Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2018.

AUJ (language)[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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to see this as plausible typo for AUI (language) rather than as an attempt at using the current target's ISO 639-3 code (which is "auj", in lower case). Noting that this redirect was kept as part of a recent batch nomination. These are the kinds of situations we have to deal with when we go too far conjuring up reasons to keep every sort of redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a hatnote. A correct usage (and this is correct, as there is no specification I can find that ISO 639-3 is case sensitive) will almost always be more useful than a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we should be adding hatnotes to accommodate redirects from alternative disambiguation, even if they aren't as wonky as this one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a search term is plausible for multiple targets then we absolutely should have hatnotes or disambiguation pages, anything else is a disservice to our readers. The consensus of the previous discussion was that there is nothing "wonky" about this redirect at all. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The redirect is wonky at the very least in the sense of being unprintworthy. Such a redirect could be useful for readers, but that's not the kind of thing that should get incorporated, via hatnotes, into the top spot of our articles. As for turning this into a disambiguation page, I can't get too excited about the idea, but it certainly is the lesser of the two evils. – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This doesn't seem like a plausible typographical error for AUI (language). --Bsherr (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "AUJ" is a code for the Awjila language, not a synonym or acronym. As far as I can tell, this language isn't referred as "AUJ" and a Google search for "AUJ language" didn't reveal anything relevant. I do agree that I do not think it is a plausible typo for AUI (language). -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the notion that ISO 639 is less plausible than a typo between I and J. expect [ISO 639 code] + "language" to at least take me somewhere that points to the relevant language. Deryck C. 12:25, 6 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.

PUS (language)[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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can imagine this might relate to either the current target (whose ISO 639 code is "pus"), or to the Mpus language (where "Pus" is apparently an alternative name [1]). In neither case is this all-caps redirect plausible. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and a hatnote. ISO-639 is not case sensitive, so even if the canonincal form is lower case the upper case is entirely plausible. It is certainly more likely that someone will search for a language code in all upper case than they will search for a language name in all upper case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote with link to Pus (disambiguation). An all-caps input is much more likely to be the ISO code per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is reasonably confusing and not particularly helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote as necessary. I expect [ISO 639 code] + "language" to at least take me somewhere that points to the relevant language. Deryck C. 12:25, 6 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.

PUE (language)[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 no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible miscapitalisation that could apply to either Pue language or, presumably, to the current target (whose ISO 639-3 code is "pue"). – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and a hatnote. ISO-639 is not case sensitive, so even if the canonincal form is lower case the upper case is entirely plausible. It is certainly more likely that someone will search for a language code in all upper case than they will search for a language name in all upper case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote. An all-caps input is much more likely to be the ISO code per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is reasonably confusing and not particularly helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe hatnote. Linguist are often presented with data that use ISO 639 and want to look up wider information about the language. I expect [ISO 639 code] + "language" to at least take me somewhere that points to the relevant language. @Kwamikagami: Would you please check whether Pue language is currently pointing to the correct target? Neither the Wikipedia article nor the ethnologue page lists "Pue" as an alternative name of Maiwa. Deryck C. 12:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Glottolog identifies the "Pue" language in Strong (1911) as being Maiwa. I created quite a few rd's for cases like this when the name wasn't used for anything else. — kwami (talk) 12:41, 6 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.

ARC (language)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#ARC (language)

