Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2018.

Nermal (Beanie Baby)

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) 00:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about "Beanie Baby" anywhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2018 (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.

Garfield at 25: In Dog Years I'd Be Dead

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/Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are not mentioned in the body of the article; they are only referenced in the "Bibliography" section. For that reason, it may be best to delete these redirects per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: Garfield at 25: In Dog Years I'd Be Dead is a {{R with history}} as an article during 2007–08. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (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.

Apprentice and Master Wicca

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) 01:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of explanation at the target article for what these redirects target their target, these redirects seem to be a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2018 (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.

Poochy (Nintendo)

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 per WP:REDLINK The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Should it be, or elsewhere, like Yoshi? It's listed at List of fictional dogs in video games, and somewhat obliquely at Yoshi's Woolly World. (Poochy's page on the Super Mario Wiki, for reference.) --BDD (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came across this from that page, when I saw the alternate title and wondered, "Who the heck is Poochy?" Other readers will do the same, I suspect. There should be information about Poochy there either way; we should also keep in mind that he's been in previous games. This would be not unlike redirecting an actor to one role where they're discussed elsewhere... --BDD (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2018 (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.

Sons and Daughters of Liberty

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) 01:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No redirection without disambiguation between Sons of Liberty and Daughters of Liberty since, due to the gender gap back then, it could refer to either secret society. ToThAc (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:XY then, unless there was (or is) such a combined organization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, after taking another look at the Daughters of Liberty page, I think it might be worthy of a merge. ToThAc (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig There are many sources, at least some which appear reliable, that discus the two groups together (e.g. [2]) so it's a very plausible for them to be searched for together. If the articles are not merged (I have no opinion on that) then there should be a disambiguation (or set index if the dab page restrictions don't allow it) that notes they are/were separate organisations and links to the articles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY, these are similar but separate groups. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But which are very frequently referred to together in ways that mean it is very likely that someone will not know they are separate, especially if they are unfamiliar with the topic. The groups were founded at around the same time, for the same cause, and have had similar histories. Deletion would be a major disservice to our readers - guidelines like XY must always be subservient to the goal of improving the encyclopaedia for its readers. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion would give way to search results, in which both groups are prominently listed—separately, because they were separate organizations. The reports of disservice have been greatly exaggerated. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I've repeatedly explained over the years, search results are not reliable (what is seen for one person today cannot be assumed to appear for someone else tomorrow), not always seen (depending on platform, account privileges, method used to arrive at Wikipedia, and possibly other things) and always more inconvenient than a page linking direct - this is why disambiguation pages exist in the first place and we don't just tell users to search for other articles. Sending someone to search results is only ever appropriate when we don't know what they are looking for - absolutely not the case here. There isn't even any befit to editors from deletion (not that this should ever outweigh what is beneficial to readers) as watching a disambig page is no more costly in editorial time than watching for recreation of a deleted page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither "Sons of Liberty" nor "Daughters of Liberty" were ever known as "Sons and Daughters of Liberty", so a disambiguation page is wholly inappropriate. "Sons and Daughters of Liberty" closely matches both "Sons of Liberty" and "Daughters of Liberty" so they will both be featured prominently, because that's how search engines work. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are assuming search engines always work, that when they do they always work in the same way, that people always see search results, and that there wont be any other results that get in the way - none of this is true. Whether it is called a disambiguation page or not, a page listing these two organisations that are frequently spoken of, written about and thought of together that notes they are two not one organisation and links to the articles about them is what will best serve our readers. I genuinely cannot understand why you seem to think either that search results results would be better and/or that we should not do the best for readers? Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not assuming, it's literally how search engines work. Here is some reading for you: WP:SEARCH says "Wikipedia uses a powerful search engine, with a search box on every page. The search box will navigate directly to a given page name upon an exact match. But, you can force it to show you a page of search results instead, to see what else Wikipedia has that includes your search string.. -- Tavix (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've just missed one of the points I was making and ignored the rest. If there is an exact match that page is displayed but you can override that if you want. However, if there is no exact match you might get search results, you might get invited to search, you might get invited to create a page, or to view why the page was deleted, or get an error message, or something else depending how you arrived at the title without a page, what device you are using, what was at the page previously (if anything), what privs your account (if you're logged in) has and possibly other factors. Even for the subset of people who do get to the search engine when the search engine is working and giving results, it not possible to guarantee what results they will see. Even if they get taken directly to working search results that display the two articles at the top of the results (the best possible scenario if this is deleted) it is still more inconvenient for them than if there was a page listing them as they have to figure out from the snippet shown (what this is is not predictable) which one they want when they were quite likely expecting an article about a single organisation given the context in which they read/heard/saw about them - if they knew they were separate organisations they would have searched for one individually. In contrast a short page can link directly to both with an explanation that they are separate, educating them (the fundamental goal of Wikipedia) without hassle. Why is this hard to grasp? Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The search function is an integral feature of Wikipedia, everyone who uses Wikipedia has access to it, per my previous link. Someone will be able to find what they are looking for, and in an easier fashion than a redirect that links to just one of them. Again, "Sons and Daughters of Liberty" is not a single organization, so a page, disambiguation or not, is inappropriate. A redlink better conveys that fact than a page of error. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's two points you missed this time (and there are still others you're ignoring). Everyone can access the search engine (when it is working) but they often have to actively look for it - with a page they will find the answer straight away. I've never argued that the redirect should point to only one organisation - that would indeed be wrong - however there should be a page (whether called a disambiguation page or something else) that links to both - our purpose is to educate people by informing them that their misconception is a misconception, and educate them about what is correct. A redlink is just unhelpfully saying "We don't have an article by that name." It could mean they got the spelling wrong, that we don't have an article yet but want one, that we don't have an article and don't want one, or possibly other things - it is directly contrary to our goal. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm not "missing points", I'm disagreeing with you. That's two totally separate things you're conflating. Since we're now going in circles, I'll leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You are clearly disagreeing with me, and that's fine, but the arguments you are using in your replies to back up your opinions do not relate to the arguments that I have been making and so do not refute (or support) them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • @Tavix: I'm going to have to agree with Thryduulf here, and besides, pageviews still indicate that this page is better off kept. ToThAc (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XY. You can't disambiguate here. "'Sons and Daughters of Liberty' may refer to 'Sons of Liberty' and 'Daughters of Liberty'?" Nonsense! --BDD (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been a good (and heated!) discussion here; I read the arguments as leaning slightly toward delete, but we've had this for 12.5 years, so a few more participants would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: A useful page for the reader (and after 12.5 years there will very likely be plenty of incomming links to attract them) will offer a bit more than that but even if it didn't then that plain disambiguation will be vastly more useful than a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more for good measure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This redirect could refer to both organizations- but points to one. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Given the confusion, my primary instinct is to just let people use the search engine. I'm not sure, but I lean in favor of outright deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:XY, let Wikipedia's search function take care of any confusion when looking up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2018 (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.

Hong Kong wedding style

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 Southern Chinese wedding. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hong Kong" is not mentioned in the target article. Readers will not find any information about the subject of this redirect in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2018 (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.

Glamour (Charmed)

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 Charmed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unclear; the target has nothing specific to do with the series Charmed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to disambig page which has an entry specifically for the Charmed use of glamour. I would have thought the magic use of the word was a common enough trope in fantasy literature to have its own page, but until then it is a dot point on the disambig page. --Qetuth (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it sounds like Glamour (presentation) was unseated recently as the primary topic for the term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Glamour where the "magical" use of the word is discusssed --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Charmed, which matches Glamouring (Charmed), and add the blurb from the disambiguation page to Charmed so someone has an idea of what that word means within the Charmed universe. Disambiguation pages are simply navigational tools— they should not be used to explain things like this. That is the job of the articles themselves. -- Tavix (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:01, 23 May 2018 (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.

Template:Update needed

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Template:Update needed

Masrium

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) 14:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Symbol (chemistry) mentions it but claims that it is an erroneous discovery of radium. Since no other articles mention "masrium", delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Symbol (chemistry) where it is mentioned (as nominator noted). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per Shhnotsoloud. Someone searching for this will find information about what they are looking for at that target, so we should direct them to it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget yeah, Masrium is mentioned in Symbol (chemistry), with some information on it, so target there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. wikt:masrium calls it a rejected name for Indium, not Radium. That being said, I found this publication from 1892 discussing a discovery of a new element called "Masrium". The source mentions that the atomic weight would put it "in the vacant place in the periodic system in the Beryllium-Calcium group", which would be the group that Radium is in. I haven't found a source for the rejected claim to Indium, but if one doesn't show up, I think it would be best to retarget to Radium and add a blurb to the article. Retargeting to Symbol (chemistry) simply because that is currently the only place that mentions Masrium doesn't really make sense to me, since the element itself would the more relevant material. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Numerically, he's clearly outnumbered, but I find Tavix' comment strong enough to justify further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and removed Masrium from the list at Symbol (chemistry). While a lot of that list is in need of sourcing, I don't feel comfortable with the inclusion of it on the list until sourcing can be found for it, and we are not even positive what element it actually was (be it Radium or Indium). Unless we can come up with something more concrete, perhaps the best option is to delete for now. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2018 (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.

No criming

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. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Home Office National Crime Recording Standard regulate the statutory recording of notifiable crimes in England and Wales. The standard explains ‘no-criming’, in simply terms it is the procedure police forces remove a notifiable crime from their statistics. Discussions about no-criming within criminology are complex. Obviously, it is something that needs covering in an article titled, National Crime Recording Standards in England and Wales. However, considerations about no-criming are as equally relevant within a wide sphere of aspects of criminology, amongst others, crime statistics, police ethics, and victimology. At the moment the no-criming page redirects to Crime statistics in the United Kingdom. I suggest this oversimplifies the term and potentially confusses readers that no-criming is purely related to crime statistic. My proposal is that the redirect needs consideration to improve readers understanding of the breadth of the topic, and so they do not miss equally important Wikipedia articles that includes the term no-criming. WPCW (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article discusses no criming, and it does relate to crime statistics in the UK and not other countries. [3] p. 15. [4] p.3-4 The news sources on a general search show a more specific context of reporting rape allegations. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please feel free to add {{R with possibilities}}, expand it yourself, or add a {{redirect}} note at the target. It's useful as is; please expand as useful. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the proposer can I change my vote to * Keep ? I fo like Nbarth's suggestion to place the {{redirect}} note at the target, and show use 2 as Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 @Nbarth and AngusWOOF: Any thoughts?. WPCW (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw the nom provided all the votes cast so far are in agreement to keep which it appears to be so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 24 May 2018 (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.

