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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Thomas Tobiasz → Thomas Tobias  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Unlikely typo. The subject was either known as Tobias or Tobiaszoon, not Tobiasz Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I created this because there was a redlink in Dutch ship Gouden Leeuw. Maybe that is a typo. Maybe not. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep This may well be an error, but it seems to be used throughout this book, at least. It could also be a logical shortening of Tobiaszoon. I don't see anything else this would refer to. -- BDD ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per redirect creator's rationale for creating and subsequent to the compelling evidence provided by BDD whereby multiple textual references to the misspelling in the published book suggest this may be more than a plausible misspelling or typo; it may be a common alternate spelling. Recommend adding appropriate Rcat(s) in an Rcat Shell, where applicable, and this is, of course, subject to the usual proviso that consensus can change if further evidence reveals this is his common name, a round-robin page swap may need to be performed. -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. -- BDD ( talk) 15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:BLACKLIST → MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

The target was changed to the MediaWiki page rather than the explanatory project page on 9 September, but shortcuts weren't updated and no clear reason for the change (or a discussion) was provided. As such, should the old target (consistent with the shortcut) be restored, or is it better to redirect directly to the blacklist? I prefer the former because of the information it provides, but I'm leaving it open for discussion. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Send back to documentation page. Deryck C. 15:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Deryck Chan unless we commonly use the "Wikipedia:" namespace for other Wikimedia properties, including MediaWiki. I'm just curious what the documentation page Deryck refers to is. -- Doug Mehus T· C 21:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dmehus: I don't mind - the obvious choice would be Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, which was the old target of the redirect. Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist are also plausible targets that I'd support, if anyone else prefers sending people to one of those two pages instead. Deryck C. 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Deryck Chan: Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. I agree with your chosen redirect target per all of the above, but don't mind if at close, consensus favours another redirect target, my "retarget" !vote will support that target as well.-- Doug Mehus T· C 14:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems superfluous, as a search for blacklist would throw up the intended list-- Petebutt ( talk) 14:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sean The King → List of Skulduggery Pleasant characters#Sean Mackin  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

No mention of this character being a king at the target, so it's not clear that this redirect is appropriate, and would thus suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. There's a minor risk of confusion with Sean King or Shaun King as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: In the Skulduggery Pleasant, characters have taken names in order not to be controlled by other magic users, for example, "Stephanie Edgely" being "Valkyrie Cain". In Kingdom of the Wicked, three mortal sociopathic teenagers, Kitana Kellaway, Sean Mackin and Doran Purcell, are granted unimaginable power by the book's primary antagonist Argeddion; upon learning of the newfound potential for their being controlled, they take the names "Kitana Killherway", "Sean the King" and "Doran Kickass", derived (bar Doran's) from something somewhat similar to their original surnames. The character is not a king, he has given himself the middle name "the" and the surname "King". I would highly recommend you read the series, it is excellent. Thank you. MacCready ( talk) 20:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ MacCready:, noted. I think it would be an improvement to make some mention of this alternate name in the target article, but this is enough of a justification for me to withdraw this nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 11:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Honors Biology Program (UIUC) → University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not discussed at the target article; presumably a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL academic program. BDD ( talk) 18:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Suppose we have two objects, foo and bar. → Foobar  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Implausible search term not mentioned in target. Pam D 16:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete What PamD said: "Implausible search term not mentioned in target" - I see no reason to keep it, not even the redirect. -- Evilninja ( talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment is this some kind of notable phrase? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete You might come across this in an academic paper that is asking you to consider a theoretical scenario, as foo and bar are common stand-ins for actual function or object names, but I would be very surprised if the phrase was in itself notable. File alongside "let x equal..." _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep redirects like this are cheap N harmless. If you really want to delete, you can store that at WP:DAFT. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 06:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete implausible search term. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with nom 100%. More likely plausible search term for Foobar would be Foo bar.-- Doug Mehus T· C 15:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Deryck C. 11:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Xtension Chords → University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This college a cappella group isn't mentioned at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. BDD ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I considered List of collegiate a cappella groups but they might only list notable ones with an article. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Friday the 13th DX → Friday the 13th: The Game  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Seems it is a hoax, unable to find in reliable that it exists, or is a special version of the Friday the 13th: The Game, or a separate game. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete for now. The DX is usually associated with Deluxe for collectible figures but is not described in Friday_the_13th_(franchise)#Merchandise AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• MTR Metro Cammell EMU(DC) → MTR Metro Cammell EMU (DC)  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect came about when this page was moved from a title which simply had a missing space. It's probably not worth keeping once we fix all the redirects that link here. «««  SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 09:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and not a stylization. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Mythology of Slovenia → Slavic paganism  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

