Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 14

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

November 14

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 14, 2018.

Jane Seymour (actress, II)

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense IMDb nomenclature that is not used on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nemnclature is not "nonsense" it's just not what is used on Wikipedia. That said it isn't a useful disambiguator here, and it doesn't get any significant traffic (four hits this year prior to this discussion) despite being the result of a page move (the article was created at this title and wasn't moved until about a month and a half later). The traffic stats show it has outlived its usefulness. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What I meant by “nonsense” is that if the related page moves on IMDb, then this redirect will be wrong. Relying on the status of a name of a page on a site not connected to Wikipedia (such as IMDb) requires unnecessary maintenance on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it's not useful, and those are good examples of why, but I still don't agree with the "nonsense" descriptor as it clearly conveys meaning and there is logic to it. It's not compatible with Wikipedia's article titling logic and may be an unstable reference to IMDB (I have no idea how stable IMBD titles are), but it's not nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gao Bo

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn/retarget both to Grace Gao (badminton). Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear why these redirect to Grace Gao. The only sports-related “Grace Gao” on Grace Gao is a female badminton player, whereas the incoming link to Gao Bo seems to represent a male distance runner sport shooter. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted my edits. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Do you by chance have any insight into this? Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm late to the party, but in case anyone else is still confused: it appears that the reason for the redirect is that "Gao Bo" and "Bo Gao" (depending on Eastern vs Western name order) are Romanizations of the Chinese name of Grace Gao (badminton). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Slice (online pizza ordering platform)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article I came across at NPP. I moved it to Slice (app). I don't think any articles are linked to this redirect but the AFC statistics template is. I wasn't sure about suppressing the redirect so I wanted to put it up for discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Evol Dev (journal)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed and causes issues with the WP:JCW compilation. The (journal) disambiguator will always trump the non-disambiguated version in WP:JCW. This causes issues with link-dependent scripts and link recognition. For instance, the 'Evol Dev' entry in WP:JCW/E31 is not categorized as an ISO 4 redirect because the {{R from ISO 4}} template is located on Evol Dev, and not on Evol Dev (journal). It's also highlighted with the wrong color if you make use of link classifying scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems unambiguous and useful to readers. Any issues with scripts used by some editors should be resolved by fixing the scripts not inconveniencing readers. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The script cannot be fixed, because it requires the category to be present on the actually page, likewise for the bot. The (journal) disambiguator is the override and exists so that something like |journal=Leukemia is recognized as referring to Leukemia (journal), and the information fetched from Leukemia (journal) rather than Leukemia. These redirects are actively harmful and make cleanup harder than it has to be. The redirect has literally zero value, because no reader would ever search for "Evol Dev (journal)" in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a case where the qualification is essential. It is no means obvious that this abbreviation refers to a journal. Most biologistswill recognizze that it does, but wikipedia is not written for specialists. (If it does not fit well into some particular list, surely a workaround can be devised). This is the exact opposite of what I think is appropriate for abbrevialions which do include the word or the abbreviation for journal. , as J endocrinol -- for thiese, it would be redundant. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's tools and scripts that should be designed to learn how pages are named not other way round. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike titles in print, titles of articles, and titles of categories, abbreviations in redirects don't necessarily need to be explained: if it goes to a non-abbreviated form of the title, as here, you'll get your explanation. And how does it matter that "Evol Dev" lacks an explanation of what it is? A momentary glance at the target will enlighten everyone who sees it. How often is that even an issue? You're likely to run across this phrase in context (e.g. an article's references section), in which the citation format shows that it's a journal, or to see it in search results, in which you can click it and immediately back up if you were expecting something else. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think we need to investigate further why the bracket breaks the WP:JCW script. @Headbomb: Is it possible to modify the script so that it follows redirects even when there is a "(journal)" disambiguator in the redirect title? Deryck C. 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir Montgomery Cecil

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Montgomery Cecil was the fictional spokesman of a minor, joke advertising campaign in the mid-2000s. The "practical joke" article his name redirects to has nothing to say about this, nor should it. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pony Puff Princess

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Title refers to a phrase used a handful of times in specific episode(s) of the series. Paper Luigi T • C 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Koosalagoopagoop

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 25#Koosalagoopagoop

Dexter's Lab (TV Show)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary as Dexter's Lab points to the same article. The disambiguation in parenthesis is also improperly formatted. Paper Luigi T • C 10:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laboratory of Dexter

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Paper Luigi T • C 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Professor Hawk

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Page name is the name of a one-off character in the series. Paper Luigi T • C 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Koosy

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Page name is a nickname for a minor character. Paper Luigi T • C 10:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The redirect using the character's full name should, IMHO, stay. But this definitely seems unnecessary. --Jpcase (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Allison Moore (voice actress)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, as Allison Moore already redirects to same article. Paper Luigi T • C 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I removed this object from List of most massive black holes, because the measurement is likely to be spurious. See User:Aldebarium's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 for reasoning. Reyk YO! 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emotional disability

