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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Completely aside from these being implausible redirects, the subjects all being obscure journeymen minor-league and amateur players, this is absolutely an XY deal. Let's take McKenzie, for example: what makes his playing for a team in the 2010 Memorial Cup a more likely redirect target than, say, the team for which he was playing, or any of the nine other amateur and professional teams for which he has played to date? These redirects are all the creation of an editor who was community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count. Ravenswing 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ravenswing. Sums it up better than I can. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 2 February 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. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of these talkers at the target page. Someone looking for specific information is going to end up confused or disappointed. --Tavix(talk) 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there was an article on Lintilla, but it was PROD-ed, deleted, and subsequently userfied. It's now at User:Piquan/Lintilla (talker). - Eureka Lott 15:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see news articles on any of these. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't see a good reason for keeping these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 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 While many targets have been proposed, there was no strong consensus for deletion, so defaulting to keep here. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "New Xbox" is simply whichever console is the newest. --Tavix(talk) 18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoXbox where a user can find all of the Xbox products and select whichever is the newest at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and possibly refine to Xbox One#Project Scorpio. I understand the nominator's concerns, here, and Tavix's—to some extent, this is always going to be a maintenance burden. But right now, a reader searching this is either looking for the most recent Xbox he or she could buy in a store or the upcoming Xbox. And right now, all of that information is on the Xbox One article. It may be better to leave readers at the top, with the TOC close at hand, but I would not oppose refining or deleting. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:14, 31 January 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 clearly no consensus to delete. The decision whether to retarget or convert to disambiguation is much closer but I think favors disambiguation. Rossami(talk) 05:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Easily confused with an actual list of characters, which the target does not include, just the entity's protagonists. Lordtobi (✉) 13:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such franchise list with common characters across multiple titles. Making a dab page would mean a bunch of PTMs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) updated 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unreasonable for people to think we might have an single article about characters in the series rather than individual articles for characters in each edition, making this a likely search term and useful disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed vote to RetargettoGrand Theft Auto (video game)#Gameplay which is the first title in the franchise. This makes it consistent with Characters of Final Fantasy and List of Final Fantasy characters. And the section does list 8 playable character names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dabifyorconvert to set index - Let's not put the page go to waste. Instead, make the page useful as either list method. About the SIA thing, the whole title is closely related to the video game series (or franchise if you call it this way). George Ho (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be needed when there's a navbox at the bottom that can take people to the character articles for each title mentioned? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Is redundancy good or bad? Either way, redundancy is not generally a good reason for deletion. In fact, it may benefit those typing the whole descriptive titles. Having just the navbox at the bottom of a page is... kinda... not bad... just not good. Sometimes, a navbox may automatically collapse if it uses either "autocollapse" or "collapsed". George Ho (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC); De-linked WP:redundancy is good, which is about project pages generally. 03:42, 8 February 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. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Outdoor treat refers to a video game and this redirect is the result of a page move in 2015. The redirect is too vague in my opinion and would be difficult to find similar articles with the name. st170e 19:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e: What similar articles did you have in mind? --Tavix(talk) 20:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's Retreat (spiritual), but those aren't always outdoors, and it seems like there must be secular versions of this too. I see the nominator's point that this could WP:SURPRISE, but what else is there to consider within Wikipedia? The title-case capitalization is a point in favor of the status quo too. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An outdoor retreat would be suited more to a dictionary definition. Outdoor retreats are synonymous with Retreat (spiritual)asBDD has pointed out. I am seeing the benefits of sticking with the status quo and a hatnote to the Retreat article too, though. st170e 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I'm not sure what this could be but at the moment it is the definition of WP:SURPRISE. Laurdecltalk 06:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am the user who initially suggested this redirect's deletion to "st170e". As stated, the redirect is overly vague, and additionally it is highly unlikely that it would be the target of any links outside of Wikipedia. Of all the expansion packs for The Sims 4 which have their own articles, this is the only one which has a redirect for its name without the "The Sims 4" title. An earlier request that I made to have the other expansion packs for The Sims 4 have similar redirects created for them, which I made based on the existence of this redirect, was declined by "st170e", so for the sake of consistency I feel that if all the pages cannot have redirects for the shortened version of their names due to vagueness, none of them should have one. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of actual articles this could be confused for. Tag as {{R from subtitle}}. --Tavix(talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They'd have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. From a cursory search, Get to Work seems fine to create. Nothing else jumped out to me in terms of competing usage. Dine Out might be a different story. My Google search did show a lot of Sims related hits, but it's also a common enough phrase. Perhaps it's fine to create with a hatnote to Dining in (unless I'm missing a more appropriate article). As an aside, simply saying WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a reason to delete this redirect. --Tavix(talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Let us see what the general consensus is. 114.75.78.136 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Are you sure about the Rcat{{R from subtitle}}? Did you notice that it's a redirect to an Rcat which doesn't necessarily apply to this? (In theory with where {{R from subtitle}} currently targets, it would only apply if the nominated redirect targeted The Sims 4.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, isn't that what we did with those Neelix redirects from a subtitle when they came up last year? I'll need to look into it more when I have time. What would you think about creating a new rcat at {{R from subtitle}} for situations like this? --Tavix(talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: That probably needs to be done. But, just to make sure that it will not create duplication with another Rcat, best to ...
