Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. For reference desk, see Wikipedia:Reference desk.

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	1	1
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	29	10	39
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

• If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
• If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
• If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss the proper target.
• Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD

• The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
• Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
• If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
• Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
• RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
• Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
• In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

• a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
• if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in article text because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: {{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} {{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template {{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

• Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list

November 9

Template:Please stop move

• Template:Please stop move → Template:Uw-move3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From the editor who created WPT:NFCC, I think the only users who would use a template redirect are editors who use templates and they would be more than acquainted with their names rather than the phrase, "Please stop move". This might be acceptable if it was reader-facing but most readers don't know templates exist, much less be searching for a specific one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

After posting this, I got a red alert message about this entry because it involved a template redirect. But I think that this discussion should happen here, rather than at TFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

ChinaFile

• ChinaFile → Asia Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "file" at the target article. Was created with the edit summary "website of", but this is not accounted for at the target. The website that IS given, for Asia Society, is asiasociety.org. Without any context this redirect is unhelpful, and misleading as people who search this term are not given the context as to why they ended up here. Maybe a reader was looking for a file about China? No answers, currently. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

ChinaFile is an online magazine published by the Asia Society. (See https://asiasociety.org/center-us-china-relations/chinafile) W9793 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The magazine is mentioned in the lead now, but it would probably help to provide further context later on in the article too, maybe under Functions. Reconrabbit 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Does the mention in the article influence this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The mention in the article is sufficient to support the redirect; while some more information about ChinaFile might be helpful, as far as we're concerned here at RfD, this is the correct target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per WP:HEY. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

November 8

Fpoon

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

This is terminology that was created primarily from a Key & Peele sketch. Searching for "fpoon" brings up exclusively K&P related videos and the urban dictionary citing them. While this might be a portmanteau of "fork" and "spoon", this is not a widely accepted or cited synonym, and is not mentioned at the target. The common and non-confusing name for this subject is "spork"; a lack of pageviews indicate that "fpoon" may be a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, and is likely to confuse readers. Especially so as "fpoon" is not a real word, or particularly grammatical. People who use this term may very well be looking for the Continental Breakfast K&P sketch, lol. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I do know Key & Peele are hardly the first to come up with this portmanteau. My Elementary School came up with this term (to roarous laughter) sometime in the mid 2000's, significantly predating Key & Peele's coining, and I would have to guess we got it from somewhere just as they did. Conceptually, the jump to a inverted portmanteau is pretty simple, and while it may not be a word I draw serious issues with litigating the legitimacy of a word in a Wikipedia RfD log. Considering there is no central authority for accepted language in English, the fact that Googling the term provides several results (no mater how focused on one subject they may be) is, I think, enough of a reason to say it is a word. Beyond all of that, fpoon is no more grammatical then spork, we're just used to spork. (yes, the fp is not a frequently found constant grouping in English, but novel use of a constant group is hardly cause to call something not a word, if it was than vroom, vlog, dreamt, and bulb are all in trouble (vr, vl, mt, and lb respectively)). Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete "It's funny" and "people have come up with it before" are not valid arguments to retain the redirect. There has to be some evidence of common usage to refer to sporks in that way, which there isn't. See also WP:NOTNEO for more details. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Meh, it's a somewhat plausible {{R from incorrect name}}, and its existence potentially prevents this title from being recreated. (That, and I doubt that the invention of a fork with a spoon-like end, like a handle, four-prong with three holes, then curved end, which is what I picture a "fpoon" being, makes any sense to invent.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Delete. Just realized I'm actually thinking of the more likely search term "foon", which is a redirect to a different target that has a hatnote referring readers to Spork. This nominated redirect is nonsense due to the inclusion of the "p". Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I'm shocked foon doesn't redirect to spork, as I've definitely heard that one a lot. Fpoon doesn't seem far off from that, and I don't really think the target is ambiguous... surely Key and Peele aren't the only ones to have ever used the term. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Fieari: I was thinking the same thing about Foon ... and I'm thinking per WP:DIFFCAPS, I agree with your shockedness and am considering retargeting or starting an RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Byron Cemetery

• Byron Cemetery → Byron (disambiguation)#Places  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was an article about a cemetery. Someone thought it was non-notable, so they redirected it to the town it was in. However, then it was pointed out that there are (probably) several Byron Cemeteries. As is we are targeting this to a DAB page that does not mention cemeteries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Restore article and put to AfD to see if this topic is notable. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Restore per -1ctinus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. about half an hour of looking around gave me the byron public cemetery... but also other cemeteries in places named byron, other cemeteries named byron, people who turned into corpses and were buried in one of said cemeteries, and people who kicked the bucket while named byron. none of the results seemed reliable for an article, and no single cemetery got more than 2 results (that weren't obituaries, that is). the closest a "byron cemetery" came to being notable was the byron cemetery and mausoleum in fairborn, ohio, but even then, that specific cemetery is not mentioned in the city's article, and i still didn't find anything reliable about it. all of this is to say that i don't think there would be enough to work with for a dab

less prejudice against afd than usual though, seeing as it hasn't been a redirect for as long as anthem had been in development cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Manual of Style:

• Manual of Style: → Wikipedia:Manual of Style  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If this were the actual namespace, I'm pretty sure that it would be empty. Pretty sure most would just use WP:MOS. Even typing MOS: without anything in front of it would still get you to where you want to be. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Style guide, which is where Manual of style already points, and which already has a hatnote pointing to the WP:MOS. BD2412 T 20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

if retargeted, this will probably become an implausible colon. if not retargeted, it will be a crime against the shift key. delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per BD2412 -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, implausible colon. Veverve (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete due to the colon. Not a namespace real or fake (unlike "MOS:".) Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Bibi the butcher

• Bibi the butcher → Benjamin Netanyahu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although this "nickname" has been thrown around on social media, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment if this is kept, it should be properly capitalized, making the primary form "Bibi the Butcher" and this an avoided double redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. There is an exception to our guideline on neutral redirects if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, but a search of journalistic sources suggests this term does not appear to have met that threshold of establishment. I found it mentioned in letters to the editor and in comment sections but not in the prose of a journalist or scholar. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep (also create and tag per the ip). This is a widely used nickname such that people will be looking for the name here to find out who it refers to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Retarget

• Wikipedia:Retarget → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirect? I guess we gotta retarget the retarget. That being said, there is some basis for keeping if WP:RfD explains retargeting better than the former. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It is super bizarre, and I just realized, that Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't seem to contain a clear section or set of instructions for how to retarget an existing redirect. The words "retarget" and "change" are mentioned a few times, but not in context in a way where a reader searching this redirect would be satisfied with the excerpt where these words are mentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, if you know how to create a redirect, you can probably figure out how to retarget one. You just change the target page in brackets to the one you want.

Probably doesn't need more than 2-3 sentences to explain. ApexParagon (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Good articles on Wikipedia

• Good articles on Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Good articles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just checking to see if consensus on GA WP:XNRs have changed. This one was created more recently. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the readership has no idea the difference between GA/FA/A and this just misleads them into thinking these are the "good" articles, missing out the FA and A class articles -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. As a mainspace title pointing where it does, the redirect is WP:POV considering WP:CLUE#Readers. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment which is a mainspace article that includes an explanation of good articles on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

OFM Sykes

• OFM Sykes → List of Surrey County Cricket Club players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article. Potentially non notable. Blethering Scot 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. He is a first-class cricketer who plays for Surrey, [1] so the target is appropriate. He may not be notable enough for his own page just yet, but he could still be added to the list (some of the people in the list are without pages), and seeing as he's only 19, he may well be notable enough for a page soon. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Marzipan joyjoys

• Marzipan joyjoys → Products produced from The Simpsons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned in the article, despite a page merge. Xeroctic (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Great Depression in the Middle East

• Great Depression in the Middle East → Great Depression#Middle East and North Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target section doesn't exist, and there doesn't seem adequate information in the target article to refine this redirect in a way that guarantees readers will find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Steel1943: This section explains that the Great Depression had severe effects in countries across the Middle East, and describes its effects in Persia and Turkey.

