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.
Unused redirect; no incoming links. Beyond that, the redirect uses ahistorical terminology as "Russia" did not invade Poland; the Soviet Union did. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very many people use "Russia" to mean "Soviet Union" and so if "Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland" would be a useful search term (and I think it is) then this is too. A lack of incomming internal links is not a reason to delete a redirect - redirects from incorrect titles should have no incoming internal links. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, Russia did not invade Eastern Poland in WWII. --Tavix(talk) 01:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether or not you count the former SFSR as Russia. Geolodus (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SFSR wasn't the polity that occupied Poland though—the USSR was. --Tavix(talk) 19:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry for the mistake. Geolodus (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Russia" or "Soviet Russia" is frequently used when referring to the Soviet Union. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as creator. This had been a redlink in the bio of Chiune Sugihara,[1] which has since been changed to use the more common "Soviet" terminology, but since redirects are cheap and the terms are practically synonymous, I don't see much reason to doubt it might be used again in an incidental fashion in some future article. -- Kendrick7talk 14:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cant really add much hat has not been said.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 1 May 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 speedy deleted per G6byRHaworth. --Tavix(talk) 14:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Created by Eubot, although I fail to understand the rationale behind the creation as this one looks unusual even by Eubot standards. Anway, delete as unlikely typo. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I too am baffled by this one - the creation summary in which normally (very helpfully) lists the source title is literally identical to the created redirect - with no diacritics, full-width characters, mixed scripts, special characters or anything else that is Eubot's usual fare. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 1 May 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) 14:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any justification for the redirect. The target doesn't mention "replication" in any context. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is like redirecting AppletoBanana, as far as I can tell. If I'd seen this redirect and this target, I would have assumed that MirrorLink was something related to smartphone use in smartphone factories, i.e. using smartphones indirectly to replicate themselves. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 1 May 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.
DeleteDisambiguate, although I'm wondering if a dab page for these vague Pro-X articles is in order, that would include links to Sinophilia, Chinese nationalism, and other related articles. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) signed, Rosguilltalk 17:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Rosguill, there should be some article about Hong Kong politics listed also as pro-China vs anti-China is the biggest ideological division there - Deryck Chan will probably know which is best for that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Rosguill and Thryduulf. I have drafted a DAB under the RfD template. Deryck C. 09:31, 1 May 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) 14:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would nominate for speedy deletion under WP:R3, however this is from a page move so I'm RfD-ing it instead. Nothing links here. Article titles don't have final periods, with very few exceptions. No reason someone would add a period when searching for this particular page. Julia☺ 23:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just ten hits in the 12 months prior to this nomination = not significant usage. It existed at this title for five months, which is rather exceptional and means that it actually had a good deal of potential off-wiki linking, but if those links still persist today, nobody's using them. If you're greeted with "List of cities in Senegal. does not exist", you should note the period and try redoing the search or link by removing the period. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only reason someone would search for this exact term would be if the period was a typo, which I don't think is viable. Onel5969TT me 16:13, 2 May 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate as per the above draft. there is the original series, the (TV series) from Amazon, the 2000 film, and the video game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Wbm1058. I had no clue that there was anything with this title except for the TV series: I've never heard of the film, the Amazon series, or the video game. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 1 May 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.
List of National Historic Sites of in Kingston[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. --Tavix(talk) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this implausible title was directly created as a redirect, possibily as a mistake when trying to create the plausible List of National Historic Sites in Kingston (created 4 minutes later by the same user) but I'm not certain enough to speedy delete it as G6 (the creator hasn't edited since July 2016 so it seems unlikely they're still around to ask). The redirect has unsurprsingly received only 2 hits this year and 5 in each of 2018 and 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those twelve visitors, like some of the twenty-three visitors to Islam in of Taiwan, were people clicking the wrong spot in the search results. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possible, although exactly 5 hits in a year for two years, plus 2 hits for the year we're ~2 fifths of the way through, and exactly five hits for the Liverpool redirect below seems awfully coincidental for misclicks and more likely to be unidentified automation of some description. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case (which I suppose is quite likely), it's even more reason to delete :-) Just trying to address the possibility that these are primarily humans, lest someone argue that they mean something in favor of keeping. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm probably the most editor most vocally in favour of keeping redirects with (what some regard as) low numbers of views, but I nominated this! Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 1 May 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) 14:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't make sense as a redirect - even "Islam of Taiwan" would be pushing it. This was created directly as a redirect (without an edit summary), not as a result of a page move, and the exact phrase gets no hits on google so it seems unlikely to be the result of an error in some external source. It did get 23 hits last year, which is more than I would expect, but given the implausibility as a search term and no incomming internal links, it seems most plausible that people are (mis)clicking on it in search suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added Ethnic groups in of Liverpool to this redirect for the same reasons (although this got only 5 hits last year), one of only four other pages with the "in of" construction: Swearing in of John Adams and Swearing in of Narendra Modi are obviously both good titles and I've speedily deleted Luxury goods in of China under criterion G6 as that was very clearly a mistake made when moving a page (from ...People's Republic of China) that was immediately corrected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with the 23 analysis, and without checking the history, I suppose this was created by someone who had a mental hiccup or by someone not particularly fluent in English. I can't envision any fluent anglophones paying full attention and thinking this a good thing to create. Ditto for Liverpool. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ya, probably it was typo error when he/she created it, and only realized after it was published. Chongkian (talk) 03:28, 1 May 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 per clear consensus. Psantora had some good questions at the end that I don't want to go entirely unanswered. As for intent, Rich Farmbrough mentioned earlier that It is a simple cut and paste error from anything where "Game of Thrones" is followed by a colon. There are a couple entries at the disambiguation that use the format "Game of Thrones: <subtitle>". Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other RfDs for this type of error, so I can't imagine it being too widespread. Personally, I can see how such an error is plausible, but the question of the best place for the redirect prevented me from chiming in with a !vote. --Tavix(talk) 14:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the present time, the utilization of the article "A" at the beginning of A Game of Thrones vs. Game of Thrones is apparently disambiguated per WP:SMALLDETAILS. For this reason, the use of the colon in his redirect is unclear, so unless this is redirected to Game of Thrones (weak option), this redirect should be deleted as unclear (preferred option). Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing you should just change. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I think deletion would be more helpful for our readers, considering that this redirect was created only a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't very clear, I was following the nom's logic that it's "unclear". I still endorse deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Game of Thrones - Seems like a perfectly plausible typo to me. I don't see how deleting it fits into any of the usual reasons. The proposed target already has a suitable hatnote. --NYKevin 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect has no value. How could someone possibly add a colon to the end of a word when making a typo? —Xezbeth (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this is a plausable typo. PC78 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is plausible (just as "plausable" is plausible...). It is a simple cut and paste error from anything where "Game of Thrones" is followed by a colon. |All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It's not really though, unless you consider any typo to be plausible. Why should a careless cut & paste be rewarded with a redirect? PC78 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "rewarded" as in "free promo", and how does it work as SEO-attack? Maybe all R-from-typo templates should generate a __NOINDEX__. –84.46.53.51 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment above. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete We don't need colon redirects for every possible franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't add colons at the end of strings when typing URLs, and when putting something into Special:Search, you'll get the title before you type the colon. And it's not a plausible copy/paste error; a colon doesn't get selected by default when you're highlighting text that precedes it. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The ":" is an implausible typo. Are we sure that the article wasn't created by mistake? - PaulT+/C 16:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Psantora:Are we sure that the article wasn't created by mistake? Given that the creator (Rich Farmbrough) has comment above and !voted to keep the redirect, I think we are about a sure as can be that the creation not a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf and Rich Farmbrough: Hmm, in that case, what is/was the intent behind adding the colon? Are there examples of other articles where this is a desirable redirect/alternative title? - PaulT+/C 18:54, 7 May 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.
Not sure where this should redirect. Looking through a brief Google search, the term is most commonly used to refer to the ethnic peoples of Thailand, but is also used for Vietnam and other neighbouring countries. We don't have an all-encompassing article dealing specifically with the term "hill tribe" in the entire Zomia/Southeast Asian Massif region, which would ideally be the primary topic. So the choices are Hill tribe (Thailand) (should be renamed to replace the redirect if chosen), Hill people, or to disambiguate. Paul_012 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to make it a disambiguation page, at least for now. The reader could be looking for something like the very broad Hill people, or (more likely) is looking for the people who live in northern Thailand and adjoining regions, who are described in Hill tribe (Thailand). That page could perhaps be better named Hill tribe (Southeast Asia), but that is a separate discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MoveHill tribe (Thailand)toHill tribe. There's only one article called (or could be called) "Hill tribe". If necessary use an explanatory hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
dab Hill tribes are widespread. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, but there's only one article called (or could be called) "Hill tribe", and therefored nothing to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move per SNSL orretargettoHill people. --Tavix(talk) 01:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (updated, see below.)[reply]
The more I look at this, the more I would be okay with any option except for creating a disambiguation at this title. If "Hill tribe" is ambiguous, and I'm sure it is, then it'd be best to target it to the broad topic on the subject, which is Hill people. That article covers the sentiment that "Hill tribes are widespread". That being said, there is only one article specifically for a "Hill tribe", which is the one in Thailand/Zomia/SE Asia. --Tavix(talk) 15:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoHill people. There are other groups there referred to as tribes—Berbers, Basques, and Italics, just to name the first three I came across. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoHill people. Seems to be the most plausible target/synonym. Hill tribe (Thailand) is also linked there as a hatnote so that article is also served by the proposed target. --Lenticel(talk) 01:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retargettohill people per Tavix, BDD, and Lenticel. - PaulT+/C 22:04, 7 May 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. It was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tata Indicom photon+ 10 years ago. The article was a two-line stub and now there isn't any content for the redirect to point to. This closure is without prejudice against recreation if this gets a mention somewhere. Also, if someone feels it's notable (I haven't researched that myself), perhaps they can create an article that would overcome the concerns expressed at that AfD. Finally, for full transparency I am also deleting the variant redirect Tata indicom photon+. --Tavix(talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable piece of technology, it may be a rebadged Huawei EC1260. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:43, 30 April 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.
These look like WP:ENGVAR differences, or perhaps another kind of mere spelling variant (e.g. "axe" versus "ax") without a distinction in meaning. If that's right, they ought to redirect to the same place, but where? Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 30 April 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. Of course, the best option would be to have an article on this subject. If someone is able to write one, that'd be great! --Tavix(talk) 14:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get that a yankophile is presumably a non-American obsessed with American cultures (and stereotypes?) but it doesn't really seem relevant enough to the target. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re purpose I am not sure the re-direct is to the right place, is not a yankphile a person who admires America?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the assumption, yes. But we don't have a good place that discusses such people. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then the question becomes why not, we have Anglophile, and others. As I said re purpose this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if anyone wants to start one, RfD doesn't prevent replacing a redirect with an article. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 2 May 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 8#Stroke of genius
