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 both. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Carbon emissions → Greenhouse gas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Carbon emission → Greenhouse gas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

These redirect to Greenhouse gas, while CO2 emission and CO2 emissions point to Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. I think these should be retargeted to the latter target, but my knowledge of the science is not necessarily great, and these have been in place for 10 and 11 years respectively without any issue, so I'd like to gauge consensus. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Carbon could refer to other kinds of carbon emissions like CFCs so greenhouse gases is more general. However if the redirect were Carbon dioxide emissions, which strangely go to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, then that can go to the CO2 specific one. Sorry had to boldly fix AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC) updated 23:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angus. FYI, Emissions of carbon dioxide is another redirect that sends readers to Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:58, 11 September 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 procedural close. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuerxun Jumabieke → Jumabieke Tuerxun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Tuerxun Jumabieke should be redirected to Jumabieke Tuerxun as its about the same person. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Proc close redirect was already deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 6 September 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. A hatnote is already in place at the target pointing to the political party. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FARC → Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

First, I apologize if this is not the correct forum.

But the issue is, FARC was moved to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia without discussion, despite the common name being FARC. As far as I can tell, this was done to make room for a political party formed in 2017 named FARC.

So, what are opinions on the page move? Is the redirect fine? Or should there be a dab page for FARC and the 2017 political party? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've put as better hatnote at Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia to disambiguate the other use, which is the political party Common Alternative Revolutionary Force, which may alleviate the nominator's concerns. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change to DAB page: the FARC guerrillas deliberately chose the name of their new political party to keep the same acronym, so now a disambiguation is needed to differentiate between the guerrilla group and the political party, even though they are essentially the same organization. Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the wrong venue, really. We can't decide at RfD whether the article should be at Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC, which seems to be what the nomination asks; that discussion would have to take place at Talk:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. That being said, if there is a consensus that Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia is the right title for the article, then I think this redirect should be kept, as the guerrilla movement is the better-known organisation of the two and has a much longer history, so is the primary topic here. Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page would not be appropriate here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:53, 6 September 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 Great Experiment. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Great Experiment → The Grand Experiment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. This confusing redirect was originally created as an "R from move" when the creator got the album's name wrong, but now serves to redirect users looking for "The Great Experiment" to the wrong place. Note that the state of the page Great Experiment is a different discussion at the Talk page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Great Experiment which is a dab listing of various countries and could be expanded to include books, films, and other media. Grand Experiment would then be a "See also". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After recent significant restructuring of Great Experiment I now support this retargeting. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Great Experiment per the comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:59, 11 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quath : Decoction : herbal tea → Ayurveda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be a badly formatted WP:XY redirect of sorts, with Decoction and herbal tea being separate articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a Wikipedia-notable book title. Putting colons in the title leads to all sorts of problems too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 11 September 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of battleships (1898-1929) → List of battleships by country  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misleading disambiguator, considering that the timeframe in the disambiguator is not specifically mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a redirect with history, with the beginning of a list redirected in 2006 before it really got going, but it doesn't make clear what exactly it is listing, e.g. its entry for 1898 includes "(HMS Victory)-(Drydocked)". Our article on that ship indicates that it was launched in 1765, commissioned in 1778, was in active service until 1824, was a "harbour ship" until 1922 since when it's been preserved in dry dock; the year 1898 is not mentioned. It also includes U-boat (any submarine operated by the German Navy) for 1920 (a year not mentioned in our article, which begins in 1851) and RMS Carpathia (a passenger liner sunk by U-boat in 1918) for the year 1927. So restoring the content is not something I recommend. List of battleships is sortable by year of launching, and includes every ship since 1859. The timeframe is also rather odd. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of battleships. The date isn't odd, it details the years between the 1898 First Navy Bill which kickstarted the Anglo-German naval arms race before the First World War and the 1930 London Naval Treaty, which was one of the first major treaties to limit naval shipbuilding in the interwar era. It's a reasonable, if relatively obscure time frame to describe battleships. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested by Patar knight above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:46, 5 September 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 Lists of battles#Chronological. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of battles 1301-1800 → List of battles 1301–1600  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1301–1800 → List of battles 1301–1600  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1401-1800 → List of battles 1301–1600  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1401–1800 → List of battles 1301–1600  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battle 601-1400 → List of battles 301–1300  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 601-1400 → List of battles 301–1300  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 601–1400 → List of battles 301–1300  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 801-1400 → List of battles 301–1300  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles before 601 → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles before AD 601 → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1400 BC-AD 600 → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1400 BC-600 AD → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battle 1400 BC-600 AD → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of battles 1400 BC-1400 → List of battles before 301  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

All of these redirects target subpage that do not match their respective timeframes, and are this misleading. Since there is no target that matches their timeframe, they should all be deleted as inaccurate. Steel1943 (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Lists of battles#Chronological. The sample ones I've looked at are former locations of articles before the timeframes were reorganised, so there is a likelihood of incomming links. The best we can do is retarget to the index of lists so people can select the era they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all per Thryduulf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:34, 13 September 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.