If this redirect page were deleted, readers might assume that this subject was too unimportant to have an article or section written about it. Jarble (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary; if this were a red link, that would prime editors to know that an article about the topic hasn't yet been written and could be written. While we can't necessarily know what a reader would think, it's unavoidable that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The redirect to the by countries section isn't really what a reader would be looking for, I think. Persia and Turkey are not ciphers for an entire region of many countries, cultures, and conditions. If this topic is notable (it could well be; I just don't off the top of my head know much about the economic history of the region during that time), leaving it as a red link rather than a redirect will be more useful for cuing editors to know that there's not yet coverage of the subject on the wiki. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

• Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam → November 2024 Amsterdam attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Holocaust in the Netherlands, where actual pogroms happened, is a better target than a WP:RECENT football hooligan clash. मल्ल (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands or delete. The Hooligan clash which was instigated by the Israeli supporters who where chanting let the IDF win to fuck the Arabs has nothing to do with pogroms. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Holocaust in the Netherlands indeed, similar to the plural version of this redirect. Generally speaking a pogrom has to be initiated or at least condoned by local authorities, which even the most cynical amongst us couldn't say happened here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete "Pogrom" is not an established or a widely used term, looking at the coverage of this incident WP:RNEUTRAL. Retarget to the suggested article is also fine. — hako9 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, but I suggest adding a {{for}} hatnote (not a {{redirect}} hatnote, for language reasons) to that target. It is supposedly being used in prominent sources (and probably social media but I'm not on Twitter) to refer to the recent ethnic hooliganism, but I agree that it's inappropriate and insensitive to refer to this as a pogrom when actual state-sanctioned pogroms actually happened here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Redirects are navigation aids. With the target article saying that the President of Israel characterized the attack as a pogrom, that's sufficient to make it a reasonable search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of the redirects is covered in WP:RPURPOSE. The President of Turkey characterized the president of Israel as a "genocidal murderer". Is that sufficient to make it a reasonable search term, and therefore, a redirect? M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Murgh

• Murgh → Chicken as food  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

created as "urdu for 'chicken'", but apparently only sees use in the context of indian curries, and doesn't seem to be mentioned outside of the page history, the previous discussion, and butter chicken. see also murg i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Butter chicken (incidentally commonly known as "butter chikkin"). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
  
• Delete per nom and WP:FORRED. Retargeting as suggested above would be inappropriate too, since there's no particular reason to target this dish as opposed to any other chicken dish. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Chicken, has passed into English usage, see Wiktionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC).
  

  "Murgh" has not passed into English, and even the Wikt entry lists it only in a sense associated with Indian cuisine. So WP:FORRED still applies. Redirecting to "chicken" would be WP:HARMFUL, as it obscures information from the user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the Wiktionary entry does list it as an English word. That it is only used in one context doesn't negate that - plenty of unambiguously English terms are used only in one context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep; the English loanword is specifically used in Indian cookery to refer to chicken prepared for consumption, and not the actual animal-- which is the same use that the far-more-widespread from-French loanwords beef, pork, and mutton have. Those words link to their own pages that talk about the meats' usage in food, rather than the pages for cow, pig, and sheep respectively. Given this, the equivalent chicken as food page is the correct target. A hatnote, though, may be appropriate-- "Murgh" redirects here. For the specific dish known as "Murgh makhani", see butter chicken. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  But it's not English, unlike the others, so this argument falls apart. And such a hatnote would be highly inappropriate for the same reason I gave above -- there are many many dishes whose name on Indian menus would include "murgh"; pointing to just one would make no sense. And before you bring it up, disambiguating would also be wrong as entries would be nothing but WP:PTMs. A reader who doesn't know what "murgh" is will be able to figure out what it is much more easily if the redirect didn't exist, both by the nature of the search results, and the prominent link to Wiktionary. Most people would be confused as to why searching for "murgh" took them to "Chicken as food", which would give them no information that this is a word used in Indian cuisine. A simple definition is much more likely to be useful than a whole-ass article on chicken as food. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  You do realize how much of English is comprised of loanwords (that is, words pulled from other languages), right? How old does a loanword have to be, in your eyes, before it's an English word? Narrowing in on words related to food, Beef, Pork, and Mutton are all from French, as is Café. Spaghetti and Lasagna from Italian. What about Teriyaki, or Hibachi, both from Japanese? Jalapeño and Tortilla from Spanish? Ooh, Murgh is specifically from Indian, what about Chai?

  My point is that people regularly use all of these words in English speech, and if you were to remove ALL the loanwords from English, it'd sound VASTLY different.

  I'll grant you the idea that pointing to only butter chicken in the hatnote might be a bad call-- but only if you can bring up other 'murgh' dishes that have pages on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I do have to point out that the argument runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL- we can't throw our hands in the air because someone MIGHT make a page on a second or third 'murgh' dish in the future. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Retarget to Wiktionary - The discussion above has convinced me that the search is plausible, but also that we don't have any information on what the user would be looking for... namely, what does murgh mean? For that, the wiktionary entry is, in fact, the best source of useful information to the user. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  In case it wasn't clear above, I still specifically oppose a wiktionary redirect, again, because it hides in-site search results from the user....search results which contain a Wiktionary link right at the top already anyway! Let the search feature do its job. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note that search results are not guaranteed to include a Wiktionary link and can be several clicks/taps away depending on multiple factors (including how you navigated here, what device you are using and whether you have the ability to create a new article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Search results DO include a Wiktionary link, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you read what I actually wrote you will see there is nothing dishonest about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I note your objection, but doing the search myself, it comes up with a number of WP:PTMs that don't really provide information on the word murgh by itself, which makes me still believe that wiktionary is better suited. If they really want the search results, soft retargets provide that option. (Example soft redirect for reference what it looks like: Kiss-in) Fieari (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Lunamann. The evidence shows that, contrary to the IP's assertions, this is an English word, but even if it weren't the extensive use in English language environments would make this a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence!? The existence of this redirect is downright misleading and WP:ASTONISHing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, we... we get it, you don't think this word has actually passed into English yet, and you're getting increasingly angry that everyone else says it has. Please don't bludgeon us over it 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No mention of this term at the target, so we investigate FORRED considerations. If the word means "Chicken" in Urdu, then any target BESIDES chicken (equaling murgh) would be surprising. However, it apparently has a different definition in English, where it specifically relates to culinary purposes... but such purposes are nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia, so there is no onwiki verification. There is no mention of "Murgh" or "Urdu" at either Chicken, or Chicken as food. Typically I would accept a soft redirect to wiktionary, but we have to remember Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This means that not only do we forbid articles from being simple dictionary definitions here, but ALSO it means that we don't create redirects for every single dictionary word on Wikipedia to send over to Wiktionary. If someone types in "Murgh" onto WikiPEDIA, it seems they'd be looking for an ENCYCLOPEDIC entry rather than a dictionary one. We have plenty of articles about murgh on Wikipedia, such as Murgh makhani and Murgh cholay. If someone wanted to look up the definition of "murgh", they'd use a dictionary, not rely on a redirect that can occasionally lie. Especially so without any verification at the target page, or any logical reason for going to a page where its not mentioned. I took a gander at the wiktionary, and the info we have at Wikt:murgh is quite subpar (i.e. a singular word). As it stands, it does not provide benefit to readers, who would receive the same benefit and more from a Wikipedia search result. A search result, which reveals what encyclopedic topics related to "murgh" that we DO have here. The partial-title matches are probably better than assuming people want to "use an encyclopedia to read a dictionary". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, retarget to Afghan cuisine#Chicken where it is discussed as an Afghan term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note that anyone searching for the Indian cuisine would be WP:SURPRISEd by the Afghan cuisine target, so that might also be a bad target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say "someone looking for a topic we don't cover on Wikipedia, would be WP:surprised if they ended up at a topic we cover on Wikipedia". That's not at all covered in the essay that you linked to, which states "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read." Nobody would be shocked when they search the word "murgh", and see the only place where the topic of "murgh" is directly defined and discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. in Afghan cuisine). It would be different if there was no Afghan mention either, but there is.

We go by what we have, not what we want to, but don't have. If the Indian cuisine target is so important, someone would have added something related to that topic, to Wikipedia, at any point in time for the last two decades, or during the course of the discussion. Or in the future! When something is added for this Indian cuisine content, the term can be disambiguated and new redirects can be created. (Unless there IS currently-existing content related to Indian Murgh, but nobody seems to be stating that to be true. I have not found any that discuss the Indian terminology, on Wikipedia.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Except you yourself have already linked to articles that discuss individual indian murgh dishes, Butter chicken and chana masala (which is the target of murgh cholay). Add to that, Murgh musallam, and Tandoori chicken, which-- while there isn't currently a 'murgh' redirect to it, its own article and the article for Indian cuisine#Punjab describe it as such. Clearly, the individual dishes themselves are worthy of having their own articles that could be linked to in a disambuigation, so I am honestly personally shocked that Indian murgh itself HASN'T been discussed somewhere. Perhaps we simply haven't found it yet? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are Indian topics such as Murgh musallam and Murgh cholay which exist. However, those can be navigated to by typing in the full name of their respective foods. It would not make sense to send Murgh to either or any of those, as a partial title match. Hence deletion is also on the menu, pun intended. :v On that note though, neither "murgh" nor "cholay" is mentioned at Chana masala, so perhaps that should be nominated too.

I feel less strongly towards deletion now that I know about the Afghan term, which is the only location where the term is discussed on Wikipedia, and thereby should draw the target by default. It is acceptable to have the word "murgh" as it is used in murgh musallam, be of a different origin than the target of "murgh" as it is used in Afghan cuisine#Chicken, which even that lists it as "murgh-e", but still better than nothing at all.

Based on the evidence present to readers in Wikipedia mainspace, only Afghan cuisine could be the primary topic of "murgh", on the basis that it is the ONLY topic covered (individually) on Wikipedia (as is the case while I'm writing this). I'm also opposed to a hatnote, especially if this redirect points to Afghan cuisine. What would a hatnote even say? "Murgh redirects here. For the term used as Indian cuisine, please see chicken as food which contains none of the information you're looking for about 'Murgh as Indian cuisine'"? Maybe at this point, we could just disambiguate something? But it would be quite hard to justify disambiguating a list of food WP:PTMs, which such PTMs are not supposed to be listed on dabs, but I digress... Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Also re: the last sentence, this has been nominated since October 2nd. All the !keepers wanted to keep, regardless of it not being mentioned at Chicken as food, or the other suggestions where "murgh" was equally unmentioned. No evidence of usage for the Indian term of "murgh" has been aired beyond wiktionary. Now we're looking for Indian usages of "murgh" onwiki, only when the Afghan term has been brought to light? I've done a pretty hefty search myself and turned up nothing, but the best part is that if a mention is found for the Indian term later down the line, the redirect can be retargeted and/or recreated upon the revelation of such evidence, which does not even have to occur this week or this month. But in the meantime, we know what we know, and what I know is that it is mentioned on Afghan cuisine. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra — talk — c 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of chicken dishes. They are annotated link entries, but I guess no harm in embellishing the entries with local names, like how I did for butter chicken. Oppose retarget to Afghan cuisine, which is on the fringes of South Asian cuisine where this is popular. Jay 💬 19:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try please. Delete, keep or retarget? Since there is no update the agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 13:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Snoutlet

• Snoutlet → Heterocrossa eriphylla  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned at the target (see history there for why I removed it). Was originally created somewhere else, which also has no mention. There is one on WP, but it's to a mere listing of an apparently minor character (unsourced) voice credit in an as yet unreleased movie, and doesn't need a redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget back to Mario & Luigi: Brothership. That's literally a major character in the game's plot and the game just released so there wouldn't be a plot summary just yet. He will definitely get a mention once the editors do a write-up on the plot. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Bleach (games)

• Bleach (games) → List of Bleach video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bleach video games → List of Bleach video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Bleach games → List of Bleach video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ancient redirects that are neither notable synonyms for that article nor is it used in any articles for the last 18 years. Should be deleted. For the first redirect, edit history is not notable either with only two edits and both being moves. The other two were created as redirects and never actually used. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete "Bleach (games)" as unusable -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete "Bleach games" as horribly ambiguous -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

• Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC → Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#topic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this redirect should be retargeted to where WP:TOPIC and WP:OFFTOPIC lead, i.e. to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Stay on topic.

Meanwhile, I have added a little note. Veverve (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as is. WP:OFFTOPIC is for content, WP:STAYONTOPIC is for discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. There are two destinations for Stay on topic based on the subject of articles and discussion, with both the entry at Talk page guidelines and at Writing better articles essay. There is therefore no clear primary topic for this redirect to target. It otherwise shouldn't be redirected from guidelines to an essay about guidelines either. CNC (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per CNC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thailan

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

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete This ia plausible typo, but not a plausible misspelling. It might also be confused as a last name[https://namediscoveries.com/names/thailan Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom. you can type that last d, i believe in you! also, i guess someone would have already had to type 7 letters to get to this redirect, as opposed to just clicking on the result that pops up as early as the first letter cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Fortnit

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

Casting any Pandora arguments aside, I don't think this is a plausible typo. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom. possibly even ambiguous with fortnight cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sputnik (serach engine)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Banorant

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

Apparently, someone tagged this as a misspelling. It's clearly fancruft. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

delete as implausible, but more importantly, as a bad pun cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam

• Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam → Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect doesn't direct to a pogrom -- haminoon (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, pogrom = Riot, given that there were assaults, it could be assumed that there are riots in the area. For the record, there is currently a discussion on the target article's talk page about moving to November 2024 Amsterdam attacks. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete, - is inflammatory and ignores context HorrorEnvironment8 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you have registered today and the only edit you did id on this page. Do you mind to elaborate your point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• merge at minimum, as this contains RS-supported relevant information not in the other article. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• merge what little there is, place a redirect if really necessary, but I think due to how general the title is, that due to WP:RECENT within a few months it will be back here to be deleted due to lack of precision. TiggerJay (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and merge, as many RS call it this way:

1. The Jerusalem Post (1, 2, 3, 4)
2. The Times of Israel (1, 2, 3, 4)
3. Reuters (1 - quote)
4. JSN (1)
5. New York Post] (1 - quote)
6. The New York Sun (1, 2)
7. BBC (1, 2, 3)
8. Israel Hayom (1)
9. Arutz Sheva (1, 2)
10. The Jewish Chronicle (1)
11. The Spectator (1)
12. The Forward (1)
13. Ynet (1)
14. The Jewish Press (1)
15. Newsmax (1, 2)
16. Legal Insurrection (1)
17. Townhall (1)
18. Israel Today (1)
19. And more.

With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Holocaust in the Netherlands, would be much more proper than a WP:RECENT football hooligan riot. (Same as the singular redirect.)

Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

NJHS

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: NJHS (disambiguation) moved back to NJHS

2029 in spaceflight

• 2029 in spaceflight → 2020s in spaceflight#2029  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No relevant information on 2029 in spaceflight at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think it's possible for us, or anyone, to foresee in any particular detail what would happen to spaceflight in 2029, or any industry for that matter. Duckmather (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of planned future spaceflight launches#2029? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Tavix's idea has merit, but spaceflight isn't exclusive to launches, leaving it so readers may not find what they are looking for if they are forwarded to that article section. Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that there is nothing there yet. A redlink would be fine. TiggerJay (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hat Simulator

• Hat Simulator → Team Fortress 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hat Simulator 2 → Team Fortress 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possible WP:FANCRUFT TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This is a meme-y way to refer to the game, that isn't limited to the fanbase-- Valve themselves sometimes refer to the game as a "war-themed hat simulator" in the ad copy for updates, with the first example I can find being the Mac Update of June 2010. Given I can't think of any other game or application that could be referred to this way, I'd say we keep. That said, my 'keep' would be a lot stronger if a mention were added to the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not mentioned at target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, no mention at target. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

PKS 0451-28

• PKS 0451-28 → Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a part of the target list, but it is one of 8000 and isn't mentioned as one of the notable ones there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the author BLAR'd the article into a redirect as nonnotable; speedy delete as author blanking page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Declining speedy as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why as vandalism? The author [2] converted to a redirect [3] with the comment it was nonnotable. All other edits to the page seem to be by bots or for copyediting. This would seem to be viable as a DB-author implied deletion criterion applicable. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, either CSD: G7 for speedy deletion will applied for criteria? Suggest if you want to enhancing the RfD's deletion. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Restore article and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. It's an article before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The author [4] of the article BLAR'd [5] it. So it seems the author doesn't think it's notable, per the edit comment on the BLAR. There doesn't seem to be other edits except bots and compyediting. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

    The author didn't blank the redirect, though. They redirected the article and have expressed no desire to delete the redirect. G7 does not apply to the current revision. C F A 💬 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Tesonet

• Tesonet → Tom Okman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage creation of the article. High trafic redirect with the only fact present being the year of establishment. Respublik (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [6] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• An IP just removed the discussion link in order to write a description of the company in promotional language. If they can do it now, what's stopping a legitimate user or IP from doing so? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The Human Aquarium

• The Human Aquarium → Hadji Ali  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It doesn't seem that "The Human Aquarium" is more likely to refer to Hadji Ali than to Mac Norton, whose article mentions the nickname in the lead, while Ali's only mentions the name six paragraphs down. Paul_012 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment what Paul_012 suggest above seems accurate, so this redirect appears to be misplaced, and perhaps a DAB page is needed instead. While Hadhji appears to have more views, Mac seems to be better known for that term, and they're both from a good long time ago -- so I'm not seeing that either is clearly the primary target. TiggerJay (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

DQw4w9WgXcQ

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

IRAS 13349+1428

• IRAS 13349+1428 → IRAS 13349+2438  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page and unable to find anything on Google. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also note that when created the edit summary was "Redirecting IRAS 13349+1428 to IRAS 13349+2438 since the designation does not exist on any databases" which seems like a reason not to have created this. If it doesn't exist why would anyone search it and why target it here? A7V2 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  @A7V2: I guess someone clicked on it somewhere on Wikipedia? There are dozens of Wikipedia articles that link(ed) to the misspelled redirect. Template:List of Seyfert galaxies, which is used on every article about Seyfert galaxies, has used the misspelled designation since 2015, and continued to use it until I corrected the template two minutes ago. Renerpho (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and keep. Even though the redirect is relatively new, this misspelling has existed on Wikipedia for almost 10 years. There's no telling if anyone saw (and used) the wrong name. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Also, just to be sure: There's nothing at all near coordinates 13h34.9m +14°28' (B1950.0),[7] ruling out the possibility that someone might be looking for an actual object with that name. Renerpho (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah makes sense. Since it seems to be unambiguous, happy to keep in that case. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: See above for an explanation why this redirect exists. Do you still think it should be deleted? Renerpho (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think waiting for inputs from a couple of more editors will not hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I am asking because this discussion is now eight days old -- one day over the usual deadline. We could close it, rather than waiting for someone to relist it, if all the arguments have been heard. I take that to mean you still think there's more to discuss? Renerpho (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This decision should not be left to a person with my level of astronomy knowledge. Like I said, waiting a week or two more will not hurt since "no consensus" is equivalent to "keep". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this galaxy we created out of human error. It was a redlink from 2015 until last month. Now that Renerpho has removed it from the template, we should not retain this erroneous galaxy. If ST11 (who added it to the template in the first place) says this is a genuine galaxy, he may add it back to the template, but it will remain a redlink until we have some info on it, or if it is an alternate name, it may be recreated. Jay 💬 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Jay, I'd agree with you completely if this human error had been a recent one. But at 10 years old, I think the chance for it to have "transcended Wikipedia" is too high (non-zero). There's no harm in keeping it. Renerpho (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is 1 month old, hence recently created. What was 10 years old, was page content that existed as a redlink, and we fix page content all the time. Jay 💬 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Implausible typos should be fixed, not created as redirects. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Pretty sure that's a typo, and typoes like this shouldn't be redirects. Procyon117 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is looking like a No consensus situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Putting wedge

• Putting wedge → Golf club  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21 § Putting wedge – no consensus

Over two years later, let's try this again: delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned and per WP:REDLINK per my comments in the previous discussion's nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't it just be refined to #chipper, per the last RfD? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ape Escape Racer

• Ape Escape Racer → Epics (company)#Ape Escape Racing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An extremely novel misnomer of an unofficial translated name of a Japan-only game. Is orphaned, which makes its unnecessary existence even less meaningful. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Stone Jesus

• Stone Jesus → John 8#Jesus' dialogue with the Jews who had believed in Him (8:31–59)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I Googled "Stone Jesus" and most of the material that came up was about the resurrection of Christ. I just want to get some consensus about where this redirect should point. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Off the top of my head, and likely most plausible, searches for "Jesus" + "Stone" could be wanting to find: statues of Jesus made out of stone, the story of the stone being rolled away from his tomb, or his statement of "let he who has no sin cast the first stone". As a command-tense verb, it could refer to any one of the multiple times... (medium has an article saying there were 8 occasions) ...that people tried to kill him for what he said. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• CommentThis is about the command of the opponents of Jesus to stone him for perceived braggadocio of "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).Arbeiten8 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

stone to death as vague. could refer to jesuses made of stone, or any of the wacky histories he has with stones (at least 5 if my memory isn't failing me) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per cogsan TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as per cogsan TiggerJay (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Jimboboii

• Jimboboii → 2022 Buffalo shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be one of the social media usernames of the perpetrator. Not mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete especially without a reference in the article, this seems to be a needless redirect. TiggerJay (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Lanyard class

• Lanyard class → Professional–managerial class  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have been unable to find sources that describe the Professional–managerial class as the "lanyard class", which could also refer to other class groups. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The phrases are used as synonyms in the Niskanen Center piece I linked in the edit summary:

Graeber suggests that the electoral collapse of social-democratic and worker’s parties in Europe is a result of a “revolt of the caring classes” against the “proceduralism” of the “professional-managerial class” for whom “rules and regulations, flow charts, quality reviews, audits and PowerPoints that form the main substance of their working life inevitably color their view of politics or even morality.” [...] Warren’s “I have a plan for that!” slogan appeals mainly to the PowerPoint masters of the lanyard class, not the people who have to navigate the byzantine maze of their oversight.

and also in the Telegraph:

...managerial class getting tax perks to feel good in their shiny new electric vehicles, while the manual classes... It’s the lanyard-wearing boss class who are enjoying the perks of subsidised electric vehicles...

