This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2020.
6135-99-117-3143
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) 08:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
There is some evidence that this code is related to AAA batteries, but it's not mentioned at the target and has no usage history. I think that it's unlikely as a search term and thus should be deleted unless a proper justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per unlikely search term.
Utopes (
talk) 04:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – The "Other common names" section has been removed from the target, so I agree with the nominator.
jaclar0529 (
talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This reminds me of the use(ful/less)ness of the YouTube video database call redirects. --
Doug MehusT·C 17:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a
NATO Stock Number, something for which no redirects are needed and the average reader will most likely not search. I also believe the line of reasoning in the discussion for YouTube IDs is applicable in this case.
ComplexRational (
talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (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.
U16 battery
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) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target, I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – The "Other common names" section has been removed from the target, so I agree with the nominator.
jaclar0529 (
talk) 09:38, 13 January 2020 (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 Twins South
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) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
These redirects don't appear to unambiguously refer to the Hong Kong mountains. For instance, there's
South Twin Peak, and likely others as well. I think that deletion per
WP:XY may be most appropriate here. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Nomination is sound. I see no problem with re-creating these
boldly when one or more suitable targets emerge. In the meantime, just as redirects are cheap to keep, so too are they cheap and easy to delete (and re-create, as necessary). --
Doug MehusT·C 20:37, 19 January 2020 (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.
Hill of black magic
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) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This name is not applied to the target within the target article.
Hog Farm (
talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (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.
International language of love
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the article that French is the "International language of love". Also not a plausible search term for people searching for information about the french language. I'm not saying that French isn't called the language of love, but that this title is not useful for getting there, and could potentially be a
WP:SURPRISE.
Utopes (
talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This phrase is not mentioned at the target, and might be ambiguous.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep several websites use the phrase "[international] language of love" to refer the French language.
[1][2]. Also, redirects like this are cheap N harmless. --
Soumyabrata (
talk •
subpages) 09:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirects are costly,
WP:RCOSTLY,
Q. E. D.. Four editors now have taken their valuable time to do discuss it.
WP:RCHEAP means readirects technically are cheap, do not worry about some poor server in Oshkoshbygosh having to empty its bitbucket. Redirects are costly if they send readers on false scent, or anywhere else they want to go.
Now who says that French is the International Language of Love? Do we have good sources? My trusty French-English dictionary does not list it. You have given two references to websites that, the first is a language learning sitewhich is {{
subscription required}}, the second is a company "daytanslations.com" that translates stuff. I can also translate stuff, I speak two languages every day, and quite frequently I translate articles from
WP:PNT. But they still must qualify for
WP:RS and so on, end EN:WP's standards are higher than some others'. Even so, it still does not entitle me to add my own thoughts or desires into the translation. Either this is RS or not. I think it is not. Yes, redirects do not have to be RS, but quoting from language and translation sites is queering your pitch.
178.164.248.220 (
talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
178.164.248.220 above, referencing the
WP:RCOSTLY essay, which I hadn't yet known about or read. I've skimmed it, but looks like a good read. Also nom's rationale is sound.
Doug MehusT·C 17:53, 19 January 2020 (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.
Graph edit operation
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.
This is a bit
WP:XY. The article "Graph operations" does not mention edit operations, but does describe and link to
Graph edit distance. I think this is better retargeted there.
94.21.10.204 (
talk) 13:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
How about retarget to section specifically
Graph operations#Elementary operations? It currently reads elementary operations or editing operations create a new graph from one initial one by... (emphasis mine) and then links to
Graph edit distance in the next sentence. We could even change the copy to elementary operations or graph editing operations.
BenKuykendall (
talk) 22:58, 12 January 2020 (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.
Last friday
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) 15:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Another redirect with improper capitalization, has about 2 pageviews per day.
CycloneYoristalk! 06:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. The section has been renamed with the year, so I've put an anchor in for "Last Friday".
Last Friday is red so this serves as a case-insensitive search term.
