The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. See below for a full explanation. Thryduulf ( talk) 06:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Wikishuffle → Wikishuffle  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The redirect's target uses Wikipedia for its main purpose, but the target is not part of the project aspect of Wikipedia itself, and thus this redirect is misleading as it could make readers believe the target is part of the Wikipedia project. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The page history of the target shows that this redirect is the result of an error. Guiglioni started the article in their userspace, and when it was ready for publication they first moved it to this title and then to the article namespace less than a minute later. I've seen this exact sequence many times and it has always been an error. One aspect of CSD criterion G6 is "pages created in the wrong namespace." and there is consensus that this applies also to redirects left behind when they are moved to the intended location. Thryduulf ( talk) 06:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• @ Thryduulf: Yes, I have tagged several such redirects for speedy deletion in the previous few months, starting in July 2016. However, I nominated this one instead of tagging it for speedy deletion since the target article has some sort of connection to Wikipedia itself, so thus I would believe that someone could consider its speedy deletion controversial. (I ran across a similar situation with Wikipedia:Godwin's law and Wikipedia:GODWIN and their RfD, though the creation of those redirects were obviously different.) Either way, though I am saying this, I'm not contesting your close; I fully support it. Steel1943 ( talk) 11:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Lady in the Box → John Smith (murderer)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Delete. No reference to "Lady in the Box" in the target article. The one link to the redirect is in Darren E. Burrows' filmography, referring to a 2001 movie that, from what I can tell from iMDB, does not relate to John Smith (murderer). Morfusmax ( talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete not mentioned at target. Can't find any other mention to "lady in the box" on wikipedia. Siuenti ( talk) 23:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• First aerial victory by the U.S. military → Stephen W. Thompson#First aerial victory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• First Aerial Victory By the US Military → Stephen W. Thompson#First aerial victory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• First aerial victory by the U S military → Stephen W. Thompson#First aerial victory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• First aerial victory by the U. S. military → Stephen W. Thompson#First aerial victory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• First aerial victory by the US military → Stephen W. Thompson#First aerial victory  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not really enough for a redirect, and kind of an implausible search. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• The title would lead me to expect an article about an event (i.e., an air battle won by the US) rather than an individual. Indeed, that seems to have been the author's intent when the first of these was established as a stub. I looked at United States Army Air Corps for any battle that was identified thus, but the article focuses more on organization rather than combat history. Aviation in World War I is more comprehensive, but suggests the US was a relatively minor player. I'll post a notification at WT:MILHIST about this. -- BDD ( talk) 17:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I think the title is actually a rather plausible search term in general, and the current target is relevant if probably not quite what the searcher is looking for. The History of the United States Air Force and articles about the USAF's predecessors don't help at all and a Google search isn't turning up anything really relevant either. If we don't have a better target I'm not going to object to keep this as is, as it's OK but hopefully we can do better. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, WP:SURPRISE. Stephen W. Thompson is not a synonym for the US military. I suppose WP:MILHIST might be worth pinging, but aerial combat might not even be considered "military" depending on how literally one interprets that word. Si Trew ( talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The WP:MILHIST folks were pinged already (by BDD, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 138#RfD notification: First aerial victory by the U.S. military) but unfortunately it hasn't garnered any input. Thryduulf ( talk) 07:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. This is tricky. The article describes the first aerial victory by a member of the U.S. military. However, he was flying as part of a French raid, so it's not really the U.S. military that was calling the shots. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it is a bit misleading as it was actually an individual on a ride with the French then "the U.S. Military", one would expect to read about an action by a US military unit, it could have actually be seen as a victory for the French. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Amtrak acs64 622 → Amtrak  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible redirect, we don't have redirects for every individual run of the mill locomotive. Was created as a vandalistic "stub" and then redirected. —  Train2104 ( t •  c) 17:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Siemens ACS-64, the article about the class of locomotive, would be the most specific target we have but that doesn't mention anything about this specific loco. Thryduulf ( talk) 07:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's nothing special about No. 622, not yet anyway. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary and a dangerous precedent.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I think "dangerous" is somewhat overstating things. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete not catalog. Needs notability first. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted by User:Caknuck ( non-admin closure) by Si Trew ( talk) 20:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)}} reply

