Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2019.

Leverage Research[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) 00:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible redirect, nothing about leverage research in the target. Praxidicae (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm slightly familiar with the area. Leverage is associated with the LessWrong rationalist subculture. EA is probably the least-worst redirect - but, as you note, the article doesn't mention them. And WP:BEFORE shows no notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with David's reasoning. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 10:42, 3 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.

First synthesized[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) 00:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First synthesized what? Alright, I know what, given the context, but this is not suitable as a redirect due to the ambiguity. Most uses of the phrase on Wikipedia are describing the origins of various drugs. BDD (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous – it can mean things other than the first synthesized element. ComplexRational (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This pointed to Timeline of chemical element discoveries until you retargeted it in 2013, @BDD. Do you remember why you did that? - Eureka Lott 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh! I sure don't. Looks like I tried to list it at RfD but ended up doing that instead. I'm not sure what I was thinking! --BDD (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. Oz\InterAct 07:02, 2 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.

Foursquare[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Foursquare

Supercharger (comics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#Supercharger (comics)

DQw4w9WgXcQ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ

Самоубийство[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) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED signed, Rosguill talk 15:11, 1 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.

Хасаг улс[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) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, the redirect is from Mongolian. signed, Rosguill talk 15:07, 1 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.

Redirects from Cyrillic transcriptions of celebrity names[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) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED signed, Rosguill talk 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - page name should only be used in their own languages, not in this or any other languages using our version of letters. The translation may also be inaccurate as that is not sourced. Iggy (Swan) 16:45, 1 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.

David Jones (Baptist minister)[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. If I'm reading the discussion correctly, there isn't actually disagreement on this! --BDD (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This would appear to be incorrect, as Jones was an Anglican priest, sympathetic to Methodism. While Methodism and Baptism are related, it is my understanding that they are not synonymous signed, Rosguill talk 14:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rev David Jones mentioned in this article was a Minister of the Church of England and is generally known as Jones Llangan see JONES, DAVID (1736 - 1810), Methodist cleric. Dictionary of Welsh Biography. The confusion seems to have arisen because there was a Baptist minister called David Jones active in the same area at the same time see JONES, DAVID (1789? - 1841), Baptist historian. Dictionary of Welsh Biography. AlwynapHuw (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect to David Jones, Llangan dosn't cause confusion, as it is the way he is noted in all the articles that mention him. The current title, David Jones (Baptist minister) does cause confusion, because the subject of the article never was a Baptist minister and was an opponent of the Baptists' belief that infants should not be christened. If you search the National Library of Wales journals and newspaper collections using the term "Jones Llangan" you will get hits to over a 1,000 articles most of which will refer to the subject of this article. The redirect title makes it perfectly clear that the article is about the Anglican clergyman, known to history as 'Jones, Llangan not some non existent Baptist minister AlwynapHuw (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AlwynapHuwIt seems like the issue here is that cleanup wasn't performed correctly following the page move. It's best not to make edits like this which leave comments and suggestions in the article space which are best put on a Talk page. I also should have looked more carefully at the page's history before coming here to RfD. At any rate, it seems to me that there's two ways to proceed here:
  1. If there are enough sources to establish the Baptist David Jones's notability, we should start a stub about that subject
  2. If there aren't, we should delete the redirect for housekeeping, since there isn't a suitable target.
Given that you attempted to add the article to [[Category:Deletion]] in your edit, I would assume that you lean towards deletion, but I'd like to check in with you first. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This really is getting silly now. David Jones, Llangan was not a baptist minister. An article about him calling him David Jones (Baptist Minister) is wrong, there is no argument for keeping that page heading. The comment made on the original page contained links to the DWB and the ODNB that showed that he was an Anglican Clergyman. I'm sorry if you think providing links to evidence is wrong. By all means keep the title that gives fake information if that makes you happy but please don't involve me further in this discussion. AlwynapHuw (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what I am arguing for. No one is saying that David Jones, Llangan is a Baptist minister. You were the one who created a redirect from David Jones (Baptist minister) to David Jones, Llangan in this edit as a consequence of moving the article, and then instead of filing for deletion you left a note in mainspace. Since at this point you've made it clear that you don't think this redirect should exist, just cast a vote for deletion in this discussion and the matter will be resolved shortly. signed, Rosguill talk 02:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., The current article should really be renamed/moved anyway, probably to the form listed at David Jones, David Jones (Llangan); the current title makes it sound like "Langan" was a title of the man. We might as well wait for this discussion to end before doing so, though. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 7 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.