94.21.10.204 (
talk) 07:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as ambiguous. I see multiple, if not current, potentially future targets here. I don't see how this is helpful, and I don't have a crystal ball here. Could possibly disambiguate in the future, if and when multiple targets emerge.
Doug MehusT·C 20:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Doug, but the original delete justification probably wasn't the worth of sending to RfD even if it's also technically valid. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:28, 21 January 2020 (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.
HDMI_1.3a_Specifications
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.
Delete this because this redirects to a mostly unrelated article's broken achor. It is also not helpful to create a redirect for every HDMI specification.
Chris81w (
talk) 04:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
HDMI#Version_1.3. We have info on the specific version, so it is helpful to have a targeted redirect to it.
94.21.10.204 (
talk) 05:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
HDMI#Version 1.3 per IP user, but add an Rcat "to section" in a shell. --
Doug MehusT·C 03:07, 13 January 2020 (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.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bilbo Baggins
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. No justification has been found as to why this needs to exist, with no history merged or anything. Probably is indeed a valid G8 speedy anyway. ~
mazcatalk 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Unlikely search term. We don't have to have redirects from Wikipedia talk pages to the articlespace.
Hog Farm (
talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Remnant of an AfC draft, which duplicated an existing article; no content appears to have been merged from here. –
Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2020 (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.
Kevin Hale
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.
There is no indication why this redirect targets this article, and if it's not notable enough for a mention I suggest delete to avoid a confusion with
Kevin Hales.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Kevin Hale was a character in
Between (TV series)[3] and was the only 'Kevin Hale' mentioned on Wikipedia, so I redirected it. However, the list of characters has now been pruned at the Between article and he's no longer listed, so the redirect is not currently helpful.
Boleyn (
talk) 07:11, 13 January 2020 (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.
Corky Boozé
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.
This redirect was recently created following the closure of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corky Boozé with consensus to delete. The only relevant content in the target article is a single sentence acknowledging that Boozé was elected to one term on the council, and since he's not a notable individual that is all that the article should say. A redirect is both needless, and potentially harmful, since it might lead to recreation of the deleted article in either place.
50.248.234.77 (
talk) 17:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - the results of the deletion discussion were clear; a redirect was rejected. This is a clear ignoring of consensus.
John from Idegon (
talk) 02:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep there was no consensus to not redirect to the city council page all the other deleted counselor pages have been uncontroversially redirected to the same page which includes a bit about Boozé.
Ndołkah☆ (
talk) 11:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete also the g4 tag never should have been removed. There was a clear consensus to delete and no one suggested any such redirect.
Praxidicae (
talk) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (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.
Goblin King with Scrotum Beard
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.
This name is never given to the fictional character he redirects to to the best of my knowledge.
Hog Farm (
talk) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. (Note to self: clear browser history.)
Narky Blert (
talk) 00:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete to non-existent target. I also Like and agree with
Narky Blert's note to his or herself. --
Doug MehusT·C 16:42, 19 January 2020 (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.
Pakistani numbers
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
A vague, unlikely search term. Here apparently taken to refer to the number signs employed in the writing systems of most of Pakistan's languages, but it can equally plausibly be used by a reader searching for
Telephone numbers in Pakistan. –
Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Above my pay grade and defer to
Uanfala here In short, this is a neutral/indifferent. If Uanfala thinks delete is best, I'm fine with that. Let's forgo a relist. If a suitable target emerges, someone can easily re-create the redirect
boldly. --
Doug MehusT·C 20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, my vantage point here was simply English usage, and that should probably be considered above my pay grade too ;). "Pakistani numbers" is a vague generic phrase that can refer to probably anything (except maybe the current target: I'd be surprised if anyone found any sources at all that use the phrase in this sense). The telephone numbers look more likely, but I still prefer deletion: at the very least, we don't seem to have similar redirects for any other country. I strongly suspect the redirect was a result of the (not always explicit) one-upmanship between Indian and Pakistani editors, where the latter have felt obliged to create a "Pakistan" redirect for every "India" one out there (Hindu numerals being a well-established term). –
Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2020 (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.