...to be continued there. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add a hatnote to Retreat (disambiguation) per Tavix. There are no competing uses for this term that have an article, and while I can forsee there maybe being an article on the concept of places of peacefulness, holidaying or moving away from the city type uses (see also Escape to the Country) but they won't be at this title and will be listed on the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would be a useful hatnote. --Tavix(talk) 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 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. (non-admin closure) - There are two crucial questions here, the first of which is whether the John Lennon song is the primary topic for Imagine (song). The view that it is the primary topic was implicit in the previous RM discussion, but it was challenged in the subsequent RfD, apparently without reaching consensus, and it was rehashed again now, backed up with what I see as strong arguments.
However, the second crucial question is what is to be done if it is the primary topic. One view, grounded in the general practice behind WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, is that Imagine (John Lennon song) would need to be moved to Imagine (song). There is no consensus for such a move now and one will have to be established by an RM. The opposing view, which seems to be allowed for at WP:DABSONG as an exception, is that the John Lennon song will keep its overprecise title and Imagine (song) will redirect to it. At present, there is no consensus for such an outcome either.
What is the way forward? Clearly, an RM would be warranted (although I don't see consensus that one should be procedurally started). A second RfD discussion would be warranted too, but in order for it to overcome the challenges to it legitimacy (which were behind the current "speedy close/send to RM" !votes), it will need to reach at least as wide an audience as the hypothetical RM. That would minimally be achieved by a notice on the talk page of Imagine (John Lennon song), but I would also recommend advertising it more broadly - to relevant wikiprojects and/or on the talk page of WP:NCM. – Uanfala (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
The John Lennon song is obviously the primary topic. The Lennon song "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (quoted from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). For those reasons, I am in strong support of retargetting this to Imagine (John Lennon song) and adding a hatnote at that article to Imagine. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RM This seems more like a requested move discussion. The John Lennon song was originally at this title, moved to (John Lennon song) in 2015 and then, shortly afterwards, the resulting redirect pointed to the disambiguation page. If we're redirecting (song) to (John Lennon song) then the article really should just be at (song) in the first place. That would need a requested move to reverse the previous one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I disagree. If "Imagine (song)" redirects to "Imagine (John Lennon song)" then the article is the primary topic for "Imagine (song)" and so should be at that title (per WP:PRECISE, and probably other disambiguation policies/guidelines). If it isn't the primary topic for "Imagine (song)" then things should stay as they are. Given the current set-up is the result of an RM consensus it requires an RM consensus to reverse. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are arguments for RM and should be independent of this discussion. There was an RM over this already, here. If you want to open another RM, go ahead and make those arguments there, but this is not the place to do so. --Tavix(talk) 15:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Thryduulf--WP:RM is the right one. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / send to RM per Thryduulf. "Imagine (song)" shouldn't redirect to "Imagine (John Lennon song)" any more than "Imagine" should redirect to "Imagine (song)". --BDD (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've fixed the (album) situation, which was not a result of an RM anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a single user's comment from several years ago, when PDAB was an attempt to change naming policy instead of just an essay? Ok. Great. PRIMARYTOPIC be damned! --BDD (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why such a move is necessary at this juncture. The courteous thing to do would have been to open a requested move at Talk:Imagine (John Lennon album), something you did not do. It's also somewhat undermining the rationale I gave here, and I find it extraordinary that you think the action you performed was non-controversial.--Nevé–selbert 23:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverting an undiscussed move. I will apologize for apparently misreading your nomination statement, however; I thought the implication behind "Note also that Imagine (album) redirects to Imagine (John Lennon album)" was that that was a situation that needed rectifying. Indeed, the status quo flies in the face of WP:PRECISE, WP:D, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but what's a few broken policies and guidelines between friends? --BDD (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and disagree with moving the article). Primary topics are often shaky. When in doubt, put the article at a name that is sufficiently disambiguated from all other Wikipedia articles. When in doubt, disambiguate rather than point to most prominent topic. Deryck C. 22:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily close and send to RM. This isn't just out-of-scope for RfC, it's shopping/rehash of previous RMs and against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I would expect the RM to be speedily closed as well, honestly. Imagine (John Lennon song) is regularly cited against attempts to move song articles to be alleged PRIMARY topics on the basis of being in the charts this month. RfD doesn't exist to go for end-runs around RM precedent and NC guidelines. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:56, 31 January 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.