Rap Music

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'm not wild about the organization choices at hip hop music and rapping, but that's not a topic for here. The pages are organized as they are (and for good reason) and so, as noted below, it's quite reasonable for these to point to where the content lives. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page and also Rap Music have been redirects for either Hip hop music or Rapping. Recently the redirects that have been stable for several years have been boldly edited and reverted several times without a discussion. From what I can see the fact that it refers to music and and not vocal delivery suggests that the hip hop page is the right one. Depending on the result the Dab page RAP should be modified as well because rapping I think can be used in different genres of music and is not a genre in itself. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I combined "Rap Music" and "Rap music" RFD entries to one discussion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Not all rap music is hiphop. Not all hiphop music contains rap. Rapping is not exclusively a subset of hiphop. For example, Nu metalcore often contains rapping, and if it does it is rap music, but it isn't hiphop. Same thing with pop. Please read Rapping#History (which contains sentences like: "A notable recorded example of rapping in blues music was the 1950 song "Gotta Let You Go" by Joe Hill Louis.") and then revert yourself. The idea that a problem that is old shouldn't be fixed is silly. This shouldn't even be a redirect, it should be an article about rap music. There is currently no such article. So if we have to pick a redirect target we have no other option than Rapping. Edward Mordake (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :Domdeparis wrote the following 2 quotes: [reply]

"...it refers to music and and not vocal delivery suggests that the hip hop page is the right one"
"...rapping I think can be used in different genres of music and is not a genre in itself."
Edward Mordake (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion why not have both redirects point to a DAB page probably the one that already exists, where the reader will have the oportunity to chose between rapping and hip hop music. Someone who wants to know about Rapping will find what he wants and someone who is looking for Hip hop music will find it, as per the lead is "also called hip-hop or rap music". Dom from Paris (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Sounds like a good idea. Let the reader decide what they are interested in reading. I noticed that that was in the lead but I didn't want to edit it because that could be seen as trying to influence the discussion in an non-transparent way. Edward Mordake (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Edward Mordake was CU blocked as a sock of User:The Quixotic Potato. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - Rapping is primarily associated with hip-hop music. Although certainly a number of things can involve rapping otherwise, from alternative metal releases to many pop hits and more, things make sense as is. The redirects appear appropriate enough so long as rapping gets linked in the opening (which it currently is, along with helpful details in the prose). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - The terms are synonymous with hip hop music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (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.

Pjongjang

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) 01:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Polish. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. While it is perfectly plausible in theory that this transliteration could be used in English language sources, in practice it seems to be exclusively used in Polish language contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is not just name in Polish language. Please see d:Q18808. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this subject of the redirect, as referenced in the Wikidata entry, is spelled like this in multiple languages? That's an even stronger case for WP:FORRED since none of those languages are English or Korean. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should be deleted per WP:FORRED. This is a non-English transliteration used in several languages, none of which are particularly relevant to Korea (although German is a world language; but I don't think we keep all redirects from German spelling to geographical features, do we). In English-language context this transliteration would be simply wrong (it follows no standard nor is it established by common usage). On the other hand, it's a plausible search term evidenced by the fact that, at the time of writing, two mainspace articles link there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, considering that this spelling is present in several languages ... but none of them are English or Korean. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:RFOREIGN aside, it does seem to get marginal usage (for example: List of Billy Graham's crusades), and there is no risk of confusion with another topic AFAICT. I can see this as plausible spelling from a linguistic point of view since the phoneme in question is a palatal approximant and is written as /j/ in IPA. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per FORRED. @Tavix: its use in the Billy Graham article was from the article creator who is Polish and was probably using the spelling that first came to mind. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as FORRED. It's a German spelling [6] but it's not clear if any English news sources or books have ever used that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 23 May 2018 (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.

Chucky: Stealth Killers

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) 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is completely unrelated to its target. The1337gamer (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per RFD #5 "The redirect makes no sense" and if possible, CSD A11 "obviously invented". Neologism. Chucky series has nothing to do with Tenchu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm presuming the etymology of this is that "shadow assassins" are "stealth killers" (which is logical enough) who use nunchucks with "chucky" being a slang term for these. However, I can't find any evidence of "Chucky" being used in this way and even if it was the colon would be superfluous at best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist, as the page was untagged for the majority of the discussion period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 23 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_23&oldid=1142586801"