Diane (Penthouse Pet)
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:54, 19 January 2020 (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.
Balochi numerals
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 redirect with caveat. I see a unanimous consensus to retarget
Kashmiri numerals to
Kashmiri language#Numerals and
Balochi numerals to
Balochi language#numerals. There's a weak consensus for retargeting
Sindhi numerals to
Sindhi language#Numerals, and a yet weaker one for pointing
Hindko numerals at
Shahmukhi alphabet. Since a retarget is likely preferable to simply keeping as no consensus, I think it's best to close this discussion with the proposed retargets, with no prejudice toward editors renominating Hindko and Sindhi for further consideration or boldly making suggested edits to their target articles. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The noun "
numeral" is ambiguous and may refer to either the words used in a particular language (one, two, three), or to the dedicated characters used to represented them in a writing system (1, 2, 3). Given that we've got here names of languages (rather than scripts), you'd expect these redirects to target articles explaining the use of number words in the respective languages. There is no such content anywhere, and neither does there appear to be anything about the written characters used for numbers in those languages either. –
Uanfala (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't have a strong feeling about these redirects. It is plausible that somebody might want to know what kind of numerals Sindhis use, and search for "
Sindhi numerals", just like one might search for
Gujarati numerals. The redirect tells them that, even if by implication. It would of course be better if the page states which regions these numerals are used in. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 10:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I really dislike the idea of having the existence of redirects make implied factual statements that are not explicitly stated, and sourced, in article text. How can we be sure that the competing written standards for Balochi and Hindko all use the Eastern Arabic numerals? Even worse for Sindhi and Kashmiri, which are both prominently written using scripts other than the Arabic. –
Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Adding that articles like
Gujarati numerals or
Telugu numerals exist because "Gujarati", etc, are the names of both languages and of scripts, and the articles, though ostensibly about the written characters, can sensibly cover both aspects. This is not the case for the redirects here. A relevant example from a better developed corner of Wikipedia is how you have
Cyrillic numerals for the mediaeval system used before the advent of Arabic numerals, and
Russian numerals about the number words used in the Russian language. –
Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I have little expertise in this area, and both
Uanfala and
Kautilya3 make equally compelling arguments. I hate to tag MJL in every "close call" case, but I feel like MJL's expertise in identifying unique and lesser known
alternatives to deletion here might be useful, so
MJL, care to put on your thinking cap here? The only thing I've come up with is a "no consensus" close, which would effectively "keep" the redirect where it is until someone comes up with a better idea.
Doug MehusT·C 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Proposal OK, what about this
Uanfala and
Kautilya3, keep with a hatnote on each article to a separate article on each's numbering system? Alternatively, retarget each redirect to the article on each's numbering system with a hatnote to the numeral article for each?
Doug MehusT·C 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It will be helpful if you give a specific example of the proposal. But I don't see keeping or retargeting as viable at all, as there's no relevant content anywhere on wikipedia, for either of the meanings of "numeral" (barring a mention of Sindhi at
Eastern Arabic numerals, but that's unsourced and apparently contradicted by easily observed samples of Sindhi writing online: see for example the
Sindhi Wikipedia, which uses Western numbers). –
Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dmehus: Thank you for the ping! Sorry for the delay, but here's what I have: Retarget:
Great work,
MJL! The Kashmiri section is excellent, the Balochi one is alright (though you've seen Korn's paper so you're aware this is only scratching the surface), so I'm happy for those two to be retargeted. I'm not sure about Sindhi: a section that in effect only states that the language has numerals isn't of much use, and I don't think we should try expanding it with content solely based on a 150-year old grammar (languages change). As for Hindko, it shouldn't be retargeted to
Shahmukhi unless the article can be expanded with a sourced mention of the way numbers are represented specifically in Hindko, anything short of of that is doing
WP:OR by the back door. –
Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Nice find,
MJL, and I'm glad you didn't mind the pings. This subject is getting a bit over my level of knowledge, so I'm afraid I'll have to defer to your apparently good finds and
Uanfala here. But, logically, looking at subject redirects and your proposed targets, they all look fine, so am fine with retarget-ing all of them, and would support any subsequent modifications proposed by
Uanfala.