Southwest Sumatra[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) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This search term is not synonymous with the target–while Bengkulu is is a state toward the south and along the western coast of Sumatra, parts of Lampung could also be described as such. signed, Rosguill talk 14:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could also refer to parts of South Sumatra. The Indonesian article on Bengkulu makes no mention of Southwest Sumatra as an alternative official name. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:39, 2 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.

Southwestern Bell (original)[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) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's disambiguator is itself ambiguous, and also has zero usage history. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 14:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: delete. AHampton (talk) 19:09, 2 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.

Walt Disney Animation U.K[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) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, not clear that this studio even exists, and includes a misspelling to boot. I would suggest deletion unless evidence can be provided that this studio exists (and even then this should be moved to Walt Disney Animation UK) signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It appears the creator has been away from Wikipedia since the beginning of September, so we can't inquire his rationale. The redirect itself does not do a good job justifying itself. That's what I believe every redirect must do. flowing dreams (talk page) 13:11, 6 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.

Union of India[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. Arguments are strong by both sides, but no one has come to a clear majority. Nothing against relisting if new arguments come to light. (non-admin closure) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: India is also the Union of India, and is still called that, see Category:Supreme Court of India cases for examples. Recommend reversion to the disambiguation page per [1], with the addition of Political integration of India. DrKay (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for post. Yeah, but the "Union of India" of every civil lawsuit etc in India, is antiquated usage of the sort that survives in law everywhere. Between 1947 and 1949, however, it was actually called Union of India, and not Dominion of India except in the India Independence Act (a primary source) and some British and international legal literature pertaining to that. For many years this page was Union of India. That the British Raj split into the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan was stated on the British Raj page as well. (See here) In fact the OED copied from us around 2009 (verbatim that is, which I noted at that time on the Talk:BR page), and they continue to state the same until now:

OED: "raj" n., 2. spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh)