Go ahead and nominate any you feel should be deleted. --Tavix(talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any opinion on Brexshit or perhaps Brexit cereal, Tavix? I was going to do a mass-nomination, but I felt it would turn into a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I thought pinging you guys might be best, to see what you think of some of them.--Nevé–selbert 21:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of having enough coverage for a redirect, but about there being an appropriate target for people using the redirect to find out about it. It isn't mentioned at the Brexit article so someone landing there via this redirect will likely just be confused. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoMalapropism#Real-life examples where the Brexit-Breakfast confusion is mentioned. I've just linked Brexit there, so readers wanting to find out about it can still get there easily. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retargettoMalapropism#Real-life examples per Thryduulf as this is given as an example there. But on the other hand, this is just given as an example, any such example could be replaced by another one in the future, and its treatment there is by necessity too incidental and brief to strongly warrant the existence of a redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 8 February 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.
Registering for the draft is not only implemented in U.S, but also other countries like mainland China. !Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoConscription, which would probably be the best way to solve the issue. (I've added one other one if you don't mind.) --Tavix(talk) 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoConscription per Tavix. That article notes that the concept is also known as "drafting." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, all references to "registration" at Conscription are about the United States. Will readers searching these terms be satisfied? How do other countries conscript—is the US unique in its registration system? --BDD (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you narrow your search to simply "register", you'll find a hit for China: Citizens 18 years of age are required to register in PLA offices, but policy not enforced. Policy exempted in Hong Kong and Macao. Netherlands also mentions a registration, although it's done automatically: to this day, every male and female citizen aged 17 gets a letter in which he is told that he has been registered but does not have to present himself for service. --Tavix(talk) 19:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Panzerkampfwagen! I think I agree with AngusWOOF's suggestion. Draft registration is a subtopic of conscription generally. This will make a good start for a standalone article on conscription in China. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 1 February 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.
Article talks about suffixes in general and there is no full list of English suffixes on the article Flow 234 (Nina)talk 10:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
soft redirecttoWikt:Appendix:English suffixes. The 410 page views last year confirm my suspicion that this is a very likely thing people will be looking for, and while Wikipedia doesn't have such a list Wiktionary does so we should help people to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redir per Thryduulf. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:47, 31 January 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) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid alternative name. Subject is not referred to as such. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not appear to be the subject's name. The most prominent individual in my search results was a member of the administrative staff of Leicester Cathedral and Leicester College who does not rise to the level notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to say that this redirect should be tagged as a {{R from incorrect name}}, but then I noticed that the "k" in "kerry" is lowercase. Too many errors, best to delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the comments above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the notable John Kerrys in Wikipedia are expanded to Jonathan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 31 January 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) 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible. Delete and salt. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was apparently created after a spammy article about an SEO contest was deleted, and then protected to prevent further creations (I'm not sure if salting existed back then). Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not mentioned at target and implausible. If this recipe calls for a dash of salt, I'm fine with that too, though I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone came back a decade later to create spam at this title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not salt as the spammers are likely gone as it contains 2007 Flow 234 (Nina)talk 23:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel(talk) 02:02, 6 February 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 uncontested and other foreign language redirects in project space have been deleted recently by consensus so this seems uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 8 February 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.
A random phrase that an editor happens to like isn't an appropriate basis for a redirect. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The phrase seems to have garnered significant news coverage and is mentioned in the article. I have my doubts that the target group is notable (and the existence of a notability tag means I'm not alone) but while the article exists this redirect seems not inappropriate. If the target is deleted this will be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete (was weak keep) I get DrFleischman's point, and I only made the redirect because I thought some readers might search for the phrase - and be happy to find that it referred to the pro-Trump biker group. But maybe it only mattered for the few days before and after the inauguration? In the old days I often would create a page and promptly move it - leaving a redirect - because my primary motivation was to help readers find the articles they're looking for. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
user:Ed Poor accidentally modified my !vote instead of their own [1]. As my opinion has not changed, I've corrected this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A whopping pageview total of 8 over the inauguration--yes, 8--shows that readers aren't being aided by this redirect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that shows that human readers were helped 8 times in 28 days. I see no good reasons to make it harder for people to find the content they are obviously looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; plus, no article even links to it. I guess I goofed, and sorry for taking everyone's time. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a bit strong. I was thinking more of human chain or human barricade, as some articles put it. Perhaps a hatnote then? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is; the phrase is specific and specific to this Bikers for Trump thing, which did not propose a human shield to prevent armed assault, but a vigilante version of a riot-police line to blockade protesters. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not mentioned at the target page, so unlikely to leave readers any more informed than they already were, and likely to leave them confused. On a more subjective measure, I follow American politics pretty obsessively and haven't heard the phrase, which makes me think it's an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 8 February 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13#Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce
