Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 31#Trent Sullivan

• {{no redirect|1 = Democracy movement }} → :Democracy  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_movement&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Democracy_movement stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Democracy movement|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy movement closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Democracy movement|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy movement closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Democracy movement|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy movement closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

The target article doesn't have any deliberate discussion of democracy movements. The women's suffrage and civil rights movements get one mention each. There is a :Category:Democracy movements, which I mention only to emphasize that there's WP:REDLINK potential here. I would not recommend creating a WP:CNR. BDD (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete to encourage article creation. This looks like an important but missing WP:BCA topic, which could go back to 1848 or earlier. Narky Blert (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Child's Play (2010 film) }} → :Child's Play (franchise)#Future  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child%27s_Play_(2010_film)&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Child%27s_Play_%282010_film%29 stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Child's Play (2010 film)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Child's Play (2010 film) closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Child's Play (2010 film)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Child's Play (2010 film) closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Child's Play (2010 film)|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Child's Play (2010 film) closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

I do not understand why this page redirects to that article. There is actually no 2010 film named "Child's Play". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. In 2010 when this was created there may have been a future project, but if there was then it didn't become a 2010 film. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a 2010 film of the name, but it's [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3517482/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_24 a NN short film] involving two NN people. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Democracy protest }} → :Protest  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy_protest&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Democracy_protest stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Democracy protest|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy protest closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Democracy protest|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy protest closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Democracy protest|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Democracy protest closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Ungrammatical and vague, the target provides no further elaboration on this phrase. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I see nothing ungramatical here, but I do see a plausible search term with no good target. I was hoping there would be a list of pro-democracy protests to, but all the lists of protests I can find seem to be much too specific - e.g. List of protests against the Vietnam War, List of protests in Hong Kong and List of protests in the 21st century. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

::I agree with your assessment of the grammar and next steps. As you may guess, my nomination of #Democracy movement above came up while looking into this. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I created it to link red links to somewhere associated with it. So, it can be deleted, but please first change the links before deleting.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

::That's not necessarily what we'd want to do. See WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Topic is too broad. Not helpful for distinguishing protests. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Flyspeck notation }} → :Notation for differentiation#Newton's notation  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flyspeck_notation&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Flyspeck_notation stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Flyspeck notation|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Flyspeck notation closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Flyspeck notation|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Flyspeck notation closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Flyspeck notation|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Flyspeck notation closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned at the target, a Scholar search didn't return any results for this exact phrase. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I've added a mention and a citation to the 9th edition of a textbook. Narky Blert (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Trent Sullivan }} → :H2O: Just Add Water  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trent_Sullivan&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Trent_Sullivan stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Trent Sullivan|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Trent Sullivan closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Trent Sullivan|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Trent Sullivan closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Trent Sullivan|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Trent Sullivan closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, they're an actor with multiple roles. Even if the article mentioned them it should still be a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Hungarian State }} → :Government of National Unity (Hungary)  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_State&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-25&end=2020-08-23&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Hungarian_State stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Hungarian State|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Hungarian State closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Hungarian State|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Hungarian State closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Hungarian State|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Hungarian State closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

{{u|KIENGIR}} posted on my Talk Page, proposing a retarget to Hungarian State (1849). Although that is indeed the only article with "Hungarian State" in its title other than Hungarian State Railways, and I am convinced that the current target is not the best, I am not convinced that that target would be much better. Both governments were short-lived (9 and 4 months respectively), and in the last century alone "Hungarian state" (the capitalisation seems unimportant) could also refer to the Kingdom of Hungary in Austria-Hungary, Hungary between the World Wars, Second Hungarian Republic, Hungarian People's Republic, and modern Hungary as it has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. I propose retargetting to either (1) Hungary, (2) Hungary#History or (3) History of Hungary. That is my order of preference, but I have no strong feelings as to which might be best.

(There were 3 links-in, all for intended for Government of National Unity (Hungary), which I've linked directly to that article.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Narky Blert}},

:Please take into also account Goverment of National Unity is thedirect translation of "Nemzeti Összefogás Kormánya", it's a government article, not a state article, so the current redirect is utterly wrong. "Hungarian State (1849)" original name is "Magyar Álladalom", which is equivalent with it's English counterpart (one word in archaic form) and it's a state article. Apart from that yes, generally all Hungarian state could be considered like that, but it's a famous, revolutionary one. By the way, regarding the examples you mentioned, "Hungary between the World Wars" would not comply as it is not a state article, "Second Hungarian Republic" was never referred like that, similarly the "Hungarian People's Republic" which is the symbol of Socialist/Communist era of Hungary. Next to this, proposal (3) I would abandon similar reason mentioned before.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC))

::{{ping|KIENGIR}} You and I agree that the current target is wrong. However, "state" has a very broad meaning. In his 1918 poem "A Death-Bed", Kipling referred to the Second Reich as a "state"; and Hungary is an EU member state. Narky Blert (talk)