I'm mystified that the page was moved to Dominion of India and would like to see the discussion around the page move. I'm mystified also because it was a big point for the Indian nationalists, not just of pride, but also of usage and of questions of succession, that the new dominion be called "Union of India," not "Dominion of India." Conversely, the Pakistanis were not happy that India came to be called "Union of India," and feared that India might employ sophistry to make the legal point that it had not officially recognized the Partition, that that Union of India was really the Old Raj which its wayward child, Pakistan, could rejoin whenever it came to its senses. I don't have the time now as I am stepping out, but pinging @RegentsPark:, @MilborneOne:, @Philip Baird Shearer:, @Abecedare:, @Moonraker:, @Rjensen: @Kautilya3:, @Vanamonde93:, ... lord knows there should be others but my memory is failing me. It should really be the other way round: Dominion of India ---> Union of India, which it was until it was moved. We can't have this sort of antiquated revisionism on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't notice. After the Indian constitution was adopted, the country has come to be called the 'Republic of India'. This source says it explicitly. The country has not been called the 'Union of India' afterwards. On the other hand, the Government of India's legal name is "Union of India" as per Article 300 of the Indian constitution. That is why we find it in the Supreme Court cases. If we think it is bothersome, then yes, a disambiguation page would cure it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The "antiquated usage" Fowler&fowler talks about is as likely to come up in a Google search as anything else. It even appears in the constitution, unlike Republic of India. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Fowler&fowler. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm back. You've probably already figured out that it was moved from UofI to DofI in this hurried page move. Here are two sources:
    • Winegard, Timothy C. (2011), Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War, Cambridge University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-1-107-01493-0 Quote: “The first collective use (of the word "dominion") occurred at the Colonial Conference (April to May 1907) when the title was conferred upon Canada and Australia. New Zealand and Newfoundland were afforded the designation in September of that same year, followed by South Africa in 1910. These were the only British possessions recognized as Dominions at the outbreak of war. In 1922, the Irish Free State was given Dominion status, followed by the short-lived inclusion of India and Pakistan in 1947 (although India was officially recognized as the Union of India). The Union of India became the Republic of India in 1950, while the became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956.”
    • Desierto, Diane A. (2019), "International law, regional developments, South and South-East Asia", in Petra Minnerop; Rüdiger Wolfrum; Frauke Lachenmann (eds.), International Development Law: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, pp. 560–582, 562, ISBN 978-0-19-883509-7 Quote: "The British Raj would terminate in 1947, through the official Partition of the British Indian Empire ('Partition') into two separate, self-governing dominions: the Dominion of Pakistan, which declared in-dependence on 14 August 1947, and whose territory included the territories of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Union of India, which declared independence a day later on 15 August 1947. The two largest provinces of the British Raj, Punjab and Bengal, would be subdivided between the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India. On 26 January 1950 the Union of India would be dissolved in favour of the Republic of India."
    • I'm too busy right now to attempt to move the page back to Union of India. But the nonsense about George VI being the King of India has to go. If he was, then is there an example of him being called that in the presence of an Indian, a Nehru perhaps? I'd like to travel back in time for that event? Any example, for that matter, of an Attlee or the Bevans, or Strafford Cripps calling him that after 1947? Is there an example (a chance photograph perhaps) of anyone raising the Union Jack in India after 1947, let alone singing God Save the King? I have hundreds of coins from 1768 (EIC days) to 1964 (Death of Nehru). You can see some of them on the British Raj page, but I've never seen a coin issued after August 14, 1947 that had the bust of a British monarch on the obverse., This is precisely the kind of nonsense that gets created on Wikipedia. I will be removing it from this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument isn't over whether the dominion was called the union, we know it was, but the government of India is also called the union. Most google hits for "Union of India" refer to the modern usage, in fact virtually all in my searches, except for wikipedia pages and their mirrors, which would make the modern usage the primary topic. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No tertiary sources today say, "India, officially, Union of India." That term is employed in India as a synonym for "federal," (Union Territory, Union minister, ...) and also in case citation as the universal respondent in federal cases. Both these turn up on Google. But my sources aren't just randomly spewing "Union" in a Google search. They are focused scholarly searches and the say precisely that the political union that in common international and diplomatic parlance was called "India" between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950, that moreover was a dominion, was officially called the "Union of India." Furthermore, if a source mentions, "the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan," in the same breath, when referring to some event between those two dates, then it can't be because they have let the words of the Indian Constitution (about India being a union of states) somehow confuse them. They are doing so because India actually was not called the "Dominion of India," in the way that Australia, NZ, South Africa, Canada, and Pakistan (and later Ceylon) were. See, for example:
  • Debs, Alexandre; Monteiro, Nuno P. (2016), Nuclear Politics: The Strategic Causes of Proliferation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 327–, ISBN 978-1-108-10773-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help) Quote: "Since it became independent, Pakistan has viewed India as its main foreign threat. In August 1947, the British Indian Empire was divided along religious lines, with the Dominion of Pakistan as the Muslim-majority state and the Union of India as the Hindu-majority state, leading to massive population transfers that entailed great bloodshed, and a death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands."
  • Tillema, Herbert K. (2019), International Armed Conflict Since 1945: A Bibliographic Handbook Of Wars And Military Interventions, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1979–, ISBN 978-0-429-71509-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help) Quote: "India and Pakistan were founded as separate states at independence in August 1947 (17.1). Individual princely states recognized under the Raj were expected to select whether to accede to the avowedly secular but Hindu-dominated Union of India or to the Moslem-dominated Dominion of Pakistan to the east and west of India."
