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 Help:Magic words. RT/Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Magic → Help:Magic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• WP:MAGIC → Help:Magic words  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Targets should align DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, Help:Magic should probably be deleted altogether. It's fairly indiscriminate—why does this handful of MediaWiki features constitute "magic" but not any of the others?—and an implausible search term which hardly anyone actually ever reads. In either case, I'd say both WP:Magic and WP:MAGIC should point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic, which I'd be willing to bet is what 99.9% of readers are actually looking for. ‑ Iridescent 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know about the Help:Magic, but I think they should both target Help:Magic Words, which is the only thing I've ever tried to use the shortcut to reach --DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And actually, the magic words page gets a lot more views than the wikiproject page (see [1]) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:Magic is a cross-namespace redirect, and WP:MAGIC is a Wikipedia shortcut. Ideally they wouldn't redirect to different targets, but because of the similar names, they do. I agree that we should discuss the potential deletion of Wikipedia:Magic, but that's for WP:MFD. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominated the Help:Magic page for deletion, here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming the MfD outcome is redirect to Help:Magic words, the action proposed here will be done as a correction of a double redirect. Any objection to keeping this on ice until the outclome of the MfD is determined? --Bsherr (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Help:Magic words per the emerging consensus at the MfD linked above. Cross-namespace redirects between Wikipedia and Help namespaces are harmless as a class. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Listing of the works of the atelier of the Maitre de Tronoen. → List of the works of the atelier of the Maître de Tronoën  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Listing of the works of the Maître de Laz. → List of works of the Maître de Laz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Listing of the works of the atelier of the Maître de Tronoën. → List of the works of the atelier of the Maître de Tronoën  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete Trailing stops make these very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed of states listing the Kurdistan Workers Party as a terrorist group → Kurdistan Workers' Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete Obvious typographical error. Just not recent enough to be speedied. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Also, this should be looked at as well. List of states listing the Kurdistan Workers Party as a terrorist group. Goveganplease (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Goveganplease: That redirect would need nominating separately as it does not contain any typos or grammatical errors so the rationale for deleting this redirect does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Liste d'anticorps monoclonaux → List of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED. No obvious connection of French to the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think I created this redirect for previously existing reason. --محمود (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2019 (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. Already linked in. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subchapter → Chapter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Sub-chapter → Chapter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page Chapter, which is a disambiguation page. Also, the term "subchapter" does not describe most of the topics at the target disambiguation page. Due to this reason/confusion, unless a more specific target is found, I recommend either retarget to wikt:subchapter or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft retarget to wikt:subchapter as no suitable target on wiki. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. And I don't think a soft redirect is appropriate: it's not what they're designed for. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: What are redirects to Wiktionary designed for? What confusion exactly? --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: The guidance at {{Wiktionary redirect}} says Do not place it on every possible word and this redirect has little traffic. Wikipedia does not have an article on this subject and a reader is better off without the redirect and using the search function to find occurences in the encyclopedia. Confusion may arise because the disambiguation page target does not mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you meant that the redirect to Wiktionary would cause confusion. While usually the target ought to at least mention the referring concept, I still don't think that there would be much confusion from the existing redirect (for those with a reasonable grasp of English). I agree with the guidance that every word does not require a redirect to Wiktionary, but disagree that that's not what they're designed for. In this case a Wiktionary redirect would not add much for those with a reasonable grasp of English. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see the target to be astonishing for someone searching for "subchapter", and I think it's plausible that multiple entries at that disambiguation can be/have subchapters. I oppose retargeting it to Wiktionary because I don't find that solution to be helpful nor useful. The entry literally says A subsection of a chapter, which should already be obvious to anyone who has enough knowledge of the English language to be searching the word. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Tavix that nobody is going to be astonished by this and there is no better target, including the Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Tavix and Thryduulf, and also Chapter already has a link to subchapter on Wiktionary. --Bsherr (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (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 retarget to 0.9 (disambiguation). A page I just created. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• .9 → 0.999...  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wrong concept, 0.9 is not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 0.9, which has a hatnote to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would have been a straightforwardly suitable target if it were an article about the number 0.9. But it's about a French rap album whose title is "0.9" (and as far as I know, French uses different decimal notation from English, so that title most likely doesn't refer to the number .9). – Uanfala (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? It's a plausible misrembering/misunderstanding of the album title for an English speaker. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - .2 redirects .2 Network and .4 redirects to Derek Fisher#The 0.4 shot. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.4 should redirect to 0.4 disambiguation as per the recent RFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1 or 0.999.... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 0.9 disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @AngusWOOF: Could you clarify your comment please, 0.9 is not a disambiguation page and 0.9 (disambiguation) doesn't exist. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should be a disambiguation, since 0.9 could refer to the fractional number. I've adjusted the album hatnote to include that in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 0.9 (disambiguation) and disambiguate. This leaves 0.9 as the primary topic while maintaining consistency with 0.4. --Bsherr (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Coccinia Indica → Coccinia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Was formerly abredirect to Gourd. May qualify for WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Miscapitalization of Coccinia indica (a redirect I've just now created), which is a synonym of Coccinia grandis. I'm not at all convinced that Wikipedia should be a taxonomic nomenclator; that is, tracking (via redirects) all plant names ever published. But there's certainly no need for redirects for miscapitalizations of every published scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2019 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Colo(u)r → Color  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect. The related redirect, Colour, already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a very logical search term for someone who doesn't know whether our article will be at the British or American English spelling or a hybrid like this one. It's also possible that non-native speakers will encounter this and want to know what it means. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Possibly, but as a redirect, no one is going to type in the parentheses. Some example of redirects I can think of off the top of my head that don't exist either are Favo(u)r, Flavo(u)r, Behavio(u)r, Harbo(u)r, Humo(u)r, Labo(u)r, Neighbo(u)r, Rumo(u)r, Splendo(u)r, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF. They would be exactly as useful as this redirect, and remember that there are many different ways of navigating Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a case for lack of precedence, but call it what you will. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there is enough usage of the term spelled like that to the point where this is a useful redirect. For example, Blu (rapper) has an album titled "Her Favorite Colo(u)r" and several color articles make reference to "ISCC-NBS Dictionary of Colo(u)r Names" or "The Mother of All HTML Colo(u)r Charts". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is an unlikely way to search for an article about "color" or "colour". I recognize Thryduulf's point that those looking up the significance of the parenthetical might search for this, the target is not going to explain it. --Bsherr (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and Tavix. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:07, 25 February 2019 (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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hougham → Hougham Without  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I was going to use RM to move Hougham, Lincolnshire here but since there was also a CP with this name maybe this should become a DAB instead, note that a redirect exists at Hougham, Kent so "Hougham" could easily be the DAB which could link to it. However we could indeed move the Lincolnshire article here since that is also a village and is what comes up in Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page, in addition to those two, add the rail station and battery -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Hougham, Lincolnshire to Hougham per nom's initial inclination, because the Lincolnshire village is the only subject known solely as "Hougham". Use a hatnote to target Hougham Without. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move but create a disambig the Lincolnshire village is primary, but there is also John S. Hougham, Hougham railway station, a place or area near Dover known as West Hougham (no current article, but mentioned at Dover transmitting station) The existence of Hougham Battery (in the Kentish Hougham) also makes it likely people will search for Hougham Without using only the first word. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  West Hougham is a settlement in the parish of Hougham Without[2] (and the former "Hougham" CP[3]). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate at base title. I'm not convinced that either village should take primary topic status over the other. Deryck C. 14:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've created a disambiguation page at Hougham (disambiguation). Google results clearly show that the Lincolnshire village is parimary, so I decided on that title rather than drafting it below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Thryduulf:, that's good. I cleaned it up as requested. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2019 (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 retarget to List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Solarr where the mention is now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bres (comics) → Black Knight (comics)#Known members  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There doesn't appear to be any information about this character anymore. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Solarr, where he is mentioned. BOZ (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator merged that article into List of Marvel Comics characters: S after my reply here. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiplayer game → Game#Multiplayer games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Previous RfD When I was doing some copy-edits for a video game-related article it left me scratching my head that Multiplayer games didn't have an article here since both Multiplayer and Multiplayer game redirected to this 3-sentence blurb. it took me a bit to realize that Multiplayer video game was its own article. It looks like it ended up here as a result of a messy RfM. I think it would be worth a discussion about a disambiguation page here. In the meantime I dropped an About template in the relevant section in Game. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Multiplayer was supposed to be redirecting to Multiplayer video game, as it has for years. For some reason, 93 redirected it to Game#Multiplayer earlier this month, after Multiplayer game, a separate topic, was finally merged there. I don't know why that was done, but I've restored it to the correct primary topic. Prior to an unauthorized AWB bot run that was only partially reverted in November, there were over 3500+ links for Multiplayer. The primary topic is clear. There's merit for a Multiplayer (disambiguation) page, however. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and created Multiplayer (disambiguation) and hat noted. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all multiplayer games are video games. Multiplayer and Multiplayer game essentially refer to the same thing, so I changed the target of Multiplayer to the target of Multiplayer game, which was Game#Multiplayer. 