AXX (language)[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 retarget to Xârâgurè language. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a recent batch nomination which resulted in "keep", but I'm not seeing any relation between the redirect and the target. – Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Xârâgurè language whose (case insensitive) ISO 639-3 code is axx. There are no other targets at AXX (disambiguation) that could plausibly take a (language) disambiguator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. --Bsherr (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "AXX" is a code for the Awjila language, not a synonym or alternative term. You wouldn't find a report saying "there were 760 native speakers of AXX in 2009", so saying that this is a language called "AXX" wouldn't be accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's both true and completely irrelevant. Language names are inherently ambiguous but language codes uniquely refer to a single language. Given that some language codes, such as this one, are ambiguous then linking to AXX (language) is a way to guarantee that the link leads to the correct target, whatever name we've used for our article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to link using the ISO code, ISO 639:axx can be used. This redirect implies there is a language named AXX, which isn't accurate. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except it dosn't imply that any more than Deimos (mythology) implies that there is a mythology named "Deimos" (Deimos is a deity). AXX (language) simply means that there is an article about AXX related to language - which there unquestionably is. That other redirects exist is not relevant to this one - we create redirects from titles that people will plausibly use for searching, we don't require them to use only the arbitrarily-sized subset that an arbitrary group have editors have decided are the most plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except that AXX is not the name of the language but Deimos is the name of a character in mythology. I also disagree that people use this term for searching as well. If someone wants to find a language, they will use a name for the language to search for it—and use a natural search term, not one that has an awkward disambiguator like this one. -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "arbitrary group of editors" here is the group of people who read and write about languages and everyone (except for Neelix) who's ever been involved in the creation and maintenance of ISO 639-3 redirects. Yes, this group is arbitrary, in the sense that any self-selected group of volunteers is, but if anything, it is less arbitrary than the small sample of regular participants in a generic discussion venue that we have here. And yes, we should judge individual redirects on their merits, but we can't completely overlook the fact that there's always a system they're going to be a part of. And the proper system here is made up of redirects of the form "ISO 639:xxx". These are clear and unambiguous, unlike redirects of the form "Xxx (language)", which would occasionally clash with the actual name of a language: of the 33 existing redirects, 3 turned out to be ambiguous, and if this sample is represenative then this means that about a thousand of the possible redirects of this type would be ambiguous. That's a lot of work to sort out, and one that doesn't really have any benefit: the ISO redirects exist mostly for backroom use: they're behind the look-up tool on the ISO 639 articles (like this one), and they're used by external databases (like the one maintained by the ISO 639-3 registration authority) to link to wikipedia. Language codes aren't likely to be used by readers as they're almost never used in actual human-readable text (and when they are, they're normally prefixed with "ISO 639:" or something similar); they don't have the general visibility that say airport codes have. – Uanfala (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Xârâgurè language per Thryduulf. Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any point to this. What possibly use could such a rd serve? BTW, the ISO code is [axx], not [AXX]. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the ISO code is case insensitive. The lowercase form is conventional but uppercase is just as valid. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have access to the ISO standard, but I'll take your word for it. Upper-case codes might be permitted but they don't appear to be ever used. This is analogous to domain names: they aren't case sensitive either, but I don't think we'd endorse the creation of redirects like GMAIL.COM or WIKIPEDIA.ORG. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the others. The longer the phrase, the less useful a capitalisation variant; when it's just three letters, both no caps and ALL CAPS are almost always fine. ALL CAPS is particularly useful here, when it's a code with comparatively little correlation to non-code usage; miXEd CapIitAls are unhelpful (even if it were AxX or AXx), since someone's not likely to type those, but both axx and AXX are reasonably likely to get used. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 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) 19:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the language with this ISO 639 code. Deryck C. 12:27, 6 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.

Andy Moore (actor)[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 no consensus. Article creation is encouraged. Deryck C. 11:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actor who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Emmerdale. A reader looking for information on him is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If we have any content about him at all, it's better for readers searching for him to be directed to it (or at least to what he's best known for if he's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 25 November 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.

Craig Arnold (actor)[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 no consensus. Article creation is encouraged. Deryck C. 11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actor who has multiple roles in several notable series, not just Degrassi. A reader looking for information on him is much better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If we have any content about him at all, it's better for readers searching for him to be directed to it (or at least to what he's best known for if he's mentioned in more than one article) than be left thinking we have nothing. A better alternative, of course, is to create a sourced stub article about him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 25 November 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.

Koosalagoopagoop[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 retarget to List of Dexter's Laboratory characters#Secondary characters. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in parent article. Title refers to a fictional character. Paper Luigi T • C 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure how many episodes the character appears in, but I'd say that he's one of the more memorable minor characters from the series, and it actually might be a good idea to briefly mention him somewhere in the Dexter's Laboratory article. Per WP:RGUIDE, redirects are cheap; I don't see the harm in having this, even if it is a rather unlikely search term. --Jpcase (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:47, 25 November 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.

S0ny[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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo due to the zero. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think I've seen that on Japanese IP media (in the visual images) that try to avoid brand names by modifying their names (so an intentional typo; also "Sany", "5ony", etc). Also, the 0-key is next to the o-key on QWERTY keyboards. No opinion on deletion. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo/search term per 70.51. It gets enough traffic that it seems useful to some people and isn't harmful at all. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not convinced either way
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 25 November 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.