  • As for your valid point about Union of India not being well-defined, there an easy way to fix it. Make two pages: (a) Union of India (dominion) and (b) Union of India (case citation). Move this page to (a). Redirect Dominion of India also to (a). Add a paragraph of explanation to (b). Then let Union of India go to a dab page which has two entries (a) and (b). Your kind of dab page is ahistorical. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key point from this post is "let Union of India go to a dab page". DrKay (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: I agree that Union of India should not redirect here, so it should go to a dab page. I am sure it's a good idea to have a separate page for the Union of India while it was still a British dominion, so the issue then is what to call the page. "Union of India" doesn't work, because it's too ambiguous, as explained by others. Union of India (dominion) is clumsy, and India (dominion) is just an awkward way of saying Dominion of India. Indeed, that isn't what India was commonly called at the time, but it was sometimes called that, and from where we are now it's probably the best option. Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking. ... @Moonraker: First, thanks for a clear reply. A few things worry me though including about my own solution above.
  • If Union of India goes to a dab page, and this page remains the little shrine to a faded age that it is, or was until yesterday, the chances are even greater that bright-eyed Wikipedians of the near future will turn Dominion into standard usage for post-colonial South Asia, not just for India. (Don't put it past them to write: Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was born on blank blank 1948 in Lyallpur, Punjab province, Dominion of Pakistan, during the reign of King George VI.) The other thing I don't understand @DrKay:: you seem like a bright person, you give concise cogent responses to my long posts, and it seems like you're maintaining this page, why have you allowed this little shrine to continue in all its faded glory on this page? George VI, by grace of God, what faith might he have been defending in India after 1947, especially when he isn't doing any of that on the British Raj page, nor are his ancestors? I mean if we want a litany of the regnal titles, in the 21st century, we'll go to the monarch's page, why are we getting this enforced double education on the sleepy little dominion of India page?
  • My final question is the most important one, and it applies to the India page as well on which people were opposing the mention of "officially/official name Republic of India" on the grounds that India's constitution says, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states ... etc.," i.e. interpreting that to imply "India," unadorned, to also be an official name. Final question: What then is "Union of India" if it is not the dominion in question? I'd like a clear delineation of that other Union of India supported as clearly by scholarly sources as the Union (dominion) does above. It is not enough to type in "Union of India" in Google and interpret the data by eyeballing it or by parsing primary sources. (For "Republic of India," for example, there are dozens of such clear definitions (see: here or on the Government of India's own official web site: scroll down here to "Government"). I'd like to similar clarity for Union of India in the period 1950 onward.) ... thinking more ... Given the likelihood of no clarity, I fear that dabbing Union of India will have the effect of killing it for ever. So, until we have such clarity, I'm voting Keep with the added proviso that the lead sentence and the infobox both say, "Official name, or officially, Union of India," and the page be disabused of monarchic beneficence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world is full of people who aren't paying attention, and no doubt some Wikipedians will make that mistake, and others, but on the South India pages I believe they will be corrected soon enough. I think what you have quoted above is the only thing in the Indian constitution which suggests the name of the country, and in English it points us towards "India". That works for things like coins and stamps, where it is unambiguous, and we also have our main article on the present-day country at India, which also seems to work. (That article claims, with several citations, that the "official" name is "Republic of India", but the sources all look like second-rate directories published in London and New York, which seems to show no authentic source for an official origin has been found yet.) I support adding "officially, Union of India" into the Dominion of India page, if a good source goes with it. On that "monarchic beneficence", we know there was almost none of that, but India remained a kingdom until it became a republic in 1950, and Pakistan was one until 1956. They are strange facts, but still deserve to be noticed, perhaps! Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly as regards titles; there was no separate title for *any* of the Dominions until 1953; when each dominion passed a separate Royal Titles Act to specify exactly what title said dominion wanted the Queen to bear in right of it. (Curiously enough; Pakistan's didn't mention Pakistan, but did the United Kingdom, though it omitted 'Defender of the Faith'.) There certainly *were* treaties made in the name of George VI as regards India during the period August 1947-January 1950. I'll do a bit of digging and see what I can find.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text of the Treaty of Friendship between India and Switzerland, carried out in the name of George VI:

https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishmenthttps://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishment

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Redirect to Names for India and add necessary explaination on the target page about what it is, when was it called so and so on whatever Fowler explained here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is closed as anything other than disambiguate, would the closer please speedy delete G14 the redirect Union of India (disambiguation), which does not currently target a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, should be closed as such if no new opinions arise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:38, 1 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.

ISO optimizer[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) 14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not have (and never had) any information on the subject of this redirect. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:41, 1 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.

BAER[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in 2006, pointed at Evoked potential, and then retargeted without any clear reason in 2007. I'm not seeing the initialism in the current target (but I may have missed it) but it is used prominently in Burned area emergency response. There are a few seemingly relevant incoming links so instead fo just retargeting again I suppose a discussion is in order. Possible options from where I'm sitting are retargeting or creating a dab page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – BAER for brainstem auditory evoked response is not nearly as common as ABR for auditory brainstem response, but it is used. I don't see it in the article. Probably a dab page is OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to the two articles and a See also to Baer would be okay --Lenticel (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support dab. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_1&oldid=1088037259"