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Mothra Leo

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

Mothra Leo is a fan name and its simply a rumor, besides if its a rebirth trilogy, the Mothra should be named "MOTHRA", not Leo, otherwise Toho should've changed the names of the trilogy to "Birth of Mothra Leo". 121.45.246.200 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - @121.45.246.200 does have a point though, even if I did read those three films articles in my point of view or someone else's point of view, they'd be like "Who the hell is Leo?", but I'm not a Mothra expert though, only a Godzilla expert, so yeah, I am agreeing with @121.45.246.200, someone might need to get this IP a scholarship or some sort of award. I don't know, I'm overthinking this. EIther way, I'm leaning towards delete

GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

November 7

Wikipedia:OPENLETTER

• Wikipedia:OPENLETTER → Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There have been multiple open letters on Wikipedia (e.g. 1), and there likely will be others in the future long after this controversy passes, so it doesn't make much sense for this shortcut to go to this particular one. Sdkb ^talk 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. E_F⁵ 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Disambiguate per below I'm not familiar on how redirect discussions work, but I'd suggest changing the shortcut from WP:OPENLETTER to WP:OPENLETTER2024 for this specific open letter or something similar.❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:2024OPENLETTER used instead. Disambiguate per comments below. CNC (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete 2024OPENLETTER and OPENLETTER2024 both now exist, and those two should suffice. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Why not dabify? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per nominator and all the "delete" comments. This isn't the article space; a disambiguation page would be proper here (or retargeting this to a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Agree that disambiguate is the best course of action. It make be better structured as a list rather than a formal WP:DAB page, but a page which hosts a list of open letters would be beneficial and this would be a natural shortcut. (Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter is another such letter.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate as there were, are, and will be more in the future. Tavantius (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate — This is not the first open letter to WMF nor will it be the last. Disambiguation seems to be the most reasonable course of action. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate, obviously. Paradoctor (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate per above. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

History of the United States (2008–2024)

• History of the United States (2008–2024) → History of the United States (2008–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is the result of a bad page move but I don't think any CSD criteria applies to it. It is the result of an editor writing a new article that states that 2024 ushered a new era into American history. The article has now been moved to Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons Liz gave. Nobody's going to look for an article by that name. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, given the scope of the redirect is present in the target article, and then some starting 2025. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - whether this redirect would be useful is just based on WP:CRYSTALBALL BugGhost🦗👻 08:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here since the date range in the redirect is included in the scope of the target. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's true that the date range is contained in the target - my point (which I admittedly didn't phrase well) is that whether this range (2008-2024) is a relevant set of bookends is currently impossible to determine. BugGhost🦗👻 00:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm trying to say is that's not relevant. I've seen several articles with incoming redirects that include date ranges which the target article includes, but does not entirely exclusive to. For example, see the list of incoming links to "List of Netflix Original films". Steel1943 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone using this search term will find the content they are looking for at the target. We gain nothing by making things harder for them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Who would be using this as a search term? Is it generally considered that American history ended in 2024? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Mongola

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Ambigous, could be aiming for Mongols (A and S are next to each other on qwerty keyboard). BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per BugGhost, ambiguous typo with both "Mongols" (typo by adjacent key substitution) and "Mongolia" (typo by omission) both of which are likely forms of typo to occur -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Waliugi

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Plausible misspelling, simple transposition BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a misspelling, but a typo, and typos shouldn't have redirects -- letter transpositions can occur in any word in any position, and there's no particular reason to have this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think the assumption that everyone knows the correct spelling of Waluigi, a fictional video game character who's name is based off a non-English first name, is a bit of a stretch BugGhost🦗👻 00:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned immediately below, there is no phonetic explanation for this misspelling. It's much more likely a typo, and I find a comparable number of google hits for other transpositions, such as "waluiig" and "wauligi". I'm sure you could do the same for just about any word, but that doesn't mean we should keep such redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  the pronunciation becomes way different, and the placement of the l and i (which is to say not glued together) is pretty easy to notice, so i'm not really feeling this one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per IP. There is no plausible phonetic explanation. Unlikely misspelling, each are different from typos. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above, especially considering that Liugi doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom. waaaa cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Counrty

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

delete. possibly also ambiguous with county cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - per cogsan, ambiguous BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per cogsan, ambiguous with "county" by keysmash typo with adjacent key addition, and "country" with adjacent character transposition, both common forms of typo classes -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Kentuchy

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment looks like it could be an OCR error or a pronunciation spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Reccomend

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

Ok this misspelling has like two errors. I don't think that's very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Plausible misspelling, common enough to have its own wikitionary page BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We should not be promoting misspellings with multiple errors, such as the similar "ocassion", another misspelling with one "c" too many and one too few of the following consonant. Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Where are we "promoting" it? It's a redirect, not an article title BugGhost🦗👻 08:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Seems plausible to me, as it's one of those words where a reader could be asking themselves "is it double c or double m?". --Joy (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and mark as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Recommend. This is a very common, unambiguous spelling error (indeed one I've made myself more than once), the redirect is not causing any harm but does provide value. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Gardern

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not a plausible phonetic misspelling as claimed above. A very small number of google hits, the majority of which seem to be some weird spammy automatically generated fake storefront stuff. The rest are more likely typos. Creator has a long history of making dubious redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as {{r from misspelling}}: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=gardern&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1 Paradoctor (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep a very plausible phonetic misspelling of rhotic accent pronunciations. While many of the google hits are shopping sites, they are not all the same one, showing evidence of quite widespread use. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Stephoscope

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Plausible phonetic misspelling BugGhost🦗👻 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, implausible. A very small number of google hits, the top of which are about a podcast with this as a punny, but intentional name, a far more likely search attempt. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  For me, google shows 5 sites using the spelling "stephoscope" incorrectly, and then the podcast - which has 4 reviews and 11 episodes, the last of which was published nearly 4 years ago. On other search engines it doesn't even appear on the first page. Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. BugGhost🦗👻 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Stethoscope is far more likely to be the intended topic. Doubtful. It's a reasonably common word, sounds different, and as I just noted, has a very small number of google hits, demonstrating implausibility (also note a whopping 0 occurrences in the ngrams corpora -- plausible misspellings usually show up there at least a little). Also note the creator of this has a history of making bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  If it were 0 search engine results, then it would demonstrate implausibility. The fact there are results shows that it is a mistake people make. For this (and the other spelling based RFD's we are disagreeing on) I'm not saying we should rename the article or anything, just that I can imagine someone misspelling the word this way. If someone types "stephoscope" into the search bar, they are without a doubt attempting to get to Stethoscope - if we delete this redirect we gain nothing, and if we keep it literally nothing bad happens. I think crusades to delete harmless redirects are a waste of everyone's time, and are far more annoying than the redirects themselves. There is no benefit to deleting this. BugGhost🦗👻 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Monterrey La Raza (current)

• Monterrey La Raza (current) → Monterrey La Raza (2007–2010)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Outdated title. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete. This is the former title of the page and may have been accurate from when it was created (in 2006, interestingly, when there was talk of this team being created) to when the team folded in 2010, but it's still an outdated one. Regardless, for some reason, the redirect still seems to be getting a surprisingly high number of pageviews (like 61 last year and 79 this year). Regards, SONIC678 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Relable sources

• Wikipedia:Relable sources → Wikipedia:Reliable sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Was considering nominating this one, wasn't 100% about it, but since it's here, let's get this done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED

• Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED → Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling created due to an incoming link that probably should have just been corrected rather than having this redirect created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Found it and fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Pauletta Brupbakher

