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. 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without prejudice of an article being created or a target that covers it. The current (and previous) targets are way too generic for a music festival that doesn't have a stand alone article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be covered (but only brieflysince its not common to include large amonts of info on organizations on settlement articles) at Mannum as that's its location per its website. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (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 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.
List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology[edit]
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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the use of the phrase "other faiths" in these titles, they could lead readers to assume that all faiths are listed at the target, which they are not. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine to Mormonism#Relations to other faiths (the current section target no longer exists). While there are often issues with "other" redirects, I don't see a problem here. The "other" is obviously religious traditions other than Mormonism. No responsible reader will interpret this to mean all other faiths, and the section I propose refining to should have relevant discussion on whichever faiths we can speak to. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it’d help if I had looked through the article a bit more throughly to discover this section, considering that I recently made a similar edit. Withdrawing to allow implementation of BDD’s idea. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2018 (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.
List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists[edit]
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 soft delete. Deryck C. 19:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what "other groups" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (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.
There is also a Cadiz City in Negros Occidental, Philippines. The Province or any higher division w/c Cadiz City of Spain should be specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanry (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this redirect will only make it so that someone typing in Cadiz City does not go anywhere. I think it should continue to redirect to Cadiz, Spain as that is the primary topic. If we do anything we should redirect to Cadiz (disambiguation). There are three cities listed on that page, Spain, Philippines and Kentucky USA. ~ GB fan 13:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoCadiz, Negros Occidental (and hatnote) as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from my research. Of the three cities named Cadiz, Kentucky doesn't ever use "Cadiz City", Spain rarely (only example on Wikipedia I can find is at Autovía CA-36), and the Philippines frequently (for example, it's used 19 times at Cadiz, Negros Occidental). An external search for "Cadiz City" primarily gave me Philippine results as well. --Tavix(talk) 17:31, 12 December 2018 (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 current target is the unexpected outcome of a recent RfD discussion. I still maintain that deletion is best: there doesn't appear to be such a thing as "Pontic linguistics" (just try looking it up anywhere), and we don't have any content on wikipedia for anything that could reasonably be construed as being referred to by this term. But if we must keep this, then the previous target, the disambiguation page section Pontic#Languages and peoples, seems more appropriate as there are three distinct language-related meanings of "Pontic". And if anything, Pontic Greek is the least "linguisticky" of them all. – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the outcome of the just closed RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing in the previous RfD that addressed the ambiguity of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other terms seem to refer to language groups as opposed to a language. I think, whatever it's target, it should be the same as Pontic language, right? --Bsherr (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Linguistics" doesn't have any more affinity for "language" than it does for "languages" (though it can be argued that the reverse is true as any article about a linguistic grouping of languages would sound more "linguisticky" than an article about an individual language). For a redirect like Pontic linguistics, if it is to exist at all, there's no reason for its target to be the same as Pontic language rather than Pontic languages. – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I suppose any doubt should be resolved in favor of the disambiguation page as the target. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess there might be differences in the background assumptions here. On wikipedia there are altogether fewer than ten redirects that contain a language name followed by "linguistics" [1]. Most of these go to articles that have some content relevant to the discipline (rather than the language), and in the best cases that's a different article than the one about the language: for example, German linguistics redirects to German studies and Russian linguistics redirects to List of Russian linguists and philologists. It's from this vantage point that the redirect Pontic linguistics appears harmful: it leads you to expect content that isn't actually there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that argument in the prior discussion, but it seems to me that until there is an article on the field of study, redirecting to the object of the study is an acceptable alternative. Though I think quite reasonable people can differ on that issue. Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Arms & Hearts and Amorymeltzer: Do you have anything to add?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: Sorry, didn't notice this; I don't think XfD closer pings in the relist. At any rate, I don't have a particular comment on this redirect. I don't think it should have been nominated: the previous RfD didn't close as no consensus WP:TRAINWRECK, so while I've disagreed with the re-nomination of all these redirects as well as the ones on the 25th on process grounds, I've stayed out since others besides the nominator have been willing to discuss them. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This still seems to be attracting participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:46, 12 December 2018 (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.
Ambiguous redirect, since most of the suicides listed at target article could easily fit into the "famous" category. CycloneYoristalk! 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's a reasonably likely search term for someone writing an essay, or looking for a good example. "Famous" is not the same thing as "notable", but List of suicides is the best article we have, and is a really good starting point. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Cavell. Since most of the suicides listed at target article could easily fit into the "famous" category this appears to be the correct target, and since there's nothing else on Wikipedia called "famous suicide" I don't see how this is ambiguous.. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2018 (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 soft delete. Deryck C. 18:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not discussed in target article; a redlink would be better. Catrìona (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (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. 18:59, 20 December 2018 (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) 21:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No utility. Not really sure of the intent here. MB 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added New Food Processor to the nomination due to it only differing in capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a caveat - I was invited to comment because of my previous involvement with the articles in question. If you look at the history of New food processor[2] before December 11 it shows that someone wrote a full article on an appliance of that name, and nobody else could figure out how it was different than a plain old food processor. Then another editor did a basic redirect and here we are. The thing is, "New Food" really is a term used by health activists [3] and there is also a book on how to process it [4]. If foodies learn of this discussion there may be an argument over whether "new food processing" is a notable new thing. Until then, I recommend deleting the redirects and the history of the offending article, though I admit that my knowledge of the field is limited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New food-processors are no different from old food-processors, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a redirect for new-food processors when new food is a redlink. The existing title is unhelpful because it's ambiguous and needs a hyphen somewhere, and there's no point in disambiguating between two pages that don't really need redirects in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted. The topic (new food processor) wasn't different from the current article, it was that the article was the new version created by a WikiEd editor, and they probably didn't have adequate instructions. Natureium (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally absurd and irrelevant redirect that no one will ever use and has absolutely no value. Praxidicae (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2018 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 19#List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology