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Mental disability. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about mental disorder/disambilities are interconnected in a variety of ways. It clearly doesn't make sense for these 2 redirects to target different pages. Given the page issues with Emotional and behavioral disorders, a better target for both might be the "index" page Mental disability, deleting the hatnotes at both former targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fennesz + Patton

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proper reason to redirect this to Mike Patton instead of Christian Fennesz. This collaboration from 2012 is neither mentioned at the Patton nor Fennesz articles. So, either this should be an article, or deleted; it should not be a redirect to Patton without a reason why it shouldn't redirect to Fennesz instead. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this was a piped link (to Mike Patton) in All Tomorrow's Parties Festival lineups; I converted it to a redirect. I have no opinion on whether it ought to redirect to one person or the other - you'd have to ask whoever put the piped link there in the first place - but removing it will create a redlink in the source article, which will benefit no-one. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other artists on that page with the "+" collaboration designation are separately linked, instead of as a group. There would be no redlink if they are separately linked. (Which I'll do now) -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since that original list article has virtually zero footnotes, it's difficult to determine the intent of the original editor who created the redlink. Similarly, it's difficult to ascertain the thinking of the editor who created the piped link to Mike Patton. I completely understand Colonies Chris' intent on changing the piped link to a redirect. However, neither of the artists' articles mentions that they ever worked with the other. At this point, it is unclear that Fennesz + Patton even refers to these particular musicians (although I agree it is highly likely). I would delete the redirect, since the collaboration is mentioned in neither article. Onel5969 TT me 10:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Myspa

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Third party search engines return results for day spas. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Faceborg

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Third party search engines return results for some sort of meme. Steel1943 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crackbook

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment its a not-too-rare slang synonym for Facebook, but also a derogatory slang for some versions of the Mac Book (which can easily crack the screen) , and a sliced up book to hide cocaine... Perhaps replaced by a set index with references? -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no value in redirecting minor slang nicknames to targets that are already well-known by their normal names, when the issues that led to the nicknames being invented are barely or not-at-all mentioned in the targets. Facebook addiction gets barely a sentence either at Facebook or internet addiction, and I can't find any mention at all in Wikipedia of the Macbook cracking issue. I don't see how this could be a valid set index either; nicknames for two different phenomena are not "a set of items of the same type". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2018 financial performance of Facebook

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 Draftify to Draft:Financial performance of Facebook. Ping MainlyTwelve, Steel1943, and Thryduulf. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Per the edit history of the page, this almost qualifies for WP:G7 deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck out part of my statement that doesn’t apply, given the following comment by the redirectms creator.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to exert too much effort fighting the redirect's deletion except to say I'd restore it as an article unto itself though if people think that would be more valuable than a redirect. The page was an experiment, I think it was relatively successful as a page on its own, mostly based on traffic. Interested to hear what others might think.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought that a page covering the history of Facebook's financial performance would be much more likely to be a useful article than one for a specific year (but this is not my field of expertise). If such a page were to exist and include coverage of 2018 then this would be a useful redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Good point. Maybe the history of this redirect could be moved to a title such as Draft:Financial performance of Facebook, allowing the article to be rewritten to cover Facebook’s entire history. (This thought doesn’t affect my stance to deleted the nominated title as a redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an elegant solution that is likely to satisfy most people. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Bookmarklets

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 speedy deleted G7. Special:Diff/868762903 TheSandDoctor Talk 05:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarklets not discussed at target, nor are any of the listed tools bookmarklets.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I created the page and think it should be deleted. It was just an extract from the village pump which is no longer needed and the redirect no longer makes sense. Angela (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

S0ny

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 25#S0ny

Sega U

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sega Sports

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 25#Sega Sports

Sega Project

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per the redirect’s history, it seems this redirect was previously a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega (which is now a redirect itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sega Wii accessories

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirects, considering that the Wii was made by Nintendo, and no such list exists at the target article. (Note: Sega Wii accessories is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

SERVICE GAMES: RISE AND FALL OF SEGA

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Play Button

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Media controls. No comment on the hatnote as closer, but as a passing editor I'm not sure it's needed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Media controls would be the primary topic here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

97%

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient correlation. 97% could mean anything. MB 00:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sega Nerds

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per http://www.seganerds.com, this seems to be a third-party company of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sega Mobile

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 21#Sega Mobile

San Leandro Police Department (California)

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target, better to stay a redlink. MB 00:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Houston Premium Outlets

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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. MB 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gujari language ()

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently artefacts of a peculiar process of page moves. Kwami: these don't serve a purpose anymore, do they? – Uanfala (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_14&oldid=1036305320"