• Twenty One Pilots (album)(redirects) → Twenty One Pilots (album)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Senseless - looks like an attempt to avoid something Peter Rehse ( talk) 07:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Context: [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It looks like this was a temporary title used while performing a complicated history merge and might now be unneeded but I'm unsure. Hopefully Anthony Appleyard can enlighten us. Certainly this should not be deleted until they have had the opportunity to comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• @ Peter Rehse, Thryduulf, and Uanfala: Twenty One Pilots (album)(redirects) can be deleted. When I moved Twenty One Pilots (album by Twenty One Pilots) to Twenty One Pilots (album), I first had to move Twenty One Pilots (album)'s old edits (several redirects and a blanking) aside to somewhere, as I do not trust letting a deleted WP:Parallel history sit under a visible article. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Diamanté(wrestler) → Diamanté (wrestler)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Gino(wrestler) → Gino (wrestler)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Hyan(wrestler) → Hyan (wrestler)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Ortiz(wrestler) → Ortiz (wrestler)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]
• Santana(wrestler) → Santana (pro wrestler)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ]

WP:RDAB. Content resided at all of these, which are r from moves, for less than a week. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep temporarily. While the content was only at these titles for a short time, we need to allow much longer than a day for users, mirrors, etc, to catch up to the new title. With working redirects in place this can happen quicker than when they are being discussed, so I think they will be best speedy kept and then renominated after about a couple of months (so we can see if the original titles are still getting traffic without influence from RfD). I expect they will be deleted at that point, but it's too soon now. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete all while we have the chance. In three months, it will be argued not TOOSOON but TOOLATE. If nobody remembers, it will then be "oh, it has been around for a while, no harm in keeping". Have bud will nip. Si Trew ( talk) 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete all Original articles were created by an inexperienced user in the wrong namespace, all but one have now been doubly moved and/or nominated for deletion. No point in these redirects existing. Dannys-777 ( talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete all improper dab. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Family of Barack Obama#Hussein Onyango Obama. (non-admin closure) –  Train2104 ( t •  c) 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Hussein Obama → Barack Obama  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Should this be retargetd to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Hussein_Onyango_Obama? I don't see why it is tagged with {{ R from non-neutral name}}, though. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 03:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget its targeted that way either because some rightwingers in the States liked referring to Obama by his full name to imply he is Muslim, and the template was added in 2017, the person likely didn't realize it was his father, not the full name. I prefer retargeting since there is a section of another article that contains the information. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Support retarget Unfortunately this is the likely information that a reader using this would be looking for.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retarget per Champion's suggestion, as that is a person in the family whose given name is Hussein. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. For what it's worth, there's no entry for the "word" at Wiktionary. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Subclude → Wikipedia:Substitution  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

An odd portmanteau of substitute and transclude, not referred to (linked or not) anywhere in project space. —  Train2104 ( t •  c) 00:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete seems like an unlikely cross-namespace redirect. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

• Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian → wiktionary:hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Does not serve any purpose, lacks content, and context. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - @ ThatGirlTayler: It does serve a purpose, that is, it leads readers to our search engine and a page containing its definition at wiktionary. The page contains a shortcut of {{ wiktionary redirect}}, so it doesn't lack content (i.e. it is not blank). The text of the template provides context. That aside, the intended candidates for soft redirects are topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated. This meets neither of those bars, but redirects are cheap, and it leads readers to the information they are seeking. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 06:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as it meets the criterion of reader use for wiktionary redirects (You might wonder why users search for such monstrous hippopotamic foot-and-a-half-long words, but they do: the redirect receives over a hundred views per month). Whether there is a suitable wikipedia article to redirect to instead, I'm not sure – but Verbosity and Autological word come close, and either of them could be expanded with a mention of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Uanfala. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sesquipedalian does the same, retarget to the dictionary.

Damn them, those words that are are

Sesquipedalian:

Seven-feet horses I urge you to miss:

Seven feet in a metre

is hardly completer,

but now get on a horse,

gallop to the abyss.

WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If we have nothing to say on the matter, we should say so.

Si Trew ( talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• "If we have nothing to say on the matter, we should say so". We do. Soft redirects to Wiktionary say (paraphrased) "Wikipedia has no encyclopaedic content for this title. If you want to look it up in a dictionary, here is a direct link to the entry." which is far more helpful to those searching for this title than simply showing them unpredictable search results, inviting them to search and/or inviting them to create an article. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep there's a variant called Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia which means fear of long words, as mentioned in the article Self-referential humor and Longest words. The -ian version is not listed there. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.