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. Even with the alternate caps, the arguments make sense that this would be confusing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• New Capital → Changchun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

New Capital should not redirect to Changchun because Changchun is just one of many places in the world that would be called a new capital as regions and countries have built or moved capital in the past and continue in some countries and administrative divisions of countries. Plus Changchun became capital of Jilin Province in 1954 so even though it is technically the new capital of Jilin Province replacing Jilin City, 64 years ago is way too long ago to call it a new capital. --Otis the Texan (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing. (1) Brasilia is described as a "new capital", and we have the article Proposed new capital of Egypt. (2) The term could also mean new money. Narky Blert (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. I was thinking of organizations called New Capital as well, but those are non-notable organizations. This is different from New capital of Egypt. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a literal translation of the former name Xinjing as mentioned in the lead of the target, and appears frequently in print [1]. Also, per WP:DIFFCAPS, the proper noun capitalisation distinguishes it from the generic concepts of "a new capital city for a country" or "new capital funds" or whatever. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WikiLinks are case-sensitive. Wikipedia searches are not. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 28 March 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.

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) 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Touse → Disturbance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The title has multiple meanings Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Neelix redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a dictionary word. Either delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary entry touse. No-one's ever going to write an article specifically about noisy disturbances, and there's no good target in Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to en:wikt:touse - The word is on Dictionary sites like Collins English Dictionary[2] and Merriam-Webster[3] (as well as on the Wikitictionary site) so the word obviously exists however I believe it'd be more useful to redirect our readers to Wikitictionary, As a side note 99% of Neelix redirects are useless however there is that 1% that aren't and this being that 1%. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per below - The pageviews are awful (roughly 1 a day with 3 being here and there) and that's obviously because it's not being used .... Unless we keep every dictionary term here then I see no point in keeping. –Davey2010^Talk 10:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Retarget to wiktionary per User:Davey2010. I think that's the most reasonable target --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no links from any current articles, and messes up searches for tous as well as possible tousle expansions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AngusWOOF. Soft-redirects should be used sparingly, e.g. in cases mentioned at WP:POINTWIKT. Search results already show Wiktionary excerpts in the sidebar, making them more convenient than a soft-redirect which you have to click. Various articles also mention people with the surname Touse or similar, and readers might be searching for bits of information about one of them, instead of a dictionary definition. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 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.

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. Arguments for keep take the day — plausibility is all that's needed, not actual use. Bkell makes a good argument, but I imagine most people outside of OKC and NYC might not know/care. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oklahoma, Oklahoma → Oklahoma City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think anyone ever calls Oklahoma City just "Oklahoma." This redirect has no history, and the only incoming links are from two talk pages: one where someone says the name "Oklahoma, Oklahoma" is ridiculous, and one where someone suspects the state was mistakenly entered as a town name. I am proposing deletion as cleanup of an unlikely synonym. —Bkell (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't New York, New York. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only context this seems to make sense is as an arbitrary cut-out of a larger sentence (such as, say, "University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City University, and Oklahoma State University all offer new programs"). Deletion seems like a no-brainer here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a plausible error for someone not familiar with the city, especially by way of analogy with New York City. Maybe someone would be trying to find Oklahoma (Rodgers and Hammerstein song) based on its opening words. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a RS that confirms this usage, such as [4] for OKC, OK AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not asserting this is a valid alternative name. I'm saying it's a plausible search term, because other places named "Foo City, Foo" are sometimes referred to as "Foo, Foo". I know no one calls this city "Oklahoma, Oklahoma" as well as you do, but we're a global encyclopedia that caters to millions who don't know. Absent another place where we might point this, I think we do them a disservice by leaving this red. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it's actually the other way around: some cities named "Foo" that are in a district or country also named "Foo" are sometimes called "Foo City" in order to distinguish the city from the larger region. Compare the official name of New York City, "City of New York," to the official name of Oklahoma City, "City of Oklahoma City." The word "City" in the phrase "New York City" is just a distinguishing qualifier, whereas in the phrase "Oklahoma City" it is an indispensable part of the name. It's fine to call New York City just "New York" because that's really its name, but nobody calls Oklahoma City just "Oklahoma" because that isn't its name. —Bkell (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BDD. I agree it may be plausible by analogy of those familiar with New York City as "New York, New York". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:28, 30 March 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.

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. Looks like some of the other years have been pointed to the larger olympic event (more likely to have an article) so that plus the retarget suggestions makes this reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2028 Summer Paralympics → 2028 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2026 Winter Paralympics → 2026 Winter Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect may be seen as misleading because the target offers no information on the 2028 Summer Paralympics. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the article 2026 Winter Paralympics re-directing to the 2026 Winter Olympics article. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two connected, but different things. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Summer Paralympic Games and Winter Paralympic Games until enough information is available to have articles on these events. Iffy★Chat -- 10:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as per Iffy. Waterco4 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 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.

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 Withdraw per EurekaLott's findings. However, it seems like the page should be it's own disambiguation page instead of a redirect, but that can be handled outside of RfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Augland (disambiguation) → Aukland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No incoming links. Implausible search term with "(disambiguation)" in the name. —Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a WP:INTDABLINK for the hatnote on the Augland article. (I just added the hatnote, so the redirect wasn't in use when nominated.) The articles at Aukland, Lindesnes and Aukland, Torridal say they're also known as Augland. - Eureka Lott 17:37, 25 March 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.

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) 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• True Ute → Paiute  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this a valid target, or should this refer to something else? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neelix creation, unsupported by the target article. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Ute as used by multiple organizations from alumni of Utah Utes to Native American Utes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete X1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The additional of "True" makes this unhelpful and not worth keeping. Any particular linguistic, ethnic, racial, etc group can be labeled in such a way ("True Scotsman" comes to mind given the famous logical fallacy name). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 1 April 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.