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 was in Will & Grace as well. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a silly redirect that is very unlikely to ever be used in practice. (Note also that currently nothing links to this redirect.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:47, 8 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 keep. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should really redirect to Window (disambiguation); there is no proof that every time we talk about Windows we always mean the Microsoft program, really the term "windows" is so unprecise it should redirect to a disambiguation page, that is what it's for. Also the page history looks to show that it looks like the majority agree Abcmaxx (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Longstanding and clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the plural form of "window", especially considering that the target is called "Windows" as a short name, and has been a prominent operating system for almost three decades. Most looking for Window will search for it by its singular form, not the plural. Any confusion that could be created by readers arriving to Microsoft Windows can be resolved by the currently-existing hatnote on the top of the page. However, I’m "weak keep" because per the page view comparison between "Windows", "Window", and "Windows (disambiguation)", the page views of Window and Windows are nearly identical, so it is difficult and possibly impossible to determine how many readers search Windows then use the hatnote on Microsoft Windows to go to Window; on the other hand, per the page view comparison of "Microsoft Windows", "Windows" and "Window", it seems that between Microsoft Windows and Window, the former gets significantly more page views than the assumed de facto primary for "Windows" (Window); if Window was even close to being as significant as Microsoft Windows, then the two would have close to the same amount of page views, which they do not. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but really, every time someone means Microsoft Windows, they should really put the words "Microsoft Windows" in full as the wiki link. There are plenty of examples where one acronym or nickname is much more popular than their disambiguation counterparts; however most still point to the disambiguation page as the term "windows" is not synonymous with the program. For example the link word and words point to the linguistic meaning however Microsoft Word is a much more popular search term as an encyclopedia entry. I think the reason Windows, the plural of window, only redirects to the operating software out of laziness. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
..."but really, every time someone means Microsoft Windows, they should really put the words "Microsoft Windows" in full as the wiki link." But that doesn’t mean that they do, and per the page view data, there’s no definite way of determining that either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also could redirect to the older and broader computer term Window (computing), from where the operating system got its naming. It's still used a lot when discussing graphical user interfaces. Also, from the WP:BRAND guideline: "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed." Wakari07 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Steel1943. Strictly as far as computers are concerned, the operating system is dominant. If you took a bunch of people, said the word "windows", and asked them to write down the first meaning that came to mind, how many of them would write anything in computing other than the OS? I'm inclined to treat Microsoft as primary over the plural of "window" because this is such a well-known concept; if some minor topic of any sort were called "oranges", we'd give priority to the plural of "orange" because it was minor, but this is far from that. I strongly doubt that there's anyone in the world with the technical ability to access Wikipedia who is aware of the meaning of the English word "window" yet unaware of the OS. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abcmaxx, there's over 3,260 linksto[[Windows]] so surely you can prove there is a problem here by finding a couple that are misdirected to the operating system and should be redirected elsewhere? Don't try to fix things that aren't broken. My plate runneth over with actual problems that aren't getting fixed until I fix them. It would be a ridiculous diversion of resources to force someone to pipe all 3,200 links to Microsoft, unless you want to do it yourself. Even then, this would become an ongoing maintenance issue as new programs written for Windows continue to be released and not every editor will take the time to pipe the |operating_system= links in their infoboxes. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:58, 13 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 RetargettoHawaiian dollar. As a normal editorial action I'll add a hatnote to the Kala dismabiguation page which should resolve the concerns raised below. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target page, and it may be a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not an American so I'll just comment that the term seems to be the Hawaiian term for the dollar according to wiktionary --Lenticel(talk) 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoHawaiian dollar, which is the topic with a sufficient WP:FORRED connection, and where kālā is now mentioned (albeit in a footnote; not sure if it needs to be more prominent than that). Hatnote to Kala (disambiguation), which has uses for the easily-confused kāla and kalā, but none others for kālā exactly as far as I can see. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kālā is the IAST transliteration of wikt:काला in Devanagari. Originating from Sanskrit, in Hindi it means "(pitch) black". Toponyms as Kālā Pānī, Kala Chauna, Kalanag, Kalaram Temple, personal names as Kalaratri, and other terms starts with it. See also Kaal, Kāla (time) and the disambiguation page Kala. I'd suggest to redirect to the Kala disambiguation page, since then we don't seem to prefer Hawaiian over Hindi contexts. Wakari07 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or disambiguate, since Hawaiian dollar is an appropriate use, and I don't have an opinion about retargeting per Wakari. I agree that it's not good at the current target and disagree with the idea of deleting. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 9 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 keep. I'll be refining it to the Trials of associates section. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like vandalism to me. I think it should be deleted. Nothing links there, too. Mateussf (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Abcmaxx (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People searching for Individual-1 should be directed to the person to whom that refers. Fullmetal2887(discuss me) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out since the nomination appeared incorrect when I made this comment. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to be a thing, per WaPo and Atlantic headline usage. Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this name apparently originates from the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)[1]. I'm not sure exactly which of the many sub-articles of that topic would be the best place to mention this name, if any. In any case the current target is no good; people searching for "Individual-1" should be directed to a sourced explanation of the term in context, not a page about a TV show which doesn't mention the term at all. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now redirects to the correct place. However, as previously mentioned, there is no explanation of the (perhaps legalistic) rationale for using this term. A properly-sourced couple of sentences in the main Trump article should suffice, imo. jxm (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in that case, could you go ahead and try to add those few sentences? RFD can't dictate consensus on what content should appear at target articles, so we have to try and see in advance if editors of Donald Trump will accept including discussion of the name "Individual-1" there. If it turns out they will not, we'll have to come up with an alternative target where content can be included, so that readers aren't left typing in a search term and landing on a page with zero explanation of that term. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty obvious. If not, we'd have to make an article on it. And if it's not mentioned, then perhaps it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly redirect, or expand, but certainly not delete. The term is mentioned in RS, and so deserves coverage here. Benjamin (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible vandalism/soapbox, and just seems bad idea to make a bit of single report’s procedural trivia into an odd redirect. Seems like just a quirk SOP and “individual 1” would be a different person in other dispositions by Cohen, or in other cases. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but now this is more than just a placeholder in a disposition. It's how people are referring to him:
"Manafort, Cohen, and Individual 1 Are in Grave Danger"[2]
"Prosecutors: Cohen committed crimes at the direction of ‘Individual-1’ aka Trump"[6]
"President ‘Individual-1’ Trump Hasn’t A Clue, But Twitter Wits Aim to School Him"[7]
"Trump, 'Individual 1,' is newly cast as center of special counsel's probe"[8]
And so on and so forth. Come on. I know, that you know, how to use google. So just type "Individual 1" into that search bar and let me know if someone OTHER THAN Trump, from all these "many other cases" pops up.
What IS the downside of having this redirect actually? Not seeing one. If you don't know that he's referred to as such, then you can live blissfully on in your ignorance, unaware that such a redirect exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volunteer Marek Naaah. The question is what is the point of making a bit of procedural trivia into an article redirect, that a generic term is used in such reports was in this one report, esp. if a search would find any case(s) of it anyway ? It does not seem to be any of the guideline reasons WP:POFR. It seems sort of like making "Orange face" or "Small hands" a redirect to Trump, just a bit of snark - and the WP:R#DELETE guideline reasons to delete it. Especially with needing to explain the term of redirect means Trump and that it is a legal generic also done with many other cases and which report is meant or why it seems going too far for a silly prank. (Will we then have a paragraph that explains that yes, in every disposition the outside parties are referred to in generic ways, so that in another brief Individual 2 is Trump and Individual 1 is Comey and in some other case Individual 1 is someone else or perhaps they are identified as Employee 1 so on ? And shall we do redirects for all the variations Individual #1, Individual-1, Individual one ?) Seems simpler to just have the article say "Trump" and skip the fillip of there is this procedural abstract in the Cohen report except perhaps in the article text in which case a search would find it so a redirect has no value. The findings you see today seem only a common example of WP:RECENTISM or flap du jour are a bit viral -- it's not like the label was not in evidence a year ago, it's just that today its in the news -- wait a week and see if it has any enduring WEIGHT or goes away again among the other uses of individual 1. That brings up that there are other
Individual 1 - term in biology cases, e.g. genetics Generation 1, Individual 1
Individual 1 - Medicare category, e.g. Qualified Individual 1 (QI1)
Individual 1 - IRS descriptive (e.g. Taxpayer, Trustee, Individual 1 and Individual 2 are each 25 percent partners.)
