Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:MORDOR → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Should not be a named redirect. Violates plenty of polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a LOTR fan I like this one, but no. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator has failed to specy the policies and guidelines it supposedly violates. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At-least until someone can tell me what policy this violates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too much confusion with this one. — Ched :  ?  — 15:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meh harmless, Hasn't done anyone any harm. –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT - the target is not a policy page about Lord of the Rings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we had Neelix who got spanked pretty hard for stupid redirects. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too confusing for Tolkien fans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until someone can point to a specific policy that's being violated here. SQL^{Query me!} 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a nice one. WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and on an entirely different topic on top of it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not harming anything and nom failed to provide a real rationale. Lepricavark (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lord of the rings Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. This is a relatively new redirect (created last year) and isn't usefully linked anywhere. We can't know about edit summaries, but given its relatively recent creation and lack of other uses, I think we can presume there aren't many. We have a wikiproject on Middle-earth which appears to at least not be inactive. That seems like the perfect target for something like this, and would certainly be more useful. Not to attempt to side-step the discussions around all these, but regardless of whether a redirect to ANI is funny or not, we ought to first favor a more useful option if available. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, which makes a lot more sense than the current target. Good find, Amory! -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth per Amorymeltzer. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:33, 5 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Effects on law and order → Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Effects of what? The redirect title doesn't specify.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is impossibly vague. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as has no suitable target (too vague). Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no clear relation to the target --DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 11 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 to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports → Fédération Française d'Études et de Sports Sous-Marins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports" is not found in sources and is not a plausible search phrase. RexxS (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 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 to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities → Federación Española de Actividades Subacuáticas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities" is not found in sources and is not a plausible search phrase. RexxS (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Assuming this is an accurate translation, we should have a way to access this topic in English. If there's no official English name, a direct translation is fine. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Diana Vickers' Untitled Second Album → Diana Vickers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Obsolete and unnecessary redirect, the album in question was Music to Make Boys Cry released in 2013 which is of course no longer untitled. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List (abstract data type → List (abstract data type)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB: malformed UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Clutter. PC78 (talk) 14:41, 5 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 delete. While I don't find the pseudo-namespace argument particularly strong in this case, I do think the delete arguments, in particular the call to confusion, still have the day. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Draft:List: Alleged Victims of Harvey Weinstein → Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: South Australian Women in Sport → List of South Australian sportswomen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game → List of oldest Major League Baseball players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Notable events and concerts in Freedom Hall → List of events at Freedom Hall  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Most All time victories in Men's College Basketball → List of teams with the most victories in NCAA Division I men's college basketball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Cities in Afghanistan → List of cities in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Cast of Avatar: The Last Airbender → List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: Biggest Countries → List of countries and dependencies by area  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List: 2000 point, 1000 rebound college men's basketball players → List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 2,000 points and 1,000 rebounds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:SpongeBob Home Videos → List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:Sicilian-americans → List of Sicilian Americans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:Sicilian-Americans → List of Sicilian Americans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:List of free schools in England with a local authority sponsor → List of free schools in England with a local authority sponsor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:Feminist economists → List of feminist economists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• List:Business and Finance Acronyms → List of business and finance abbreviations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as redirects that impersonante a non-existent "List:" namespace, similarly to how we have handled the Quote: and Slogan: redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as they are mostly leftovers from moves (precisely because the titles were bad), they continue to serve as opportunities for confusion, and they're unnecessary. Two of them had incoming links from other articles but I've fixed those articles to skip the redirect. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the non-Draft ones. These all take people to exactly the content they are looking for without any risk of confusion. This is a key difference to the "quote" and "slogan" redirects which did not take people to articles about and/or lists of quotes or slogans. Simply having a colon in the title does not mean that it is impersonating a namespace - the existence of ABBA: The Album and Access:d does not imply we have "ABBA" "Access" namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This formatting is not well-enough used to give the expectation that one find a list by searching with this formatting. It is misleading to suggest that List:Foo would lead you to List of foo, so there is no utility in these redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Unintuitive and misleading pseudo-namespace. There should be a very clear and obvious distinction between these and the examples given by Thryduulf. PC78 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing you are talking about official names, but that's not relevant to my argument in the slightest, and take a look at other examples I could have included - 12:00, A:\, ADP-glucose:D-glucose 1-alpha-D-glucosyltransferase, C18:0, CSR_103:9, European sovereign-debt crisis: List of acronyms, Library of Congress Classification:Class M -- Music, P300 Test:, PBA Bowling Tour: 2007–08 season, Wannabe (D:TNG episode) (there are over 116,000 in a recent database dumb, although this does include pseudo-namespace redirects) - none of these mislead anybody into thinking we have these namespaces, nor can I imagine why anybody would be confused into think we have a "List" namespace when they use these search terms at arrive at a list of exactly what they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to unpick all of those examples, but the first few represent common usage. Again, they are not the same as what is being nominated here. This use of "List:" quite clearly emulates "Category:", "Template:" and other namespaces. I doubt anyone would seriously be confused into thinking there is a "PBA Bowling Tour:" namespace. PC78 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if someone is able to distinguish "A:" from a namespace but not "List:", why does it matter? If someone searches for "List: Cities in Afghanistan" what else could they possibly be wanting than a list of cities in Afghanistan? Why should the be required to know in advance that we distinguish categories from articles but don't distinguish lists? Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the colon redirects that exist are an WP:INDISCRIMINATE subset. Someone typing List: is almost certainly NOT looking to get one of only 14 that exist; they are looking to get one of the thousands of List: redirects that (appropriately) do NOT exist. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other potentially useful redirects do not exist, does not mean that we should delete useful redirects that have been created - and if a human created List:Cities in Japan as a redirect to List of cities in Japan because they found it useful then absolutely it would be correct to keep that redirect - they fulfil WP:R#KEEP points 2, 4 and 5 (and 3, but to a lesser extent). There will be no benefit gained from deletion - they're not misleading anybody, they're not in the way of anything, they're not incorrect, or any other reason why they might not be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But these weren't created because someone found them useful; they were created because someone did not know our article naming conventions, and then were automatically created when the article was moved to the correct title, correcting the article creator's error. It is disingenuous for you to suggest someone created them as useful redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created the lists at the title they thought best. Therefore they, and probably other people, will also look for them at this title - making them demonstrably useful redirects. We do not require readers to learn our naming conventions before being allowed to find what they are looking for - we create redirects from the terms they use to the location of our article either directly or automatically following a page move. You are making my point for me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom, Largoplazo, and PC78.  — Scott • talk 15:10, 8 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WPOOKA → Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete No obvious connection between this unused shortcut and the target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:46, 4 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• State institution → Public university  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect term not mentioned in target article, and not to be considered synonymous. Hence, this is a misleading redirect. Hildeoc (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some public universities are state institutions, but not all are and universities are just one example of things that can be state institutions. We don't appear to have any article dealing with the concept - Institution is not relevant, Formal organisation is too broad, State institutions of Cambodia is too specific and doesn't actually deal with the concept so much as being a list of institutions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Government agency. Government agencies are institutions of the state, and institutions of the state are government agencies. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: In this case, it should be taken care that the term "state institution" is included in the new target, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nyttend: Not all institutions of the state are government agencies - e.g. universities, museums, and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect might cause confusion. And if it didn't exist, we wouldn't invent it as a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:30, 4 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination) → Concordia Lutheran Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a likely search term. This is much more likely to be the name of a local church. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on whether this needs to be a title search term, considering the presence of the word "denomination" on disambiguation page Concordia Lutheran Church. There are however at least 2 or 3 denominations with this name (or similar) and with redlinks already present elsewhere. Background: I created this title a couple of hours ago, by moving the Swedish breakaway denomination's article from the ambiguous title Concordia Lutheran Church to Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination); since Concordia is a very common name for Lutheran churches, I assumed that only one group would be clueless enough to name a whole denomination that. A short time later, while looking for church names, I instead discovered more countries that had Lutheran denominations (not just parishes/congregations) named "Concordia Lutheran Church": see, for example, in List of Lutheran denominations. So I moved the Swedish denomination article again from Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination) to Concordia Lutheran Church (Swedish denomination), and redirected Concordia Lutheran Church (denomination) backwards into the disambiguation page. --Closeapple (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since the target lists a few denominations that may be referred to as Concordia Lutheran Church. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 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 delete. Deryck C. 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Theodoros Tawadros → Tawadros  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Requesting deletion per WP:RDEL #2 (might cause confusion) and #8 (obscure synonym). This is a compound phrase made up of two different transliterations of the same name 'Theodore' ('Theodoros' is Greek, while 'Tawadros' is Coptic). I initially changed the redirect from the article Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria to the disambiguation page Tawadros because it was not unambiguous that this phrase would only refer to a specific Coptic Pope, but I have realised that it is not even clear whether this phrase should redirect to the article on the Greek form (which is at Theodoros) or the disambiguation page on the Coptic form (which is at Tawadros). In addition, it is unlikely that any reader would search for these two different transliterations of the same name in the same phrase. This redirect has never been linked to, and has only received 5 page views in the last 30 days, so its deletion will unlikely be missed. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I have no opinion one way or other. I would had created the redirect because some English based news article I was reading when Tawadros II became pope named him as Theodoros Tawadros. If no one is using it, then delete it, but on the other hand redirects are cheap. -- KTC (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It does appear to be obscure because I was unable to find a source calling Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria that. I did see a few using "Theodoros (Tawadros)" though. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:19, 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Catgegory:Molloy College alumni → Category:Molloy College alumni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate WP:CNR, not a valid WP:RTYPO either. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, it was only there for a minute before being moved to its current title. I think this could be deleted under R3 but considering its been here over a year that probably doesn't meet "recent". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent" for R3 purposes doesn't have a strict definition, but the consensus is definitely somewhere in the 1-4 week range. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus for what qualifies as "recent". The time range you suggest is simply your opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no firm consensus certainly, but nothing longer than about 4 weeks has ever come close to getting consensus in any discussion I've been involved in. Things such as 3 months have be been suggested a time or two, but they've been outliers and not supported by almost everybody, and certainly not 1 year. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Discussion about "recent" at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#R3 and recent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:20, 4 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 keep. On this one at least, the advocates for keep have stronger arguments ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Not a valid redirect. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator has failed to specify why it is not a valid redirect. WP:R gives a listing of reasons why redirects should be deleted or kept, so there is something of a burden on those nominating something for deletion to specify why it meets an accepted criteria for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid redirect. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation: also per Galobtter—it literally sums ANI up. ——SerialNumber54129 12:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT - the target is not a policy page about Festivus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a surprising result. Redirects should not be easter eggs Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not funny, not a reasonable search term, no real purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a valid RfD. Lepricavark (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is one of the points of AN/I. Also per Tom Morris and Serial Number 54129. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. SQL^{Query me!} 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any policy this redirect breaks. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Doesn't violate any policy, like its colleagues at User:Pythoncoder/List of snarky ANI shortcuts.  — Scott • talk 15:12, 8 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 retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Irritating that this and WP:PITCHFORK go to different places. —Cryptic 04:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does leave us with a third option, a rerargeting to Wikipedia:Witch hunt.--67.68.28.142 (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if and only if WP:PITCHFORK is deleted as well; else redirect to Wikipedia:Witch hunt (the same target as WP:PITCHFORK). StAnselm (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator has failed to specify what guidelines the redirect fails to satisfy. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation: specifics please. ——SerialNumber54129 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous RfD and rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Probably better places for this to redirect to - but meh. — Ched :  ?  — 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt per WP:PITCHFORK. Whether it's one or multiple, people looking for pitchforks are usually looking to hunt a witch. Regards SoWhy 15:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt. Targets that make sense are better than joke targets. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - IMHO pitchforks is more associated with ANI than anywhere else so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to something else; Wikipedia:Witch hunt works. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to match the very similar redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget our own pitchforks toward the editor responsible for all these time-wasting RfDs. No, I am not actually serious (aside from the part about keeping the redirect). Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the consensus of the last discussion - nothing has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. No mention of which guidelines are being violated. SQL^{Query me!} 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WP:Witch hunt. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Witch hunt as a more relevant target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I already !voted "retarget" above, just elaborating. In the past I've gone looking for a shortcut describing the mob mentality that occurs in discussions at ANI, basically to use as a shortcut on ANI to refer to a discussion in which participants have abandoned logic and reason and are instead gathering torches and pitchforks, and found it disappointing that the shortcut was circular. So, the retargeting argument is this: Wikipedia:Witch hunt describes the mob behaviour, it just happens to occur most often at ANI. A shortcut to the essay would be much more useful. In any case, the two shortcuts should target the same page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:PITCHFORK doesn't make sense as a redirect to Wikipedia:Witch hunt. Pitchforks are more of a mob chasing Frankenstein's monster kind of thing. If anything, that one should be retargeted to ANI. Anyway, no reason to delete this.  — Scott • talk 15:17, 8 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 retarget to Wikipedia:Images. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:IMAGE → Wikipedia:Images  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Image → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These two should have the same target. DannyS712 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Wikipedia:Image to Wikipedia:Images as the most relevant target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Rubbish computer. MOS:IMAGE and MOS:IMAGES already exist for the manual of style page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikimedia commons cat → Template:Commons category  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Template:C cat → Template:Commons category  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are far too many redirects to Template:Commons category. This is a pain when using a regex to modify a category page.
Removing this unused pair will simplify the job a bit. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure what negative impact it has on regex, could you please elaborate. As far as the redirects themselves, there perfectly plausible, both because the project is commonly known as "Wikimedia commons" (that is the location of the article Wikimedia Commons and what the main page is called) and is an accepted long name due to the existence of Commons which Wikipedia doesn't have a generic meaning. And the categories are frequently abbreviated as C cats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crouch, Swale: here's the obscenely long regular expression needed to match a link to commons: {{([Cc]ategory[ _]+commons|[Cc]cat|CC|[Cc]c|[Cc]ommonscategory|COMMONSCAT|[Cc]ommonscat|[Cc]ommonsimages[ _]+cat|[Cc]ommons[ _]+category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+Category|[Cc]ommons[ _]+cat|[Cc][ _]+cat|[Ww]ikimedia[ _]+commons[ _]+cat). It's from rdcheck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: Sorry but having tried to read the Regular expression article I still don't really understand how that works. Unlike category redirects (which as I have suggested on Commons the software should be changed), template redirects just function like normal redirects and generally don't clutter up the search results/suggestions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Crouch, Swale. Authors of automated tools need to deal with the encyclopaedia as it is, we don't alter it for their convenience - even if that means complicated regexes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 4 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.