There is nothing in the target specifically relating to Slovenes or Slovenia. Delete unless a better target is found.  —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  06:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Write article or delete per WP:REDLINK. There is no clear target, but the article exists on Slovene Wikipedia and the topic looks notable. (Maybe someone with some knowledge of Slovene could do a content translation, if nothing else). If and when an article is written, it should be the main page of Category:Slovene mythology. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• There are a lot of redirects to that article for topics with no coverage. I've made a note to investigate more of them. Maybe there was excessive merging here. -- BDD ( talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. I also note the nominator is a sockpuppet, so their opinion has not been considered in this closure. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 13:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

AWOL is not necessarily desertion because absent without leave implies an absence whilst desertion is permenant departure from service. I'm Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. ( talk) 01:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The target article discusses this distinction. - Eureka Lott 04:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per EurekaLott. The page might be better titled "Desertion and absence without leave" but that's a matter for a separate RM. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as explained in the lead paragraph and redirects here hatnotes. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Disambiguate by including Desertion and Absenteeism, and others, to be added as needed/as thought. The term AWOL, like FUBAR and SNAFU, have adopted mainstream/pop culture usage. Thus, there's no clear primary topic here. If keep wins, this should not be without prejudice to disambiguating in the future per WP:BRD.-- Doug Mehus T· C 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to AWOL (disambiguation). Noticed we already have AWOL (disambiguation), so this seems like an easy decision. An administrator or page moving editor will need to be engaged post-close to perform a round-robin page swap to make AWOL the new dab page name. Why we would force a four-letter acronym to have a parenthetical qualifier is beyond me. Perhaps Crouch, Swale, with whom I was just conversing on an unrelated dab page move proposal for UK villages, may have some thoughts. As well, I'm friendly pinging the prior editors, who may not be watching this log page: Shhhnotsoloud, Eureka Lott, AngusWOOF, and the nom. -- Doug Mehus T· C 17:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  Yes if there's no primary topic the DAB should be just at "AWOL" per WP:DABNAME without the "(disambiguation)". Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I think there's a primary topic and it's the article about desertion: "AWOL" is not used elsewhere and doesn't appear in Absenteeism. Even if it did, a hatnote would handle it. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 19:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Shhhnotsoloud Why not a dab page, though? Note this. I could easily add a reference to that State Department (United States) document as it's a reliable, primary source. It's just one non-military organization that uses that abbreviation to describe absenteeism. Doug Mehus T· C 19:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

On primary topic applicability, I don't think we can say there's a clear primary topic, per this Google search result for AWOL+desertion that produces ~90,000 results (including duplicates). By contrast, this Google search result for AWOL+absenteeism produces ~340,000 results (including duplicates). (Both examples rounded up to the nearest 1,000 results; both using non-phrase search queries. This didn't matter, though, as the latter still produced a higher result.) Doug Mehus T· C 19:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I was wrong to say '"AWOL" is not used elsewhere', but I still think there's a primary topic, by long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

But who is to say WP:PRIMARY has to supercede everything? Per WP:BRD and WP:IAR, we can do whatever the heck we want in certain circumstances, as I understand it. At any rate, I'm not convinced primary topic hasn't changed at least to the point of a lack of clarity. Plus, per WP:CONCISE, doesn't it make sense to let us remove the parenthetical qualifier on the dab page? Sometimes adhering to WP:PRIMARY is the wrong approach, and this is one of those cases. WP:CONCISE and common sense should supercede here. Doug Mehus T· C 20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Looks like a clear primary topic to me. Many of the other uses are derivative of the military concept. -- BDD ( talk) 16:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

BDD But, to me, it seems a waste of AWOL to be a redirect to Desertion when we're showing very common usage in the HR world derived from the military usage. As a result, retargeting to the dab page would allow us to perform a round-robin page swap such that the dab page could no longer have a parenthetical qualifier. It's unclear if this has a primary topic anymore. To me, someone typing AWOL into the search bar wants to know what it means, quickly. A dab page would be the most efficient way to concisely state both its origin and contemporary uses, with links to either article. Doug Mehus T· C 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The phrase isn't even used at Absenteeism, though. It's just an everyday military metaphor, like "marching orders", or " civilian" in the broader sense of an outsider. Do you really think many readers will search "AWOL" when seeking encyclopedic coverage of workplace absence? -- BDD ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

BDD, yes. I use the term in common usage and I have no connections to the military. I can confirm my former employer, HSBC, used that term within its HR parlance. As to it not being mentioned at absenteeism, I plan on improving that article to include a reference (at least a few sentences, perhaps more). Doug Mehus T· C 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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