Police reports use "Individual #1", e.g. " Individual #1 is described as a Hispanic female, between 20 and 30 years old, approximately 5'5 ..."
User:Geni - seems a possible spot, though I'd expect the Secret Service codenames to be there (e.g. "Timberwolf") . But it will take time to see if this one rises to the common use of "Dubya" or "Slick Willie". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the term is used in this phase of the legal proceedings and is likely not to have any significance long-term. We don't need to tell anyone who "Individual-1" is. What is the point of the redirect.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at 21:08, 9 December 2018, Reach Out to the Truth ... updated this nomination to show the current target this redirect has always targeted: Donald Trump. When the nominator inputted this nomination, the target on the nomination displayed as Donald Drumpf. The nomination was performed manually, considering that the nominator did not tag the redirect with {{Rfd2}}; I tagged the redirect. Any comments that were made prior to this correction may be referring to when the nomination erroneously stated that this redirect targeted Donald Drumpf. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and to be really precise, the redirect target could be Donald Trump#Associates, which is where Individual-1 is mentioned. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine to Donald Trump#Associates where explanation of the name "Individual-1" has now been added thanks to MelanieN, and has survived for a couple of days. Although there are many people who may have been known as "Individual-1" within the context of an investigation, given the high profile of this individual & investigation it appears to be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT at least for now. However there should be no prejudice against speedy renomination if the relevant content gets removed from the target and efforts to add it elsewhere also fail. A redirect which wastes the reader's time by sending them to an article where they get no explanation of the term they searched for is expensive, not cheap. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add mention to List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States and retarget there. My concern is that this information about "Individual-1" may be removed from the Trump article in the future per WP:UNDUE or similar. The article already has a prose size of 96KB which is huge. feminist (talk) 05:16, 15 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. Per WP:RGUIDE: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete." --Tavix(talk) 15:32, 8 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) 12:24, 8 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) 01:17, 16 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) 12:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because if they're not mentioned at any of those places, these titles may well be hoaxes. Anyway, redirecting Item X to List of Items is almost always a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 9 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 retargettoAndrew Irvine (bassist) and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Clarkson does not have albums by these names. These redirects were from a couple of old, incorrect guesses at the title of her next album. --Tavix(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss The Way I Like It (album)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 8 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. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter handle of biography subject that is not even mentioned in the entry on the subject; moreover the source for it is a Daily Caller article. Redirect is currently only serving as a reason for an undue hatnote on the encyclopedic biography. [ETA: now removed, but had been added back twice following previously removals.] Innisfree987 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is mentioned in the article as a footnote, and there's a writeup of him Tweeting a lot. Not clear if he was well-established as a social media person though. When his death occurred, they didn't immediately point to his Twitter presence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: like I say, there's a Daily Caller reference (although that is now deadlinked), but the Twitter handle that this redirect points to is not mentioned in the body of the entry. FWIW, this Slate reference, which relies on the original Daily Caller piece, does not suggest Martin was a significant social media presence beyond his classmates. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:48, 30 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) 07:33, 8 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. --Tavix(talk) 16:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are apparently songs that were from the Sia album OnlySee. The issue with these redirects pointing to Sia (musician) is that they are not mentioned at the target article. The reason for this is possibly due to the album’s article, OnlySee being redirect to the musician's article as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnlySee. (All of these redirects once targeted OnlySee until they had to be retargeted to avoid the double redirect.) Since they are subtopics of a subtopic (song of album by singer) and are not mentioned at the current target, readers being led to these redirects' current target will not find the information they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. {{R from song}}-type redirects are useful if they are mentioned in the target (which is essential) and especially if in addition they populate categories (which is optional). None of these do either.
