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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Highway construction → Road  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is unclear. It should be retargeted to Highway or deleted, preferrably the latter since I could not find a good section in the aforementioned article to target this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Road#Construction (same target as Roadbuilding, which is {{R with possibilities}}). Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (although I'm fine with section retargeting); Road construction already goes to Road, and having Highway construction and Road construction go to different places (or having one exist but not the other) seems rather absurd. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I also support refining this to the section Road#Construction. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the equivalent Construction section in Highway is not present and the one for road is much more informative. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 9 March 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 keep. Per arguments below — use of "length" implies variation which implies "time" (n.b. — this logic is a good way to fail a physics test) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Day length → Daytime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Daylength → Daytime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Length of a day → Daytime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Length of Day → Daytime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Length of day → Daytime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It is unclear if these should target Day or Daytime, both articles about a length of time. My opinion is retarget to Day. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Barring leap seconds, changes in Earth's rotation, etc., the literal length of a day doesn't change. But the length of daytime changes all the time at most latitudes, so if you're talking about "length of day", "daylength", etc., you're far more likely to be thinking of the time between sunrise and sunset, not variations away from 86,400 seconds. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of interest, the Simple English wikipedia page Length of Day is actually a useful reference, and shows up at the top of some Google results. (For me anyway. That's why I discovered this discussion, because I got there first, then expected the en.wiki page to be a more indepth version of the simple.wiki page.) ApLundell (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the phrases are used by sources like timeanddate.com [1] Old Farmer's Almanac [2] and others [3] to describe how much daylight a location will get. Redirects and hatnotes exist for "length of day" to explain other possibilities. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 8 March 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Landshore → Landfall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The connection is unclear because the term is not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The word doesn't appear to exist. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, doesn't seem like an actual word like Lakeshore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The term appears to be pretty rarely used. It's a partial title match for the U.S. company Landshore Enterprises, but that firm appears to be barely notable. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:09, 9 March 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• London Underground 2014 Stock → Piccadilly line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect. The London Underground 2014 stock trains were never built and are not going to be built as 2014 finished a long time ago. I don't see any reason why it should redirect to Piccadilly line. There is no evidence of this London Underground stock anywhere online. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There's information in the pre-redirect version of the article which might be usefully merged with Piccadilly line#Rolling stock. In that case, we would want to preserve the history. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen: The 2014 stock doesn't exist and were never ordered. It would simply be useless merging it into the Piccadilly line. You could say that it was previously planned that the trains were going to replace the 1973 stock but I am not convinced that these trains were going to be called the 2014 stock and there isn't enough sourcing in the pre-redirect version to suggest that these were going to be the trains to replace the 1973 stock. There needs to be more sourcing to justify this and I don't see any sources online to suggest that the 2014 stock were going to replace the 1973 stock. However, please feel free to find sources. I oppose this merge. I am not convinced that it was true that they were going to replace the 1973 stock. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pkbwcgs: Nomenclature aside, there was discussion around a rolling stock replacement. This never happened, obviously, but the failed effort is still something that could be documented. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The failed effort of replacing the 1973 stock is not at all notable. They didn't even release a mock up of the 2014 stock and hadn't ever built it. It isn't worth addressing this in the Piccadilly line article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Redrose64: What do you think? I don't think it is notable addressing the failed replace of the Piccadilly Line rolling stock. As you edit articles relating to UK trains regularly, it will be interesting to hear your opinion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  LU tube stock designations normally indicate the anticipated year that the first trains are intended to enter service, they are allotted some years in advance. If delivery is delayed for any reason, the stock is not given a new designation - the London Underground 1996 Stock entered service from 1997, but the London Underground 1995 Stock did not begin to enter service until 1998. That aside, do reliable sources - such as Modern Railways or Railway Gazette - refer to it as the 2014 stock? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Redrose64: Modern Railways and Railway Gazette did not mention anything about the 2014 stock. In fact, none of the reliable sources mentioned anything about the 2014 stock. Given this, this topic is not at all notable. It could be true that there was an attempt to replace the stock but there aren't any reliable sources online verifying this. However, please feel free to find some sources. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In our article New Tube for London, I've found a (reliable) reference from 20 June 2011: Siemens unveils London Underground concept train which says When LU last tendered for replacement trains for the Piccadilly Line, Siemens did not submit a bid – and indeed on that occasion the plans did not proceed. So there was no firm order for which a designation "2014 stock" could have been allotted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 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 delete. I can see where the logic is here: this is stylized as a Lilo & Stitch movie, it's the movie after Lilo & Stitch 2, and Leroy is Stitch's twin. All which adds up to deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lilo & Stitch 3: Twin of Stitch → Leroy & Stitch  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete redirect. The film Leroy & Stitch has never been released as Lilo & Stitch 3: Twin of Stitch, and that supposed title is inaccurate anyway (Leroy & Stitch is the fourth film, both released and chronologically in-universe, in the Lilo & Stitch franchise). –WPA (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm wary of keeping a redirect this misleading. It doesn't seem particularly helpful, anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment was this a translated title somewhere? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't. There's no evidence of Leroy & Stitch ever having been translated as Lilo & Stitch 3: Twin of Stitch anywhere. –WPA (talk) 05:03, 10 March 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 Keep Withdrawn by nominator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Toyota Crown (S220) → Toyota Crown S220  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Incorrect disambiguator (S220). I had moved this to Toyota Crown S220 as the car make and model but the CSD was declined so here it is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Automobile project decided long ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Nomenclature that the standard title for a standalone article of this should be 'Toyota Crown (S220)'. Ie, the make 'Toyota', the model name 'Crown' and the model code'(S220)'. Other examples of standalone articles are Toyota Camry (XV50), Toyota Corolla (E170) and BMW M5 (E28). In this case, the Crown (S220) is not a standalone article but it makes perfect sense to have the redirect use the same format. That way, other article can link to Toyota Crown (S220) and be safe knowing that the link will work regardless of whether it goes to a standalone article or a redirect to a section in a bigger article. Even better, in the future we might create a new standalone article with far more details than the current small section in the Toyota Crown article. This is a major benefit of redirects that this rename or deletion will destroy.  Stepho  talk  21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will withdraw this. Please add the appropriate tags on the redirect itself and an embedded note to WP:AUTOCONV next time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to restore the original name. Otherwise a bot will systematically go through articles and change double redirects to the wrong form. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 7 March 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Breakfast cereal for people with syphilis → Treehouse of Horror IX  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a very notable quote, and I doubt we need redirects for every vaguely memorable quote anyway. Besides which, someone actually typing this is just as likely to be looking for the Moe Szyslak page. Thegreatluigi (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY, per nom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless someone wants to create a well-referenced article about List of least effective marketing slogans of all time, and to include it. Seriously though, who on earth is going to be searching for this? Narky Blert (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obscure quote that doesn't get any notable analysis like other Simpsons catchphrases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems more associated with the character per se. Even then, it's an obscure bit of trivia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:11, 9 March 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Give us the drugs, Lisa → My Sister, My Sitter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Rather implausible, especially since the actual quote is "Give me the drugs, Lisa".. Thegreatluigi (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausibly useful search, notwithstanding the plausible error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without leaving redirect to Give me the drugs, Lisa so the actual quote shows up in search as that phrase doesn't exist, and it can then show up on the general search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: If you think that redirect should exist, simply create it. It does not need to be tied to the fate of this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if it is notable enough to create it as the quote does not show up in my usual news article searches. It's just weird that a typoed redirect would be there without the correctly phrased one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote. Not seeing notability for the corrected line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misquoted, and the actual line isn't even quoted in the article. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to find much if any mention of this quote, and it isn't mentioned in the article either Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:37, 8 March 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 keep. Closing early as it is obvious that the redirect won't be deleted, coupled with the fact that this discussion is now producing more heat than light. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruffrè → Ruffré-Mendola  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Deletion: the only correct and full name of the municipalyty is "Ruffré-Mendola"; "Ruffrè" is an uncorrect spelling and name. 216.189.145.206 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - this can be considered a eubot creation: the article was originally created at this title automatically by one of eubot's tasks. It was created with the other diacritic in several other languages as well. Seems like it may be a plausible error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we agree that it's just an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • We agree it's probably an error, but some errors are useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And do you think this is the case? Then, please, tell me "how" would be useful a redirect spelled "Ruffrè" in case there was already a redirect spelled "Ruffré". Help me to understand, because I can't understand by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The proposer said it: "an uncorrect (sic) spelling ...". Isn't that exactly what redirects are for? There is even a template for it. Lithopsian (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this had been about "Ruffré" it would had been all right. If it had been about "Ruffrè-Mendola" too. But what's the reason to keep "Ruffrè"? Then let's create the redirect "Ruffré" ("Ruffrè-Mendola" exists already), so that in case anybody should write "Ruffrè" the system would behave as if it was written "Ruffré" and he/she would be automatically redirected to "Ruffré-Mendola". What do you think about my proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to create that redirect. As the initial portion of "Ruffré-Mendola" it is less helpful, but certainly not wrong. However, the presence or absence of Ruffré doesn't really affect the discussion here: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Now please tell me: in case the redirect "Ruffré" already exists, can you tell me one valid reason to keep an uncorrect "Ruffrè" too? Such reason would apply to every single name or word with an acute accent, so for absurd I could create a redirect with a grave accent for every single name or word with an acute accent and you would agree with it, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects are cheap, and redirection from parts of placenames is one reason why redirects exist. They help readers. What on earth is the problem? This redirect helps readers find the article they were presumably looking for, and causes no confusion.