:::{{ping|Narky Blert}}, yes, however the German Empire was a state, so Kipling had right, as Hungary, no connection to EU membership.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC))

• I think the most MOS:TITLE-compliant solution would be to swap Hungarian State (1849) to Hungarian State and add a hatnote there pointing at Hungary and History of Hungary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Move Hungarian State (1849) over the redirect per Rosguill, though personally I would not favor hatnotes in the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Noise reduction in radio broadcasting }} → :FM broadcasting#Noise reduction  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noise_reduction_in_radio_broadcasting&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-21&end=2020-08-19&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Noise_reduction_in_radio_broadcasting stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Noise reduction in radio broadcasting|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Noise reduction in radio broadcasting closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Noise reduction in radio broadcasting|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Noise reduction in radio broadcasting closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Noise reduction in radio broadcasting|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Noise reduction in radio broadcasting closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

This redirect is misleading redirecting to its current target since there's no evidence that "noise reduction in radio broadcasting" is exclusive to "FM broadcasting". The redirect as phrased could refer to any type of "radio broadcasting" and not just FM. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no 'noise reduction' technique that is specific to radio broadcasting. There are a number of audio processing techniques in radio broadcasting, some of which have the effect of noise reduction among others, but they are not usually described as such. This redirect is just pointless clutter. Harumphy (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

:: It makes me really sad if I see people participating in deletion discussions without doing the necessary homework before voicing an opinion. In contrast to what you state, there have been at least three dedicated noise reduction systems for FM radio broadcasting, Dolby FM, High Com FM, and FMX. (Variants of them were also tested in AM broadcasting, but never left experimental status AFAIK.) They all work on the compressor/expander principle of the audio signal. This is not "pointless clutter", these systems are well documented in the radio broadcasting world.

:: What you might mean are noise filters to remove some noise from audio signals, but they work by trying to remove already existing noise from the signal, not trying to keep it from occuring in the first place. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

::: The operative verb in my comment is "is", not "was". I'm aware of Dolby FM etc., which all failed to catch on nearly 40 years ago. If the aim of the FM Broadcasting article is to document every ancient incremental proposed tweak that never caught on then fine, keep the redirect. Harumphy (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

:::: Of course, it is. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Thanks for the clarification. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• It seems to me that wideband (as in broadcast) FM could itself be considered a noise reduction technique. FM is less noisy partly because of the higher frequency (where there is less noise) but also because of the way wideband (wider than the bandwidth of the audio signal) works. Noise reduction systems like Dolby weren't available (or technically feasible) at the time. Wideband FM needs the higher frequency to have enough spectrum space. (Broadcast FM uses 200kHz for each, 20 times what AM broadcasting uses.) There was for a time Dolby coded FM broadcast, but they never quite caught on. Maybe not enough for a whole article. While I believe that FM broadasting is, in itself, a noise reduction system, I don't know that it enough for a redirect. Gah4 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, at most retarget. The redirect, which is deliberately flagged as a redirect with possibilities because we ultimately need a dedicated article about the topic, points to a section on noise reduction in the FM broadcasting article not because the topic, as a concept, would be limited to FM broadcasting, but simply because this article and section already has some contents about it, and it is established to link to such contents regardless if the title of the target article could be misunderstood per WP:REDIR.

: The topic is not even off-topic to be discussed there at all, but reflects real-world usage. There have been at least three systems dedicated for FM broadcasting, Dolby FM, High Com FM, and FMX. I am not aware of similar AM systems for public broadcasting (except for experiments to adopt the above systems for AM use). If you are aware of a better place to point the redirect to, please name it. If you are aware of other noise reduction systems that were in use outside FM broadcasting, please name them and let's convert the redirect into an article and move all the info there, otherwise let's keep the direct as it is, because it is not misleading, helps to build infrastructure, and points readers to the best information we have on the topic at present. Deletion would be counter-productive and improve nothing. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep not particularly misleading or otherwise harmful. {{U|Matthiaspaul}} makes a reasonable WP:DEMOLISH arguement. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Matthiaspaul, whose clearly knowledgeable rationale presents a detailed explanation why this redirect is beneficial to the encyclopaedia and its readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Islamic Community of India }} → :Islam in India  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_Community_of_India&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Islamic_Community_of_India stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Islamic Community of India|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Islamic Community of India closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Islamic Community of India|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Islamic Community of India closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Islamic Community of India|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Islamic Community of India closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Remnant of failed org article (by creator of several non-notables) not mentioned at target, with link (now) incorrectly used in several articles. Instead of using the link, better to remove the non-notable org redirect and it's links. (a lowercase Islamic community of India redirect can be created as and when needed.)Widefox; talk 15:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Soft delete per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Don't Poke the Bear }} → :Timber Creek Lodge  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_Poke_the_Bear&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Don%27t_Poke_the_Bear stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Don't Poke the Bear|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Don't Poke the Bear closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Don't Poke the Bear|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Don't Poke the Bear closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Don't Poke the Bear|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Don't Poke the Bear closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Although I recognize that this is the name of one of the episodes and that TV episode redirects are common, I think that this particular one will WP:SURPRISE the reader 95% of the time. "Don't poke the bear" is a common phrase, and if somone unfamiliar with the term searches for it, this page is not helpful to the reader at all, possibly even misleading. Only four of eight episodes currently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Timber_Creek_Lodge&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1 have redirects] to the show, so removing one shouldn't be a problem. Alternatively, it could be moved without redirect to include a parenthetical dab, but I don't think the title case WP:SMALLDIFFS is enough for the layman search on so prevalent a phrase. - 2pou (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with current target if there's no better alternative. I say leave alone until there's a reason to redirect to another page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Disambig. In addition to the current target there is a single from the Spooky Action album, a book by John Locke (author), an episode of Saving Hope (see List of Saving Hope episodes) an episode of Summer House (2017 TV series) and a Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear. It's also a partial title match for an episode of Little Women: LA ("Couples Retreat: Don't Poke the Bear") which might merit a see-also. Wiktionary has :wikt:poke the bear that should be linked from the dab page too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

:* Not opposed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: I concur with the dabify recommendation, including the Wikitionary link. -2pou (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Rogue Two }} → :The Empire Strikes Back  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rogue_Two&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-24&end=2020-08-22&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Rogue_Two stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Rogue Two|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rogue Two closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Rogue Two|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rogue Two closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Rogue Two|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Rogue Two closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned in this Star Wars movie article. Seventyfiveyears at 16:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or super weak retarget to Rogue Squadron or List of Star Wars characters#S, where Zev Senesca (whom it's presumably referring to) redirects. This guy goes by the callsign "Rogue Two," which has been used by several Rebel pilots, but only the list of characters article mentions the term and the redirect could potentially create ambiguity. Do you copy? This is SONIC678! 02:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Best thing to do would probably be retargeting to Rogue Squadron#Zev Senesca and adding his call sign there. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Nambu langauges }} → :Nambu languages  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nambu_langauges&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Nambu_langauges stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Nambu langauges|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Nambu langauges closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Nambu langauges|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Nambu langauges closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Nambu langauges|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Nambu langauges closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

This is the result of a typo made during a page move in March; the typo was corrected within hours so there are no viable concerns about preserving links. Redirects containing this particular typo are not desirable. Because the move was done using a page swap, this redirects has the history of the redirect Nambu languages, which has existed since 2009, so maybe worth preserving at a different title (say Nambu dialects). – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Pings to those who have recently edited the redirect: {{u|Kwamikagami}}, {{u|Atlantic306}}, {{u|Gorobay}}. – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I requested deletion back in March and it was rejected. Didn't understand the reason (as a RD for outside links). The page history there is due to round-robin swap from some non-typo title. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Comparative morphology }} → :Comparative anatomy  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparative_morphology&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-08-01&end=2020-08-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Comparative_morphology stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Comparative morphology|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Comparative morphology closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Comparative morphology|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Comparative morphology closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Comparative morphology|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Comparative morphology closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

{{Old RfD list|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Comparative morphology|No consensus|}}

Reopening the RfD with narrower options, either dabify or keep. Comparative morphology could also mean comparative physiology, comparative embryology, etc. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I was expecting this to be a thing in linguistics, but looking at usage, I see that the phrase has variously been used with one or another meaning of "comparative". So "comparative morphology", in linguistics, can mean either the morphology of comparison (ie. short, shorter, shortest), or the comparing of morphologies – in the latter case the comparing can be either the one of comparative linguistics (i.e. historical/reconstructive) or the one of contrastive linguistics/linguistic typology. – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• A draft of a disambiguation page could help. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This was just hashed to death last month and no new arguments have been presented. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - If a month and a half long discussion from June through August couldn't come up with a consensus, there's no use in rehashing that by opening another discussion less than a month after the previous one closed. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Nom comment – While the previous nomination was unclear, this nomination is clear like water: the current redirect is ambiguous and require a disambiguation. I will draft a dab page to illustrate the ambiguity with the current redirect. If the redirect is kept, we should consider hatnoting the current target, which can be annoying. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.

• {{no redirect|1 = Michael Walker (journalist) }} → :Novara Media  (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Walker_(journalist)&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-08&end=2020-08-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Michael_Walker_%28journalist%29 stats])     [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Michael Walker (journalist)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Michael Walker (journalist) closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Michael Walker (journalist)|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Michael Walker (journalist) closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Michael Walker (journalist)|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Michael Walker (journalist) closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as unexplained and unmentioned. Created without explanation by account now blocked for BLP violations. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, he has been added to the page as he is one of the main contributors and host of the site's talk show. User:Starklinson 00:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Keep now that he is mentioned in the article. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other journalists with the same name, though. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambiguous with Mike Walker (columnist) and not notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Retarget to the columnist with a hatnote to Novara Media. BD2412 T 04:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Since subject is now mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Change my comment to Retarget to the columnist with a hatnote to Novara Media. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

: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.