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 Lists of military installations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of barracks, bases, fields, and forts → List of United States military bases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is too wieldy to be a useful redirect due to the multiple commas. In addition, the subject in the redirect is not exclusive to the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wondered if this was the title of some official US Army publication but if it is Google offers no evidence of it - indeed it appears not to be a phrase used outside of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Lists of military installations. While it doesn't seem a likely search term, I'd expect any user who does use it would be looking for a general list of military installations or bases. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Lists of military installations, though I think this is an exceedingly implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:XY as there is List of forts and List of military bases. Barracks aren't independently notable from bases, and could refer to barracks on ships. Fields could be anything like a grassy field, a baseball field, or a battlefield, not necessarily within the military base. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "Barracks" can be the name for bases themselves, though (e.g., Carver Barracks). I agree that a barracks in the sense of a single building are unlikely to be notable, though some are (e.g., Kempston Barracks). --BDD (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking further on this, I'm happy with a retarget as suggested above. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2017 (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.

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. Since there is not a Briticism disambiguation page, this is the only other option presented. If such a disambiguation or list ever gets created, feel free to recreate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Briticisms → Comparison of American and British English#Vocabulary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Britishisms → List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should target the same place. (I did not combine this with the "Briticism" nomination since they start with "List of" and could potentially have a different target.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the proposed Briticism disambiguation page, as that likely will at least one list. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to potential disambiguation page per Thryduulf. That would be very useful. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:42, 31 August 2017 (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.

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 noting that my query went unanswered. That frees up these titles to disambiguate if anybody is willing to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Briticism → Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Britishism → Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Britishisms → Comparison of American and British English#Vocabulary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should all target the same page, or should all be deleted. The page which all of these should be targeted ... I have no idea. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm tempted by a disambiguation page here, as quite a few pages in Category:British English and subcats could be plausible targets. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to proposed new page per Thryduulf. I also note that a regular mainspace item list is possible too. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:44, 31 August 2017 (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.

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 11:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NEEDSMOARDRAMA → Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What is this shortcut? It looks unconstructive and unserious as hell. Has it had any hits at all? Looks like an editor having fun to me. Disruptive fun. Delete per RFD DELETE#8 or CSD R3. Gaioa (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of "unserious" pages in Wikipedia space. That's hardly a good reason to delete, in my opinion. Master of Time (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We never need "moar" drama. I can't imagine this being used constructively. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep since it is actually being referenced in some twenty places. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly per BDD. Also, the target doesn't have anything to do with "needing moar drama", so it's confusing from that perspective. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is likely used light-heartedly. I can't imagine such a shortcut causing any harm or disruption, and any editor who follows the link to the essay would be able to understand its message. (Is it wrong for editors to have fun nowadays? Is something as trivial as this labeled as "disruptive"? No wonder the editing environment is so hostile and editor numbers are declining.) feminist 14:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Hostile, exactly—how could someone use this without it being perceived as an attack? I took a look at three of the current uses, and none were joking or lighthearted. I would go so far as to cause them hostile. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is being legitimately used by various editors to link to the target. WP:RNEUTRAL applies here - just because it is possible to use a redirect in an unconstructive way is not a reflection on the redirect but on the editor using it in such manner. Indeed deleting this redirect could be seen as disrupting Wikipedia (by breaking links in discussions) to make a point (that you don't like this redirect and/or redirects in this style). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The idea behind it to be sarcastic. It is to say "Enough of this drama". Also, you really should not use CSDs on normal deletion requests as a rationale. That kind of defeats the point of the deletion process. If something is CSD worthy it should be just speedy deleted. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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.