User:Eubot or not (and I have strong negative feelings about eubot), the title in at least one other language uses the grave accent: de:Ruffrè-Mendola – which suggests that it is NOT incorrect everywhere. Our goal as editors should be to help to direct readers to what they're looking for, not to impose artificial standards. Narky Blert (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Narky Blert, you said both right and wrong: right because de.wikipedia has "Ruffrè-Mendola", while we're discussing about "Ruffrè"; wrong because our encyclopedy is not a primary source but is based on primary sources (second pillar), which makes your statement de.wikipedia uses the grave accent without rhymes in this context about sources. Wikipedia reports what reliable and authoritative sources report, and the only reliable and authoritative sources about Italian language orthography and pronunciation (and this applies to any language) are dictionaries, which register the acute accent form, period. A redirect correctly spelled "Ruffré" would help readers not less than the uncorrectly spelled redirect "Ruffrè". Or maybe to help readers you would like every article titled with a name and word with acute accent to have a redirect with grave accent too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Narky's find. Like the English Wikipedia, other Wikipedias are not reliable sources for determining whether a certain usage is correct. However, other Wikipedias are reliable sources for determining whether a certain usage happens: whether it's a valid alternate usage, or a comparatively common mistake, Ruffrè is going to happen, so the person who goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffrè ought to be able to reach this article as a result. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said twice already, if your aim is to help readers then why wouldn't a redirect spelled "Ruffré" be equally helpful but more correct? What precious help can a redirect spelled "Ruffrè" provide which couldn't be provided already by a redirect spelled "Ruffré"? Will you enlighten me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • False dichotomy: we can have both of those redirects. Just ask for it to be created. And speaking precisely, if this redirect doesn't exist but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffré does, someone going to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffrè will get a "this page doesn't exist" message. Sending them to the right place, instead of leaving them there, is help that we provide by having this redirect. Also, yes our encyclopedia is often based on primary sources, but it often is a primary source, and both are problems; but how is that related? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nyttend, I'm answering to everything you said. First, if you sustain that we can have both redirects for acute (correct) and grave (uncorrect) accents, then we could have both redirects for every single name or word with an acute (correct) and a grave (uncorrect) accents or viceversa, isn't it? Second, redirects weren't thought in case users type "/Redirectname" after "X.wikipedia.org/wiki", but in case they type "Redirectname" in the top-right bar "Search Wikipedia", and such an instrument works independently from diacritics, so that if "Ruffré" exists and "Ruffrè" doesn't exist a user who searches "Ruffrè" will be sent to the right place as if he had searched "Ruffré", or have I missed something? Third, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I read: "Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source". On such bases, how can anybody still sustain that having "Ruffrè" in case we had already "Ruffré" would be somehow helpful to anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:CHEAP. Sometimes a not-too-useful redirect gets created anyway, and if it's been there a while, it's often worth keeping even if it wasn't the best idea to create in the first place. Moreover, this is a very old redirect; there's been a page at this title since 2006. You'd risk breaking a lot of links (including all internal links to this article from 2006 until early 2008) by deleting this title. Primary source, virtually all our articles about breaking news are primary sources, since they're written at the time of the events; the folks who write these articles tend not to care about waiting until secondary sources exist, tend not to care about that part of WP:NOT. And how is that at all relevant? Finally, where's the policy that specifies that we only care about people who use the search bar? Why are you telling me that my way of reaching pages can be dismissed and ignored? Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I must be sleeping, this must be a dream, or better a nightmare, it just can't be true... I can't believe there's so much lack of logic in so many people! First, tell me then one reason to delete a not vandalic redirect, because if even useless and wrong redirects are normally kept anyway I can't really imagine which could be a reason to delete a redirect then. Second, before opening this request I've checked, there're no articles linking to "Ruffrè", just the few pages realted to the renaming and the current deletion. Third, either I need glasses or to improve my knowledge of English, because "you" keep saying that Wikipedia can be a primary source while in "WWin" I keep reading "Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source" and "our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that" (which doesn't mean what you said about breaking news: breaking news must always be sourced somewhere, me or you can't just write something by ourselves because this project is written by normal people without any title and has just to report what titled people write in titled sources, I can't believe I have to explain this to a 12-year-old Wikipedian). Last, and I think least too, try asking any Wikipedian "Do you think that redirects were created to redirect users clicking on wikilinks and searching a name or word through Wikipedia using the search bar, or to redirect users who type "/Redirectname" in the URL bar after "X.wikipedia.org/wiki"?" and tell me what they answer. Seriously, do you realise what you're hanging on not to admit this redirect has no real meaning to be kept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
            • For the final time, policy on primary sources and compliance with that policy are different. Your responses here are further proof of that: you are attempting to force everyone to deviate from our policies on redirects. No further responses will be forthcoming until you start listening and learn what a primary source is. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • (The comment I wrote here was deleted by my interlocutor.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - of the 28 interlanguage links to Latin alphabets for the article, 16 use the è diacritic. Strongly suggests this is a common and regular spelling difference, not an error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, actually it isn't an issue "redirect Ruffrè vs. main article Ruffré", but "redirect Ruffrè vs. main article Ruffré-Mendola". In case we had already the redirect "Ruffré" (which can be created in any moment) would you explain me why should we keep a cut-off and uncorrect name as redirect? Anyway, I invite you to read what I wrote above to Nyttend: if you sustain that "this is a common and regular spelling difference, not an error" on the bases of "of the 28 interlanguage links to Latin alphabets for the article, 16 use the è diacritic", it means you're considering the other wikis "primary sources", which they aren't: primary sources for spelling are dictionaries, which all register the "é" form... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.145.206 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 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 keep. Please use hatnotes as needed. Killiondude (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• White tree frog → Australian green tree frog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not the same as White's tree frog so should be deleted for confusing white with green per WP:RFD#DELETE #5 (redirecting apple to orange) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can tell, there isn't any frog actually called a "White Tree Frog", and "White Tree Frog" is a common misnomer for the White's Tree Frog. Sort of like how Morning dove redirects to Mourning dove. MBD123 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least morning and mourning are homonyms, but calling white green doesn't make sense, and White's is already there to pull that in. Would a dab be useful with PTMs such as White-lipped tree frog, White-black tree frog, White-edged tree frog, White Frog, White-spotted tree frog, AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - an unusual situation, but a plausible error, and not apparently ambiguous with any other species of tree frog. There are white-lipped tree frog and white-black tree frog, but they are partial title matches. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab or keep but add hatnote. White's tree frog is probably the most sought-after page by far among people searching for "white tree frog", but it is likely that people sometimes misremember some of the species AngusWOOF mentioned as white tree frog. Adabow (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, potentially with a hatnote. People clearly and correctly associate color with frogs, it's very reasonable for someone to see or hear "white's tree frog" and remember "white tree frog". Any confusion should be cleared up quickly upon reading the first half sentence. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 15 March 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Chevrolet pickup truck (disambiguation) → Chevrolet pickup truck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is an orphan and the target is not a proper dab page anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Chevrolet pickup truck now points to List of Chevrolet pickup trucks AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No particular disambiguated terms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Target is just a list of articles that are Chevrolet pickup trucks. Since Chevrolet pickup trucks can reasonably be referred to as Chevrolet pickup trucks, I don't see the problem here. Better to have one page than two. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Since the target isn't a dab page, editors should just link it directly. The presence of a "(disambiguation)" redirect generates confusion as to whether WP:INTDABLINK applies or not. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - target is not a disambiguation page. I believe this falls under WP:G6. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 8 March 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.