Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 12

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) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ti'am → Moose (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I could find no explanation for why this redirects to Moose. It's not an alternate-language term for a moose (unless it's a very obscure one), and the target page does not mention the term at all. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's Mi'kmaq one of the Eastern Algonquian languages, and it does mean "moose". – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24#Justin_Bieber for a similar discussion. Keφr 19:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there've been several like this recently, and this one'll most likely get plonked, too. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we can't have a redirect for every possible translation/transliteration of a term. We already try to use redirects so people who accidentally make typos can go where they're trying to go, or at least as close as the encyclopedia can put them (through the use of hatnotes and what not). We already cover typos in English extensively, and if we were to make other-language redirects OK we'd also have to authorize the myriad typo versions that would come with them. (Just wanted to add my two cents to the established consensus on non-English redirects.) LazyBastardGuy 01:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mi'kmaq is not a major language; I doubt many of our readers will find this to be a useful search term. Cathfolant (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2013 (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. Ruslik_Zero 16:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RED 3 (2015 film) → RED 2 (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

As with RED 3 (2014 film), this redirect is useless for two reasons - first, no other film covered on Wikipedia is called RED 3, and the inclusion of the year is just unverifiable estimation.LazyBastardGuy 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, creator of redirect agrees with deletion for the same reasons as before. LazyBastardGuy 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. RED 3 (film) is live and well. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At this point, it's as likely to come out in 2015 as 2014, but the disambiguation is over-precise anyway. It may be appropriate to reestablish if it's eventually released in 2015, or the 2014 holiday season or something. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2013 (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.