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. There's consensus to treat this as a WP:TWODABS situation. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beluj used to be a DAB page with 2 items: Beluch (also a DAB page) - none of the articles on that page mention Beluj; and Beluj (village). I have redirected BelujtoBeluj (village), so there is no longer a need for the redirect. Leschnei (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've restored the dab page at Beluj: this is an alternative spelling of "Baloch" that is sometimes encountered in the literature. I don't believe there's a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to say delete and re-redirect Beluj (or better still, move Beluj, Slovakia to the base title); the alt spelling of "Baloch" can be better handled with a hatnote. PC78 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move per WP:PRECISE, and hatnote per PC78. The village seems to be the only full title match in other language Wikipedias. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is: the Cyrillic equivalent of "Beluj" is where the corresponding Baloch people article is found on the Russian, Ukrainian, and related wikipedias. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the Cyrillic equivalent of 'j'? It could be either 'ж' or 'ӣ' at least. One is a consonant and one is a vowel. Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget the first to Dong Son, delete the other two. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate(struck: see below)Dong Son, Bac Giang. Retaining a romanized version is a good way to ensure usability. - Eureka Lott 23:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the first two; keep the third. Vietnamese names can be a real problem for people with Western keyboards, and we shouldn't penalise readers who've got one or more diacritical marks wrong. Dong Son, Bac Giang is an excellent example: it took me a moment or two to work out the difference between Đông Sơn, Bắc Giang and Đồng Sơn, Bắc Giang. Narky Blert (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: @EurekaLott:, @Narky Blert: there's no need to disambiguate anything here. Since we already had the disambiugation page Dong Son, which is an even more detailed page and with a clear topic 153.18.172.42 (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it the standard practice to treat comma-disambiguated terms as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} instead of disambiguating them separately? (I ask because the only other example I know off the top of my head is Elmhurst, New York, which is a disambiguation page.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetDong Son, Bac Giang to disambiguation page at Dong Son; delete the other two per precedents that part-correct part-wrong diacritic titles are unhelpful. Deryck C. 18:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --Tavix(talk) 03:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rendition Project lists this as an alias of Rahmatullah. If it's a reliable source, that could be added to the article. I don't know how likely a search term this would be, though. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gone ahead and added it. I don't know how reliable the source is, but it seems sufficient for simply verifying that this is an alias. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was leftover stuff from Soul Intent / Basemint Productions which are mentioned in Eminem's article, but not this particular album. This could go to Bass Brothers but that album is not mentioned there either. Appears to be unofficial according to its discogs entry. [1]AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not mentioned at the target page, then a reader searching for it will learn nothing about it, making the redirect useless and confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 16:14, 4 November 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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an unnecessary crosswiki redirect; it goes to an archived page on the meta: wiki that isn't notable. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any justification for this. PC78 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a soft redirect created by me. Also, it is harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SRD, "A soft redirect is a replacement of usual or "hard" redirects and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project, another language Wikimedia site (e.g. User:Foreign), or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K). Soft redirects differ in that they leave the reader on the redirect page, requiring them to click through to the redirected link as opposed to automatically taking them there." My redirect follows that policy. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RFD#D6. Meta-Wiki is a Wikimedia project site, so this is equivalent to a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to project space, and a reader should not be directed "behind the curtain" in this manner. Retargeting to Wikipedia community may be an option, but it seems a stretch to treat "Wikipede" as a synonym of "Wikipedian". -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects from main namespace shouldn't redirect to project pages, as they can be very confusing for readers. Not a very active user (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as weird disambiguation and WP:XY if it were fixed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a batch of what I like to call "faulty crystal ball" film redirects. As these years have already passed, it's impossible for these films to be released in that year. It's also implausible that someone would type these redirects in the search bar due to the incorrect year disambiguation. --Tavix(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No such films exist and for many of the above there is no relevant content at the target article, presumably because the mooted film projects have since died a death. Unhelpful crystal ballery since few (if any) appear to have made it beyond the scriptwriting stage. PC78 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 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.
Suicide in Medical Patients: Japanese and American Psychiatrist's Attitudes[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a WP:NOTESSAY-type article that should have been deleted instead of redirected. I can't imagine this being used as a search query. --Tavix(talk) 00:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was actually a very old article that was moved to Suicide in medical patients and then to Suicide among medical patients in quick succession before apparently being merged. The article history is at the latter so nothing is lost by deleting these original titles. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:29, 24 October 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 retargettoCoffee culture. Not much of a consensus, but this option has the momentum. --Tavix(talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it is mentioned in the target as an Eastern Orthodox term, I think this redirect is too surprising and not helpful. In my country (United States) "coffee hour" refers to any event at which coffee is provided. There might be potential for an article but it seems almost DICTDEF to me. Fiamh(talk, contribs) 06:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a tricky one: many of the mentions of "coffee hour" have agape/religion/church contexts, but several do not, but it's not the sort of precise phrase one could make a disambiguation page about. I think on balance that Search does a better job and this redirect therefore impedes Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's potential to discuss this sort of thing at Coffee culture. It currently has a reference with "coffee hour" in the title, but no explicit coverage. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 00:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Coffee culture as with Coffee break (although coffee break redirects to break first, but hatnotes to coffee culture). Coffee culture has a reference to a NYT article about the coffee hour. It seems to be a common label for various events at schools, churches, workplaces, organizations, not specifically Eastern Orthodox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 23 October 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 mentioned in the target, and the fact that the target is specifically about terminology makes it especially likely that this will cause confusion or at least inconvenience. The specific subsection to which this points hasn't existed since December 2013. I'm not sure whether Gross motor skills would be an appropriate target or not: it seems to be about a related but narrower topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in order to preserve the page history, and properly document the merge that took place on 30 November 2013. Gross motor skill may be a more useful target for readers, since at least it contextualizes the word "gross". -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 00:01, 23 October 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 mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This video game apparently exists [2], but I can't find any appropriate (non-primary) sources for a mention at the target. Geolodus (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an IGN review, but it doesn't contain much actual information on the subject. Geolodus (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Metacritic counts toward notability as it aggregates reviews on essentially all video games (including ones that have no external reviews), but it may be used to describe a game's critical reception. (That is just my impression on the matter.) Geolodus (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mention, seems to have received enough coverage in secondary sources to meet the notability guidelines. Not a very active user (talk) 14:05, 4 November 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 November 5#Root eating