• Pauletta Brupbakher → Paulette Brupbacher  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Double typo, unlikely search term, originated from a Wikidata error apparently Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Double error (on my part): turns out it wasn't a wikidata error, but rather the spelling of her name transliterated from Russian. Since she was Russian (ish), it makes sense that we had it that way originally. I've fixed the Wikidata item and added the Russian spelling to the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't this be a valid redirect as a reasonable transliteration? czar 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Racially motivated violence

• Racially motivated violence → Ethnic conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Only four articles currently make use of this redirect. In all four cases, "hate crime" would be a more appropriate target than "ethnic conflict". So I suggest retargeting the redirect to "hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Racial violence redirects here too, should the two be considered together? Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Da. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Blind tasting

• Blind tasting → Wine tasting#Blind tasting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous name, as you can do a blind tasting of any alcohol. Plausible search terms for this include Blind wine tasting and Beer tasting#Blind tasting, so I suggest converting this into a DAB page. No evidence that wine tasting is the primary topic for this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to taste test and add other "blind" tasting subjects there, rather than creating a new disambiguation for this subset of the same thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to taste test per Ivanvector. This isn't limited to alcohol, it's commonly done for colas for example. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

FC Türkiye II

• FC Türkiye II → FC Türkiye Wilhelmsburg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This could refer to the B-team of the target club, but it isn't mentioned in that page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - if the other thing this could refer to isn't mentioned on Wikipedia, then the redirect is fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please see WP:RSURPRISE. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Show Business (TV series)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved

Love Me (TV series)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Wikipedia:Picture turorial

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

• It's time to d-d-d-d-duel → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "d-d" at the target article. Per the RCATs, this is apparently a related meme quotation, yet does not appear anywhere as written within the article. People looking for Yu-Gi-Oh! can reach the subject by typing Yugioh. Hyphenating between all the d's, just to reach an undiscussed meme subject, does not seem particularly useful or helpful here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Demonstrably helpful, give the steady daily usage count on the stats page, just in the past month. Unambiguous target. WP:CHEAP. Don't break people's workflow just for the sake of tidyness. Fieari (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Helpful to whom exactly? Personally, I search for a meme expecting information about a meme. 90% of people familiar with the meme know it's from Yu-Gi-Oh (or seems to be that way from [8], where it is discussed on KnowYourMeme). At the very least, readers expect to read about the thing they searched about. So readers get here thinking "oh so the meme is discussed on this page, great!" One then spends the next 50 thousand bytes searching and searching and nope, zero context, zero benefit. We don't need a redirect for "it's time to d-d-d-d-duel" if all it's going to imply is "this term is synonymous with the entire concept of the Yu-Gi-Oh! general topic article, with no specific section or anchor implied."

Memes are novel. I'm not surprised that people WANT to learn about it here, yet still not useful as a 1-to-1 redirect as it currently leaves people lost on a page without any information for their meme search term, and no mention of "meme" at Yu-Gi-Oh. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters. This isn't simply a meme-- it's a direct quotation from the original opening sequence for the English dub of this specific anime, with most meme-ification of this quote simply extending the "d-d-d-d-d-d" stuttery part, or otherwise playing around with it and the Yu-Gi-Oh anime's characters in general. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So, it's a meme then. I'm well aware of the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence in question, and the associated meme and its derivations. It's clearly not a "direct quotation", else this text (hyphens and all) would appear in the episode transcript here: [9]. Regardless, thank you for suggesting a more-related option. But it's still an unmentioned meme. How does this have any bearing on the likelihood of typing a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by a hyphen, followed by a d, followed by "uel"? And all to end up at an article for the series where the meme being sought isn't mentioned, nor any of the meme-spellings? Even in the anime and the video you linked, they stutter like 9 times, so even that aspect isn't accurate within this redirect, and none of It's time to duel, It's time to d-duel, It's time to d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-duel (is nommed), It's time to d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel, It's time to d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-duel exist, or It's time to dduel, It's time to ddduel, It's time to dddduel, or It's time to ddddduel for that matter. Past precedent has indicated that random hyphens inserted into words is not useful, obfuscates the terms that are actually spoken, and makes searches impractical. And at least for these precedent discussions, they were for quotes which appeared at the target, iirc (in an unmodified/natural state that is, I think). The quote is officially "it's time to duel". Anything beyond that, makes it a meme/meme version. Someone committing to the 5 ds/4 hyphens combination is deliberately typing in a meme into the search engine, so if maintained, the content should reflect that. Neither the real version nor any of the meme variations are covered at the new suggested target either, and Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There's It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!, btw. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for finding this hyphens, Hyphenation Expert; imo you have definitely earned the title of "expert in hyphenation" for this one 😌 lol.

  For that redirect, the title stutters 8 times, which that number happens to have a bit more basis in reality, compared to this one which stutters 4. (Side note, the edit summary for that redirect is... certainly interesting...). I'm hesitant to bundle these though, as the redirect you found here at least sounds a bit closer to what occurs in the Yu-Gi-Oh sequence, with the ~correct amount of 8 or 9 ds, so slightly more plausible. There may be a case for deletion there (no other du-du-dus exist), but I think the smaller scope and just one redirect here is fine for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Conerve

• Conerve → Nerve complex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "conerve" at the target article. Possibly a portmanteau of "complex nerve"? But without a definition, is confusing. I'm getting mixed results when I type in "conerve" in search engines, which say something about a "conerve capsule"(?) (but are generally about being one letter off of "conserve"). In any case, without a mention, there is currently nothing suitable for incoming readers using this search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Cotangent_complex#Flat_descent, where it is briefly discussed. It would be good for the Nerve complex article to describe conerves and associated cosimplicial complexes. But until that happens, the bit in Cotangent_complex is probably our best target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cowboy Luttrell

• Cowboy Luttrell → National Wrestling Alliance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Cowboy" or "Luttrell" at the target article. Not a helpful redirect if we have no content on this supposed individual wrestler at the target article for the NWA. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also known as Cowboy Luttrall. Retarget to Championship Wrestling from Florida where discussed in most detail. Probably notable, anyhow. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

April 31

• April 31 → List of non-standard dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only reasoning for this appears to be "Java (specifically the java.util.Calendar class) allows dates such as February 0 (= January 31) and April 31 (= March 1)." The problem is that that particular class in Java seems to accept any integer for the date. I tested "April 366" which showed up as March 31 of the next year. The internet does say that there is a reference to "April 31" in the The Long Walk by Stephen King, but it is purposely supposed to be a fictional date, even within that universe. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• The statement was added unsourced (and shouldn't it be "May 1"?). Even if factual, "April 31" is totally arbitrary: it could apply to anything, #September 31, March 32, your "April 366", etc. (fyi Bfinn) Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The same can be said about December 32, January 0, February 30, and many others. The redirect isn't to imply it's factual or not, it's to fulfill the gaps for the day 31 every month has in Wikipedia, such as June 31 and February 31. Web-julio (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Each of those has unique encyclopedic information. Unlike September 31.

  And note, "filling in the gaps" is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Except OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (note: not policy), and this is a discussion page (the D in AfD stands for deletion while the D from RfD means discussion).

  Filling the gaps is exactly why many redirects exist, and other stuff existing is the main reason why many redirects should be kept. And for example, different from AfD, WP:CHEAP, WP:USEFUL (see also WP:RFD#KEEP), and HARMLESS are valid arguments to use in RfD, and they are used frequently, including this current page. Web-julio (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  RfDs are deletion discussions, because this is where the deletion of redirects is discussed. That "deletion" is not in the title of the venue is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  is the existence of outcomes other than "keep" and "delete" (retarget, disambiguate, etc.) enough to disagree with that? rfd is a discussion venue, and deletion is one of the possible results cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  But there's Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, which distinguishes AfD and RfD. This is a discussion that proposes a deletion, so technically is a deletion discussion, but not every RfD is a deletion discussion. Well, neither some AfDs, but why would someone AfD proposing to merge or rename if there are specific tools for that? The alternative is redirect in an AfD, but even there some see this as a form of deletion.

  Nonetheless, that essay still says that what doesn't apply in an AfD may or may not apply to other forms of discussions. Also Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Web-julio (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters that WP:ATA is "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". The aim of the essay is to list off ways of "contributing" to a given discussion that may instead just hinder the discussion, such as WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, or, indeed, WP:OTHERSTUFF. As the opener to the essay itself states, While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - the target mentions Excel, but doesn't get into the use of these nonstandard dates in formulas (it only mentions the weird 1900 problem). In Excel and programs like it, if you add one day to the last day of a month, it returns the first day of the following month. It doesn't recognize April 31 as a valid date if you write it in a cell directly, but April 30 + 1 = May 1. I'm not sure if that could fit into content in the article, or if it's more prominent than other uses that have been suggested here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget. May 1 was the 2014 discussion outcome. But April 30 might be the likely sought-for page for users who simply forgot April's last date. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

• Planet Three → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3rd planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Third planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 3rd Planet → Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1st planet → Mercury (planet)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2nd planet → Venus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 4th planet → Mars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Earth is, unsurprisingly, not the only "planet three". This is a highly ambiguous and fairly implausible search term. Ditto for the rest. Delete. Cremastra (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment these are probably trying to complement the names used for outer planets and theorized planets. (Planet Nine / Planet Ten / Planet X / Planet V ... ) but the phrase "3rd planet from the Sun" and "Sol III" are commonly used in certain circles to refer to the Earth... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete My initial thought was to keep as a primary topic. But Google searches show that, in fact, Earth is not the primary topic for any of these phrases. I receive mainly hits for various non-notable businesses. As such, I agree with the nominator that this is highly ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer: this !vote applies to the redirects bundled by Cremastra after I made the original comment as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the first one, keep the three others, there is no ambiguity, except in the first one.

21 Andromedae (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@21.Andromedae Why is only first one ambiguous? Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Planet three isn't the same as 3rd planet, and nobody calls Earth as planet three. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I have bundled "1st planet", "2nd planet", and "4th planet" in this discussion. Cremastra (u — c) 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Other planetary systems do exist, but none is so ingrained into popular knowledge as ours so that random people would be able to name all of its planets, and in order to boot. Right now and for a very long time in the future, "first", "second", "third" and "fourth" planet, said in isolation, will always mean implicitly "...of the Solar System". Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the ordinal ones per Cambalachero. I'm unsure about Planet Three. Looking around there's definitely other uses for this term. There is a publisher (for example redlinked on Mad About Boys), an internet(?) company mentioned on .cx, and probably most notably Arthur C. Clarke's "Report on Planet Three And Other Speculations". In that case it clearly is referring to the Earth. Given it is only a partial title match and given there's no actual articles about any of these things I very weakly lean keep but don't have a strong objection to deletion or targeting somewhere else. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all. It is not inherently obvious that a reader is intending to determine the order from the Sun. Maybe they are looking for an estimated time when each planet was actually created, or some other chronological construct. And even then, why this solar system? Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all, mercury was not the first planet to exist. Earth was the first planet to be inhabited by humans. The gauge for determining a scale of "what planet is first" is WP:OR and these descriptions do not seem to be mentioned as "first planet" at the target articles of Mercury (planet) and etc, without the necessary context of "first planet away from the sun". Without the context, this is ambiguous. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Last time I checked we're in this solar system so many of those planets are likely to be primary for us even if other planets exist in other solar systems but these as noted may be too ambiguous even in our solar system. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Her Royal Hotness

• Her Royal Hotness → Pippa Middleton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8 § Her Royal Hotness – no consensus

This designation is not mentioned at the subject. Redirect is confusing, misleading, ambiguous and undiscussed. People looking for this term are looking for encyclopedic coverage of such a buzzword "her royal hotness", which is not currently found at the page for Pippa Middleton nor anywhere on Wikipedia. This is a novel term, and hasn't ever been mentioned at the subject's article, since the last bout in 2020. No coverage of the phrase "her royal hotness" anywhere on Wikipedia, so this WP:Surprising non-RS term should be removed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The are oh so many ladies (and dishes) with this nickname. The only one link in the first page of Google search that mentions the current target is actually this redirect. It is therefore grossly misleading. Викидим (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by a user now globally banned from all wikimedia projects. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Ambiguous target, and the term is insufficiently notable/encyclopedic for disambiguation. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• My !vote was previously based on personal experience of hearing this term generically applied to nearly any "hot girl", particularly those seen as "higher class", by peers. Google, on the other hand, makes it fairly clear that this is attested to refer to this one person, so extremely consistently it makes for an overwhelming WP:PTOPIC. No, it's not mentioned in the article, nor should it be, as the vast number of sources that use it so overwhelmingly often are not reliable... but redirects are not article content, and need not be held to the same sourcing or inclusion standards. This redirect will help users who encounter the term in the wild find out who is being referred to. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep a cursory web search [10][11][12] seems to show this 'Pippa Middleton' is the primary topic of "Her Royal Hotness" [13][14][15][16][17][18], even calling the actress who portrays her on The Crown as being cast as such. [19][20] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at the target, and apparently pretty ambiguous about whom it could refer to anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete if WP:RSURPRISE applies, which it seems it currently does; in my experiences, if there's not a good reason to add a term to an article, it either doesn't apply or is some sort of combination of WP:NEO, WP:SEO and/or WP:OR, which we don't want here. Also, to respond to the struck vote above, if it's not mentioned, the redirect would continue to be a {{R without mention}}, which puts the redirect in a maintenance category prompting the redirect to eventually end up on RFD ... which is exactly what happened here, and there's no reason to repeat the same steps that were prompted by the same problem. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - searching for "her royal hotness" on various search engines returns many results for Pippa. Purposely omitting her from those results returns practically nothing: one novel by a not-well-known author, and a few non-notable shades of lipstick. Not really that ambiguous at all, and we're here to help readers find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Site-specific Comedy Opera

• Site-specific Comedy Opera → Improv Everywhere#Fake U2 Concert  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to the internet "site-specific theatre refers to a theatre performance which is staged in a non-traditional space". This needs to be re-targetted, but I'm unsure where. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - If you're being specific enough to type this entire phrase, I don't think you'd be WP:ASTONISHed to end up at this target. I'm not sure we have better. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete, definitely do not keep but open to retargeting as necessary. No mention of "site-specific" or "opera" at the target article, so people searching for this term would be misled by the promise of content on this term that we don't have. No mention of "Site-specific Comedy Opera" anywhere on Wikipedia, so honestly this should probably just be deleted as the RfD default (no valuable history being lost), but OP seems to think there could be another target possibility. I can't think of one so I say delete for now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I meant retarget if there is a good target. If not, then deletion would be my !vote. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 Dutch general election

• 2025 Dutch general election → Elections in the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no election planned in 2025 Dajasj (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Refine to Elections in the Netherlands#2023 general election. According to 2023 Dutch general election, that election was expected to take place in 2025 but was called early on short notice, so this is a very plausible search term. I've added a summary to the target article that explains this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Would then be more sustainable to link to redirect to 2023 Dutch general election, because the section header will be changed after the next election (and we will have forgotten about it). Also avoids duplicating content.

