, with an example there which is directly on point with this. -- Netoholic @ 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Madonna (Madonna album), or wherever that ends up. Regardless of what people think about what articles should be named, redirects are meant to aid in navigation. We should not be forcing readers using a search term for which there is an overwhelming case for a primary topic to a DAB page because of pedantic reasoning. Anyone who knows anything about music would be able to easily tell that none of the other entries at Madonna#Albums and EPs come remotely close to the level required to challenge Madonna's self-titled debut album status as the primary topic for the search term "Madonna (album)". --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to Madonna#Albums and EPs per WP:INCDAB. --woodensuperman 12:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect to the disambiguation page. Diego (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that discussion is relisted again, I want to add this: in case that we don't reach a consensus that there's a primary topic, per WP:PTOPIC the title should redirect to the disambiguation page. Redirecting to a primary topic requires a clear consensus for it, not merely a "no consensus" result in the discussion.

As I expressed at Talk:Madonna_(Madonna_album)#Requested_move_1_December_2017, I don't believe Madonna (Madonna album) is the primary topic for the title Madonna (album), since the later may also be expected to refer to Madonna albums discography with equal strength. Diego (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to dab page Madonna, per WP:INCDAB as other albums with this name by other artists exist. --woodensuperman 10:03, 8 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Smurfs and communism → The Smurfs#Smurf economy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Smurf communism → The Smurfs#Smurf economy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The second redirect was created in 2010 when the first page was moved and redirected. It goes back quite a long way, including 3 AFDs in 2006-07. The Smurfs article mentions nothing about communism; the Economy section does not seem to describe a communist society. 165.91.12.221 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There used to be an article going into great (unsourced) detail about the theory that the Smurfs were communist propaganda and their clothes and actions were rife with communist symbolism. I would actually keep these redirects and mention in that section that the author has denied intending to portray the Smurfs as practitioners of communism, despite rumors. See Matt Murray, "Introduction to the Smurf King", in Peyo, The Smurfs Anthology #1 (2013), p. 66: "Despite any rumor or crackpot conspiracy theory you may have heard over the years, Реуо did not create the Smurfs with any kind of overreaching political agenda. They were not designed to indoctrinate children into communism, socialism, or any other kind of -“is,” that the Cold War gave the Western World an irrational fear of in the latter part of the 20th Century". bd2412 T 19:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, I don't know who'd search for this but there doesn't need to be a redirect for it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 14 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Frogsboro, North Carolina → Hightowers, North Carolina  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These are two separate locations about 4.5 miles apart. Until I checked the USGS quads, I assumed that "Frogsboro" was an alternate name for Hightowers rather than being a place almost five miles away. This is a good example of WP:RFD#DELETE point 2, "The redirect might cause confusion". Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on that redirect, I'd assume that Frogsboro is either an alternate name for Hightowers or a smaller nearby community that became part of Hightowers over time. Based on the map, it's neither, so the redirect is misleading. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:10, 28 December 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.