The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. This seems uncontroversial, but do let me know if that's not the case. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Glatiramer acetate-induced lymphocytic infiltrate of Jessner → Cutaneous lymphoid hyperplasia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The very long redirect name is a combination of a drug name and an unverified side-effect, no verification sources are given per WP:MEDRS. The particular pharmaceutical-causes-this concept does not have a mention in any other WP article that I can find, including the presumably specific glatiramer acetate article, so this redirect seems to wildly non-NPOV in itself. Surely the powerset of all pharmaceuticals crossed with all side effects is not going to turn into exponential WP redirecting. Richard J Kinch (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a decent ref that supports the connection and added it here [1]. Agree with the concerns about exponential growth of redirects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 4 March 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. This has been open over a month a relisted once already so I don't forsee consensus being likely to arise in the near future. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of every NHL player → List of NHL players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of every National Hockey League player → List of NHL players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of every professional wrestler → List of professional wrestling rosters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The use of the word "every" is misleading in these redirects since Wikipedia is a work in progress and since the redirects' titles leave the reader with the expectation that they will indeed find every individual on the target lists. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I can't quite bring myself to say these should be kept, but I think a reader with any amount of competence (I firmly believe it's required for readers as well) will know that we don't and can't have such complete lists. But that is the goal, pipe dream though it is. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful. You can have a list of every (topic) redirect to list of (topic). Or add "please give me a list of" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've actually updated the NHL lists by name a few summers. It does contain every NHL player up to when it was last updated. Which basically means it doesn't include rookies. I wouldn't call that misleading, but perhaps it makes the redirects slightly inaccurate once a season begins. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. It's not misleading if it fits the aspirational goal of the list. If the targets are not up to date, either fix it if you can or tag it to notify other readers.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These seem like plausible search terms, and the current targets are not astonishing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not constituting meaningful variation on the target titles (after all this isn't different from List of all NHL players, Comprehensive list of NHL players etc., which do not exist). Also, such generically worded redirects clog up the drop-down list of suggestions in the search box, nudging away more specific and relevant titles that start with the same words. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 25 March 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 Denk (political party) The article had been moved per MOS:ALLCAPS, and I've moved it again to remove the over-precise disambiguator. (WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and obvious consensus.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DENK (political party) → DENK (Dutch political party)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

DENK (political party) shoule be re-targeted to DENK (Dutch political party) as it is about the same subject. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the disambiguator so precise? Are there other political parties named DENK? If not, just move DENK (Dutch political party) to DENK (political party). -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tavix per WP:NCDAB, i.e. "for example, use '(mythology)' rather than '(mythological figure)'".— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap per Tavix, and tag the resulting redirect with {{R from move}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Denk (disambiguation) lists seven other uses, 6 people with the surname "Denk" (none of them are Dutch or politicians) and DENK (band) who are from Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 11 March 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) 18:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DDENSIDH → Interstate Highway System  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a plausible search term for the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" (which is the Interstate Highway System.) Rschen7754 17:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only coherent results from a google search relate to the twitter handle for a Drake Dendish, who is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—this is not a plausible search term; aside from the requestor of the redirect, no one uses it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also don't think that this is useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no such term not even in old books or reports. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:50, 16 March 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) 18:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Accolade (game) → Accolade (company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target article is not a game. Lordtobi (✉) 11:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Typing Accolade in the search box will suggest (video game developer) anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Achievement (video gaming). Strongly object to a "Keep" decision. Major WP:SURPRISE as is. Would really screw with the reader. We have Achievement (video gaming), where it reads in the very first line: "In video gaming parlance, an achievement, also sometimes known as a trophy, badge, award, stamp, medal or challenge". --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really the same as achievement, and it could also be targeted to List of video game awards. There's no such game called Accolade as there is no such game called Acclaim (game) even though there is Acclaim Games. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is just too vague. It could refer to awards that video games have won, it could refer to 'brownie points' or whatever won during gaming, and it could refer to achievements from finishing a game completely. I'm not aware of a particular project titled Accolade, but I wouldn't be surprised if one exists (or is in production at the moment). Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:28, 16 March 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 Grading on a curve as the most-supported target that hasn't received opposition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Grade rationing → Class rank  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• Grade-rationing → Class rank  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I've added grade-rationing into this discussion.— Gorthian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if "grade rationing" is the same thing as "class rank", and if it is, it isn't in the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Grade rationing is a type of grading on a curve that is meant to emphasize class rank. Speaking broadly, it stops grade inflation, increases intra-class competition (at the expense of collaboration and teamwork), makes it easier to identify people who do well in school (which may not be the students who know the material best or the students who are the smartest), and annoys ambitious parents (who would rather have a meaningless "perfect score" than have their own child get a lower grade). You are more likely to find it in a law school than in a high school. AFAICT, this is usually imposed by a school on teachers, rather than being something that individual teachers choose to do, and it usually comes in fairly mild forms, like Thou Shalt Not Give Straight A's To Every Single Student. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Academic grading in the United States#Rank-based grading, where it is mentioned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd rather not retarget it to Academic grading in the United States#Rank-based grading, which is too narrow a match. I'd be willing to either add a section to class rank or to grading on a curve, and retarget the redirect to that section, or convert the redirect into a stub -- in both cases based on the details WhatamIdoing added above. --Waldir ^talk 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that a US-specific article is less than ideal. As far as I'm concerned, I think that either class rank or grading on a curve could be good choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd rather we get rid of this given how unclear it is. Otherwise, we should shift it over to 'grading on a curve'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:29, 16 March 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.