Should any editor care to add a brief OnlySee section with tracklisting to Sia discography and to create relevant properly categorised redirects, that would be fine by me. However, the nominated list contains too many duplicates and too many entries with unnecessarily complicated qualifiers. Narky Blert (talk) 04:12, 1 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) 07:18, 8 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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see how this was redirected rather than deleted. There are a few tongue-in-cheek references to a "National Panic at the Disco Day" floating around, but nothing significant and/or official. --Tavix(talk) 18:36, 30 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) 07:09, 8 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. Per WP:RGUIDE: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete." --Tavix(talk) 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual; target has been merged, and mentioning this person at the target of the merge is unfeasible for reasons of due weight. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 30 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) 07:09, 8 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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No information about a remake or an upcoming film is present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the section about the remake was removed in January. The section was well sourced, but the project seems to have languished in development hell for over a decade without ever moving towards starting principal photography. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After some thinking I've decided this should be a delete. If it were an obscure page with few editors my opinion might be different, but I looked it up and saw there's 129 people who have this page on their watchlist [9]. None of them contested the removal in almost a year, and there's some discussion (albeit from 10 years ago) on the talk page stating that the remake is not notable. So I think RFD should presume that the removal has consensus among editors of the target page. Also it's worth noting that the content was removed only about a month after the redirect got created. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:04, 5 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) 07:07, 8 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) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look to be a popular nickname for Kelly Clarkson. I found an Urban Dictionary entry but not much else. --Tavix(talk) 17:43, 30 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) 07:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obscure nickname --Lenticel(talk) 02:03, 9 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. Per WP:RGUIDE: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete." --Tavix(talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article. Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 30 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) 06:59, 8 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 no consensus / delete. There's no positive consensus for any one action, but no one wanted the redirect to be kept as is. For now, I'm deleting it, but anyone may create such a disambiguation page at this title, which can then be judged on its own merits. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
North America consists of more than the United States. This redirect does not represent a global view. Redirect should be deleted or re-routed to template "North America in topic|Public holidays in" Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we have nowhere to send the reader. List of holidays by country isn't subdivided by continent, and the various countries of North America largely don't have public holidays in common anyway (besides a few religious ones). Retargeting to {{North America in topic}} and passing "public holidays" as a parameter would be an interesting suggestion if that parameter-passing were technically possible, but I don't believe it is. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That isn't directly possible, but there is a way to do it: redirect this to Template:Public holidays in North America and create that page with {{North America topic|Public holidays in|state=expand}}. That might be a good solution actually. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps this would make sense if there are holidays that are celebrated continent wide, and it could be an article that discusses these holidays. --Tavix(talk) 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss whether the possibility of retargeting to a template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Abcmaxx. This can cover Mexico and countries farther south, too. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation. This isn't an ambiguous term that can mean multiple things. This is one thing that is covered in multiple articles. If we must keep it, List of holidays by country has the full list, but I don't see the point since there aren't any public holidays that are continent wide. "Redirects are cheap" is a mantra for redirects in general and doesn't help explain why we should keep this particular redirect. --Tavix(talk) 19:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Someone using this search term is probably looking for a list or lists of public holidays in North American countries. We don't have a single list, but we do have multiple lists that will give them exactly what they are looking for so I see no benefit to any other course of action than providing them with links to those lists. Call it a set index if you prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 16 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 retargettoCategory:Store brands. Unfinished RfC notwithstanding, consensus here is that there's content we can point to. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 16:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No such list at target. In theory, this list could contain almost any store that manufactured their own brand of products. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoCategory:Store brands which contains all the store brands we have articles about, which in the absence of a list of notable ones is the best we can offer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no such list. --Tavix(talk) 01:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per above. dml (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:06, 26 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) 06:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the category recommended above. Plausible search term for a Wikipedia user, and the cat is better than nothing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:56, 11 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. Certainly no prejudice against creating the sort of list discussed. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though I cannot find an example at the moment, there is more than one album that has an untitled introduction track, so I’m not sure why this target gets precedence over any others. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoIntroduction, a disambiguation page that lists many untitled introduction tracks. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That statement/claim seems erroneous. After glancing at Introduction#Songs and tracks, all of the songs listed there are titled "Intro" or "Introduction", meaning that are not "untitled". Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either deleteorrepurpose to a list of songs with this title. --woodensuperman 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching with this title did give some hits, most of them with the format "Untitled (Intro)". They include: Riverfenix (album), El Producto (EP), You Fat Bastards: Live at the Brixton Academy, Inquilaab (album), and Bee Hives. The problem is that "Untitled Intro" is more of a descriptor than a formal title for any of these. Because of this, I don't think we need a separate list/disambiguation for this set. Untitled already has a good list going, and one can probably pick what they want from that list if Wikipedia has it. That being said, I would be fine with retargeting to Untitled or deletion to reveal search results. --Tavix(talk) 15:32, 5 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) 06:53, 8 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 retargettoSpinal nerve#Thoracic nerves. Weak consensus. Section is pluralized and has a c. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoSpinal nerve#Thoraic nerve where the searcher will be able to find whichever of them they consider to be "last". Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as above. Could also be deleted without any great fuss. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nowhere that explains specifically which nerve(s) may be "last". --Tavix(talk) 02:20, 27 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) 06:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak RetargettoSpinal nerve#Thoraic nerve. Although our readers can find the info that they want there, I think "last" is a bit vague. --Lenticel(talk) 02:05, 9 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. Per WP:RGUIDE: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete." --Tavix(talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the Xbox 360 is not going to have any more upcoming Xbox Live Arcade games. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 29 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) 06:49, 8 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commment both Emperor Ai of Han and Liu Xin (scholar) were politicians, although that is not the best disambiguator for either it is not implausible, certainly for the latter. Probably the best thing to do would be to write a stub about the modern politician at this title and link to the dab page in a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the best thing to do would be to write a stub about the modern politician — I suspect that (politician) wouldn't be the best disambiguator for him either. Not having any luck finding sources about him offhand, but plenty of the PLA members of the National People's Congress are known primarily for their military rather than political accomplishments. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 28 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) 06:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the IP. We really ought to disambiguate by what this person's really done, e.g. (soldier) or (officer). If I understand correctly, unless you're prominent enough that you'd have an article already, if you're a member of the National People's Congress, you're almost certainly something other than a politician; you're elected because you're dependable enough to be trusted to vote the way the party wants you to. (It's like calling someone a "politician" solely because he was chosen to be a US presidential elector.) Politicians are those who participate in decision-making, not rubber-stampers; the only politicians in the Congress are members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or other leaders whose Congress membership is tangential to their real jobs or is legally necessary for them to hold a top position. Plus, taking List of X and redirecting one of the list entries to the list is generally a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. This is a plausible search term for multiple people, none of whom are the primary topic, so we should take people to the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 16 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.
Unreleased and/or cancelled media subjects with "upcoming" redirects[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Untitled Avengers film since that is what the film was called (and existed at in the mainspace) from July 2016 until December 6, 2018. Because of this, I initially thought to keep the redirect for a few days to handle all the linking adjustments, but since the article was at that name for so long, I think it should be kept as a redirect indefinitely.Delete Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel no issues there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 8 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 16#Family game
