Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 21

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

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Autograf → Cool (Alesso song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Autograf is an electronic dance music trio from Chicago, but I don't see anything related to them in the target article (which is a single from another dj named Alesso). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should this redirect to the Autograph (disambiguation)? It seems to be the spelling for Autograph in several languages in Europe. Also consider

Autografh. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Retarget to Autograph (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Autograph as a plausible misspelling. There is a primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to autograph (not the disambiguation page), since it indeed is plausible. If X is a plausible typo for Y, it shouldn't go to Y (disambiguation) except perhaps in a rare situation that I can't envision at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to
  hundreds 10:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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) 07:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Retarget to Category:Cats, as that would make more sense. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 16:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose,
  shortcuts are primarily intended for internal matters. A header may be appropriate, but I question that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as is, consistent with all the other CAT: cross-namespace redirects to the Category namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "CAT:"
  pseudonamespace shortcuts are abnormal for non-maintenance categories, which makes a retarget as suggested inappropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. This seems to be a very niche issue. With Angus writing down "comment" rather than a confident "keep", I'm closing this as an unopposed request. Deryck C. 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bourges Foot → Bourges 18  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bourges Foot and Bourges 18 are two separate teams. Bourges Foot should not redirect to Bourges 18. Both compete in

• Comment this is rather confusing as the fr:Football Club de Bourges has a statement "En 2008, le Bourges Foot fusionne avec le Bourges Asnières 18 et forme le Bourges 18." Bourges Foot merged with Bourges Asineres to form Bourges 18. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: The current Bourges Foot was formed in 1983 as Jeunes Bourges Nord, taking the name Bourges Foot in 2013.[1] Gricehead (talk) 16:20, 28 December 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.

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) 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Barry Allen (The Flash) (2) → Flash (Barry Allen)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible redirect Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per the redirect's edit history, this draft was moved to Barry Allen (The Flash), which was then redirected to
  WP:RDRAFT. Either way though, I oppose deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment not sure this belongs on RFD as deciding whether the article should go back to draft is more of either an AFD or MFD thing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 21 December 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.

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 split decision. Keep "Arthur the tv show", delete "ARTHUR the show". Deryck C. 18:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthur the tv show → Arthur (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ARTHUR the show → Arthur (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term Slashme (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first, delete the second - The first strikes me as a completely plausible search term, especially for someone who is not super familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions.
  matt91486 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you look at the longer time series data, it was used a fair amount in the 2015-2016 range, even if it has been triggered less lately.

matt91486 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep first as above [2], delete the second as weird implausible stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 21 December 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.