9³ (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, they aren't. But there's a clear primary topic here. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I hadn't seen the history of the article before I changed the target. A hat to non-video games on the target would suffice. 9³ (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I completed the merge PonyToast refers to, and its also correct that this was in response to the result of a requested merge discussion with a formal result. The about hatnote in that section is a great idea, and I think that its sufficient to link to that important subset of multiplayer games, the Multiplayer video game. I think that this is sufficient disambiguation. However, I wouldn't mind it others thought that a distinct DAB page was a better idea. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to separate article Multiplayer game should be a separate topic, as before, rather than a redirect, as there are numerous types of popular multiplayer game including board games, card games, and party games; while the concept has special characteristics in economic game theory. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opposition from me. I think it's messy to implement a merge nearly 3 years after it was discussed. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to separate article largely per WP:Split. The original separate article has a good ammount of encyclopedic information that's missing from Game#Multiplayer. There's too much to say about the Games to fit it all in to a tiny number of articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll have a bit later--someone please remind me to come chat about this. Also to involve the users at the merge discussion, @SMcCandlish, No such user, and Jujutsuan:. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Multi-player, Multi-player game, Multiplayer, Multiplayer game, and the Single... equivalents should all go to subsections of Game, since the terms are not limited to video games in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: Strong disagree. A clear primary topic and usage exists here. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already stated your case. You don't need to restate it every time someone states an opposing one; the fact that they're opposing is already self-evident. But if you want to argue about it in depth, I'll make a rebuttal case: The VG usage is only "primary" among people who like video games and have little interest in others. To the innumerable people who play other games (card games, board games, table-top RPGs, and more=physical activities like snooker and bowling) – either in addition to or instead of playing video games – the broader usage is stark obviously the primary one, and it couldn't possibly be otherwise in the grand, encyclopedic context. This is not TwitchyThumbsPedia, despite an overabundance of video-gaming cruft articles perhaps suggesting otherwise. Please remember that en.WP is written for everyone in the world who can understand English, not just affluent Westerners who can burn US$40 avg. apiece on video games, or who are young and tech-savvy enough to want them. [PS: I say also this as someone does actually play video games, and even writes mods for Elder Scrolls games, and edits several wikis pertaining to those games. But I'm also a pool player, card player, tabletop RPGer, etc., and not blinded by a single-minded VG obsession, unlike far too many of our younger contributors.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on separate article, but if it's not a separate article, targeting to multiplayer video game is best. The term itself isn't really used otherwise (as far as I know), due to the nature of non-video games — the default with board, card, etc. games is multiplayer, since it's not possible to have a non-human opponent player, so "single-player" or "solitaire" games are the exceptions that get a special name. Non-electronic games are almost always designed for multi-human play, and the exceptions require you to compete against some goal (e.g. in Patience you're competing against the deck, so to speak) or to play a multi-human game in an odd manner (play Monopoly by yourself, and the results and strategy are radically different from playing against other humans; play poker by yourself, and it makes no sense). For that reason, multi-player is basically assumed with non-video games unless it's specified to the contrary, while it's not at all that way with video games: only in video games does one need to specify "multiplayer", so "multiplayer" most commonly means video games, unless I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for a general game, it is multiplayer if there are several players, i.e. more than two. There are several classes of games – solitaire (e.g. patience); two-player (e.g. chess); multiplayer (e.g. poker); team/partnership games (e.g. bridge); mega/massive games with large numbers of players (e.g. Wikipedia). The case of more than two sides is quite significant in game theory because you can have shifting coalitions which make them more difficult to analyse than the classic two-player case. Videogames are a corner case because they tend to have an AI running other player positions. If there are no other AI/human players then they are a simulation/puzzle/pastime rather than a game. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking this logic to conclusion sets up single player game to point to a different place than multiplayer game. That's a WP:SURPRISE result. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect to Game#Multiplayer per SMC. Editors interested in having a separate article on the concept may wish to consider contributing either to the aforementioned article with reliable sources such that we can later WP:SPLIT it out into its own topic if necessary, or to the closely-related article identified at the RM, which was Game classification. Users looking for multiplayer video game are quickly pointed to the article at the redirect target. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret and Nyttend: If multiplayer video game is the primary topic for multiplayer, multiplayer game, and variants, then what would you title the separate article? Regardless of whether that content is merged into game or not, that page history should be moved off of the base title, if it is not the primary topic for the base title. I'm having trouble thinking of an appropriate disambiguated title. wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if nobody can suggest an appropriate title for "multiplayer game (!video game)" then it seems obvious to me that, despite Wikipedia's thousands of articles on notable multiplayer video games, that cannot be the primary topic, so we must keep or revert to separate article (if full coverage of the topic won't fit as a subtopic of the game article), and we should allow a bot, or someone using a semi-automatic editing tool to pipe the links from all the videogame infoboxes: [[multiplayer video game|multiplayer]]. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you're proposing. The fact that a good name isn't readily thought of is not an indication of primary topic. This RfD isn't about the multiplayer redirect directly anyway, which has pointed where it points for many long years, it was brought up primarily for clarification. Multiplayer game was a standalone article that was merged to Game#Multiplayer. The RfD is whether to keep that redirect or unmerge. I'd say the discussion has a weak consensus to unmerge, which re-establishes the previous status quo. If someone wants to discuss the multiplayer redirect specifically, I feel that needs a specific discussion, separate of the topic of whether the other merge was valid. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The need to distinguish video games was recognized by Colonel Warden eleven years ago, the idea that multiplayer should redirect to a different place than multi player and multi-player strikes me as ridiculous. The latter two have never specifically targeted video games. wbm1058 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the redirect has pointed to video games for even longer. Open a discussion about multiplayer is all I'm saying. This RfD was not tagged on that redirect or advertised there, and hasn't been the focus of this discussion. Changing a redirect with several thousand uses needs a clear discussion, in my view. My position here at this time is procedural, rather than a statement of opposition. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – For most games other than video games, being multiplayer is the norm. We don't have articles Multiplayer board game or Multiplayer card game because, although one can take part alone, Board game and Card game are mainly about group play. However, they're certainly valid topics, and most multiplayer games are not played on a computer. Certes (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 E303 → Names of large numbers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• 1 E600 → Names of large numbers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirecting random numbers are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do me feminism → Sex-positive feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Do-me feminism → Sex-positive feminism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. May be synonymous terms, but the target article gives no indication that is the case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (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 no consensus. Default to keep. We've gone through a ton of these, each has been relisted, some many times, and some are still ongoing. After nearly three weeks I don't see a consensus and I don't see us getting there or find value in another relist. This is slightly cognizant of 0.9_equals_1 and 0.9999999999999999999999999999999. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 0.99 = 1 → 0.999...  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wrong formula, 0.99 does not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects don't have to be correct, and anyone searching for this is clearly looking for the content at the target which will educate them and clear up the misconceptions/misunderstandings they have. It should be tagged as incorrect though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inaccurate since this 0.99 is ninety-nine one hundredths, which is not 1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but as I explain directly above that is not relevant: The redirect serves to educate people that they are wrong and why, rather than being actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe this to be a plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Since the title of the article is abstract, we should be a bit more generous for redirects. It certainly isn't astonishing given that the article explains what the answer actually is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf and Tavix (huh). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the redirect is inaccurate. The subject should be 0.999..., but not 0.9. --158.182.173.236 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coincidentally I only came across this discussion because I searched for 0.99 = 1 (and I was indeed looking for the target article). Additionally, for those arguing "it's inaccurate", I would question why 0.999 = 1 isn't also up for deletion, as that too is just as incorrect. 49 TL 22:42, 3 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Default to keep. We've gone through a ton of these, each has been relisted, some many times, and some are still ongoing. After nearly three weeks I don't see a consensus and I don't see us getting there or find value in another relist. This is slightly cognizant of 0.99_=_1 and 0.9999999999999999999999999999999. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 0.9 equals 1 → 0.999...  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wrong formula, 0.9 does not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems an unlikely search term. Lithopsian (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirects don't have to be correct, and anyone searching for this is clearly looking for the content at the target which will educate them and clear up the misconceptions/misunderstandings they have. It should be tagged as incorrect though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inaccurate since this 0.9 is nine tenths, which is not 1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but as I explain directly above that is not relevant: The redirect serves to educate people that they are wrong and why, rather than being actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe this to be a plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Since the title of the article is abstract, we should be a bit more generous for redirects. It certainly isn't astonishing given that the article explains what the answer actually is. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf and Tavix. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the redirect is inaccurate. The subject should be 0.999..., but not 0.9. --158.182.173.236 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeitgeist: Beyond the Pale → Peter Joseph  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Interreflections I: The Future Begins → Peter Joseph  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I can't find any evidence that this film was ever released - it has been 'anticipated' since about 2013. Neither Peter Joseph (the redirect target) nor Zeitgeist (film series) mention this film. Leschnei (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with the second one, which I added. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2019 (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 Speedy keep now appears in target (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the World Meets → Hannu Leminen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete No clear connection between redirect and target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Title of a movie directed by the target. --Bsherr (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where Do I Begin? (remix)(Shirley Bassey single) → (Where Do I Begin?) Love Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB because of the missing space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming soon - Ricky Martin → List of awards and nominations received by Ricky Martin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete Created for four minutes to hold history related to the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (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.