Gujarati language (Kashmir)[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. The emerging consensus is that this redirect title is a misnomer for two different things, so deletion would be the least inappropriate solution. Deryck C. 11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading: Gujari is indeed spoken in Kashmir (among other places), but Gujarati is a different language from a different part of India. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Ping to creator. – Uanfala (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gujarati language. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is helpful: Gujarati isn't spoken in Kashmir, at least not any more than it is spoken in any other part of the subcontinent outside of the Gujarati-speaking areas. – Uanfala (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a perfectly plausible misnomer likely to be made by someone who has misheard or misremembered the name of the target language and confused it with the name of a much more widely known one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't recall why I created this rd. But there was presumably a Kashmiri "Gujarati" mentioned in a linguistic or ethnographic source, maybe one that said something like this. I might have an opinion to 'keep' if I could remember what that source was. But retargeting to 'Gujarati' is definitely inappropriate -- there would be no purpose to such a rd, except to mislead anyone reading whatever source was its motivation. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reason set forth in the nomination. --Bsherr (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:33, 25 November 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.

Sega Sports[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 retarget to Sega Sports R&D. Not much of a consensus here, but something had to be done and this one looks to be the most amenable. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a reference to their line of sports video games in the late 90s/early 2000s. It’s was a relatively major line in its day, so it’s be pretty reasonable to be mentioned in the article. It’s probavly more of an oversight that it’s not mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sergecross73: I do recall Sega releasing a lot of sorts games for the Sega Saturn around that timeframe. However, the only existing article of the such I could find is Sega Sports R&D, but I have a strong feeling that is not the same subject as the one described in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any possible content to be targeted by this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sega Sports R&D sounds plausible since it was also called Sega Sports Japan. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:52, 29 November 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.

Scamway[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 6#Scamway

Cocktail sausage[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 keep as a disambiguation or set index. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cocktail sausage is not a Saveloy. There is a mention in the article Saveloy that in Australia cocktail sausages are like mini-saveloy's - but this information is uncited. But this isn't the common usage of the term Polyamorph (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. From a google search (which is tricky as I keep getting supermarkets and similar wanting to sell me them, and people offering recipes to cook with them) it seems that a cocktail sausage can be a saveloy, but at least in the UK isn't normally. Principally its a thin, short sausage that is usually pork. It's normally plain or only lightly spiced and contains a medium to low proportion of meat. Ultimately though it is the size, especially the length, not the type that defines the cocktail sausage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the moment, the article Saveloy says "A cocktail sausage is a smaller version of the saveloy". It is therefore appropriate to direct someone searching for information about cocktail sausages to the article where they are described. If the problem is that this description needs to be clarified, referenced, and/or reworded then the solution is to edit the information accordingly, not to delete the redirect that sends the reader to the information they are looking for. If you want to encourage an article to be written at the title Cocktail sausage, as Thryduulf recommends, there are much better ways to do it than to delete Cocktail sausage. Deli nk (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The uncited sentence in Saveloy that you mention is a local usage of the term. Common usage of a cocktail sausage is not the mini saveloy version. Better to remove the redirect than redirect them to the wrong thing. Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A local usage of the term is not "wrong", just less common. Deli nk (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate To my American ears, "cocktail sausage" would mean Vienna sausage (well, Vienna sausage#North America). More often, I'd expect them to be called cocktail weenie (this was PRODded for hoax-like information; Cocktail weeny redirects to Hot dog variations#Australia). I hadn't heard of a saveloy before, but it sounds different than what anyone calls a Vienna sausage. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, a saveloy and a Vienna sausage are different. Either could be a cocktail sausage (in the UK) if shorter but normally aren't. A cocktail sausage in my (British) experience is never going to be longer than about 1–2 inches (2.5–5 cm). Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create set index along the same lines as Stuffed flatbread. Deletion is also fine. Deryck C. 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to create a set index then that's a good solution too, possibly preferable to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary points to the saveloy, but I agree with making a set index so the searcher can decide what national variant they want. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seems to a general agreement that a disambig page or set index page would be appropriate at this title, I have started a set index page for others to review. It needs work - please feel free to contribute to it. Deli nk (talk) 19:16, 29 November 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.

Campaign for a referendum[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) 14:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambitious redirect, also may be confused with "European Referendum Campaign" B dash (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment currently the clear primary target for this exact phrase that I'm seeing is People's Vote, but given the current state of British politics and the political preferences of most of my social media bubble I'm uncertain if these results are representative of global usage or not - input from those outside the UK would be significantly useful here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too vague, People's Vote (referred to above) is a campaign for a second referendum because they didn't like the result of the first one (which is the current target of this redirect). And that's before considering other possible campaigns for referendums around the world. Iffy★Chat -- 11:10, 26 November 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.

Batdude[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 4#Batdude

HELSINKI2018[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 with this diff. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS (note we already have Helsinki2018) UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:52, 25 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_25&oldid=1036306080"