Doug MehusT·C 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I am fine with the new redirects too. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 22:30, 19 January 2020 (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.
Western Arabic–Indic numerals
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. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
There are no reliable sources using those terms: no hits on google scholar, only one hit on google books (and that is only some sort of software cheat sheet). There are about 30 or so webpages that use the term "Western Arabic-Indic" (mostly forum posts), and from what I'm seeing there it seems it's used variously for either the
Eastern Arabic numerals or, presumably more aptly, for the familiar
Arabic numerals. –
Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have never encountered such terms and I can't think of them being search keys either. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 18:07, 12 January 2020 (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.
Lagerwey
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.
There's more than one Lagerwey in the world and this redirect inhibits Search. I'm not sure what the precedent is for redirecting a surname to the only article about a person with the surname, so here to discuss...
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 10:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Appears to be a standard
redirect from a surname as the target is the only bearer of the name who has an article. Searching online, I can't find any other Lagerweys besides the almost certainly non-notable company
Lagerwey Wind.
Glades12 (
talk) 12:49, 12 January 2020 (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.
Health centre (Malaysia)
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.
redirects to Prostitution in Malaysia, which doesn't seem appropriate. No discussion of health centres on that page
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing links to the page except discussions about the page. On a side note, I have added a few words and a ref in
Prostitution in Malaysia to cover "health centres". --
John B123 (
talk) 11:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete A rather surprising target for the redirect. I would have excepted an article about Malaysian health care, not the current target.
Not a very active user (
talk) 05:51, 13 January 2020 (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.
Tanglefoot bags
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.
Delete it cannot be a helpful redirect if not mentioned on target page. There are no other occurrences of "Tanglefoot bag" on Wikipedia, so no viable alternate targets. Additionally, could you possibly bundle the below redirects to the same page into this nomination? I suspect the same arguments hold for those redirects.
BenKuykendall (
talk) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This has come up previously, and was kept:
[4], but since then very few people have actually searched for the term. I would assume that if someone wanted to know more about a tanglefoot bag, they would likely go to a D&D source rather than Wikipedia.
SilkTork (
talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (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.
Spell Contingency
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) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.
Not a very active user (
talk) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. A useful spell (Level 6 Mage in the ver.2 rules, always a good idea to have one loaded ready to fire JIC), but by no means iconic enough to be mentioned anywhere here.
Narky Blert (
talk) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (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.
Ray Of Frost
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) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.
Not a very active user (
talk) 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Is this a version of Cone of Cold? Neither is an iconic spell which might help illustrate the D&D magic system.
Narky Blert (
talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (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.
Magic discipline
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) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (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 Dungeons and Dragons Spells
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) 09:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This redirect implies that the target page is a complete list of Dungeons & Dragons spells, which it isn't (and shouldn't be, per
WP:GAMEGUIDE).
Not a very active user (
talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Similar nominations merged.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (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.
Finger of death
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) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Similar nominations merged.
Steel1943 (
talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-notable D&D spell (unless it hits your lead character unexpectedly).
Narky Blert (
talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (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.
Faerie fire
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
Foxfire. No support for persisting with the current target, and a plausible variant spelling of
Fairy fire, making it certainly a reasonable synonym for Foxfire. ~
mazcatalk 16:40, 19 January 2020 (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.
Chromatic Orb
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) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not mentioned in the target? thus, a useless redirect. (I suppose that CO could be added to the list of iconic spells, but currently it isn't there. Useless spell IMO - save at +6 against the worthwhile special effects? Fuggedaboudit.)
Narky Blert (
talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (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.
Chomatic Orb
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) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at the target page. The redirect also contains a misspelling, ("Chomatic" instead of "Chromatic") so even if "Chromatic Orb" was mentioned at the target page, this redirect should still be deleted.
Not a very active user (
talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:19, 13 January 2020 (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.