  More generally I disagree with redirecting with a hypothetical situation, but in this specific case it is also ambiguous because 2025 could also refer to a hypothetical snap election after 2023 (if the cabinet fell today, that would be the earliest moment). Dajasj (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  The cabinet failing before the next expected election is different to the expected next election unexpectedly not happening. Sources regularly talk about the next expected election, so there will be sources from pre-July 2023 talking about the 2025 elections that people will see and search for information about. Sources since that date don't expect 2025 elections, they talk about 2028 elections in the expected manner. If elections do happen in 2025 then obviously this redirect will be correctly usurped by an article about those elections. That article will mention the circumstances and explain things for those who arrive looking for what became the 2023 election. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

三州府

• 三州府 → Straits Settlements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's two possible targets for 三州府: Straits Settlements and Suong. 三州府 is an old alternative Chinese-language name Straits Settlements, and 三州府市 (三州府 + city) is the name historically and currently used by Chinese-speakers and Chinese Cambodians people for Suong. The Chinese Wikipedia has chosen to solve this with a disambiguation page zh:三州府, so this term seemingly cannot be tied very strongly to one article. I'm not seeing how we could create a local policy-compliant dab page. Given the very high bar needed to have a non-English redirect page, we should probably delete this. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Cambodia is not a Chinese language subject. But the Straits Settlements are due to the high Chinese population of the region. Thus regardless of what Chinese Wikipedia does, on English Wikipedia, the only subject with affinity for Chinese is the Straits Settlements, and not Suong, Cambodia. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Update I stand corrected on the status of Chinese in Suong, being that there is a large population of such in Suong; therefore I recommend that this page be disambiguated per WP:CJKV {{Chinese title disambiguation}} and create a WP:2DAB like that on Chinese Wikipedia because both locations have large Chinese populations and both locations have carried this Chinese name. ;; So either Keep as is and hatnote Suong, or disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the ip editor. A hatnote can be added if really desired, but I don't think it is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, per the Chinese Wikipedia article for Suong, Cambodia, 80 per cent of the population in the city are of Chinese ethnicity, so the above rationale might not be valid. However, it doesn't appear to be cited properly (the current source does not provide such information). If there is some related reliable source found, then perhaps a dab, otherwise keep. Sun8908 _Talk 15:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Anecdotal evidence- I mean if we compare the length and detail of the zhWiki article to the Khmer article, I wouldn't be surprised if the statement that 80% of the population are Sino-Khmer turns out to be true. Baidu Baike(keeping in mind WP:BAIDU and all) also repeats the statistic, citing it to what looks to be an offline database. (@Sun8908, does it look obviously unreliable in this case?)

  But back to the matter at hand- Wiktionary lists the Cambodian city first, emphasizing that the usage of 三州府 is "historical". Again, uncited, but I googled and the Promote Mandarin Council (in Singapore) seemingly confirms this, writing that the name was used most in the early days. The Cantonese Wikipedia lists their (unsourced) article for the Straits Settlement under the name 三洲府, but zhWiki only mentions once that it's an unofficial name. Our own article doesn't mention the name at all. It's clearly not a clear-cut matter.

  When I google "三洲府", my own results are pretty evenly split between the city and the settlement, which I think is why the editors on zhWiki chose to make a dab page in the end. They seemed to have the opposite problem as us, actually, with their initial redirect pointing, for four years, to the article about Suong. I'm not suggesting we should follow them, I'm just pointing out that there is unlikely to be a dominant topic. I suppose if somebody wants to make a dab page, they could, I suppose? Three States is a direct translation, and already a dab page, but I don't think we really make dab pages for direct translations where the direct translation is not used in English. A dab for the direct transliteration might be better, if anybody wants to make one? I'm not convinced it would aid people trying to navigate the English Wikipedia, but I suppose it wouldn't be harmful. A hatnote could be a solution, but I'm not sure how useful non-English/Latin hatnotes for unofficial names are.

  On a personal note, this is why WP:RLOTE based on unofficial nicknames can be problematic- the predominant argument to keep is that Suong, Cambodia has no affinity with the Chinese language. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just want you to note that we indeed have dab pages with Chinese characters as title. We could do that if it turns out there isn't a main article between the two entries. That being said, a main article should be decided with the likeliness that English speaker would more likely want to search. I think there are Chinese-language newspapers in Cambodia using that name to refer to the Cambodian city, so it might worth a dab. Sun8908 _Talk 05:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I missed reading the reliability of the source on Baidu Baike. I am not familiar with the site but I cannot see a link for that citation. I cannot search any useful information about the database / centre by simply searching on Baidu or Google. (Note: there seems to be a lot of database with a similar name, I don't know which to look for) However, that citation seems to be used by a lot of articles on Baidu Baike. Unfortunately, only verified users can see the edit history, so I cannot get any further information from there. I don't feel like it is particularly useful as I cannot find information about the database / centre. Sun8908 _Talk 11:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Convert to a disambi , I have no further comment. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Licensing Letter

• The Licensing Letter → Brand licensing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect title appears to be a company name that's loosely related? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Like License Global that's mentioned in the article The Licensing Letter is a trade publication that covers the licensing industry. They used to publish their top brand lists from 2010 to 2018 (used here List of highest-grossing media franchises) and have been mentioned in reliable sources like The Hollywood Reporter. [21], The Morning Call [22],Chicago Tribune [23][24], Star Tribune [25] , among others. Timur9008 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Żwaniec

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

This article exists at Polish Wikipedia - therefore, appears to be a translated name that's not significant to the target article. LR.127 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It is not a translated name, but a historical Polish name, as it was part of Poland for several centuries. The redirect is similar to many other towns, which were formerly part of Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, Germany, etc, but whose state affiliation has changed since, and there are articles in which the town is mentioned under its Polish name as a reference to the history of that period. Marcin 303 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

• Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative → Miscellaneous left  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned at target article. Ironically, when searching this term on the internet, the article for Eco-socialism popped up. LR.127 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Manush Shah

• Manush Shah → Table tennis in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No point in this redirect, there is no much coverage about him in this page. he is mentioned in some events. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

November 6

Football in American Samoa

• Football in American Samoa → Soccer in American Samoa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The sport of "football" in American Samoa typically refers to American Football, which has much greater participation among American Samoans than does Association Football. I propose that this be either retargeted to American Football in American Samoa, or that a dab page be created between the two. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. American Samoa uses American English, a hatnote can be added for non-native speakers for any rugby or soccer topic articles. There are many American Samoans who play(ed) in top level American football. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Tim McBride

• Tim McBride → Sarah McBride  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pre-notability deadname not mentioned in article. It's unlikely anyone knows of her by this name but not her current name. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and add mention in the personal history. We do not delete history just because it is inconvenient -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DEADNAME: no notability established under that name. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Snowball delete, salt and RevDel per WP:GENSEX and preferred practice in enforcement of that decision of RevDel'ing all deadnaming attempts not consistent with policy. There is really no need to have this discussion here before doing this. Once that is done, the same should be done with this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  What would revdel even do for a deleted article? The deletion log and pointer to this discussion is still valuable to keep a record of. And salting is probably overkill. At most, ECP would probably stop the casual troll or good-faith but misguided newish editor. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete on the merits, as not mentioned at target, but I disagree with Daniel Case - a redirect created a decade ago by an admin in good standing deserves a discussion, and there's absolutely no reason to try to censor even internal references (nor is doing so practical). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 talk 05:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  If the IP above hadn't voted "keep", this vote would have made the redirect eligible for {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  She is a politician who has made it part of her political activities, the issue of gender identity, so it would seem that her history should be in her biography. Thus meriting a mention of this name. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Her deadname isn't notable at all Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as long as it's not mentioned in the article, which consensus seems to be against doing. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RSURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Name not mentioned at target, and likely will never be per MOS:DEADNAME.

-insert valid name here- (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Busy2

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: G5 speedy deleted by User:Amortias

Template:Wikipedia ads single

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

47th president

• 47th president → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous. 47th President of the United States already exists. MSMST1543 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - as far as I can tell the United States is in fact the only country with a 47th president. If I'm wrong then feel free to strike my !vote. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as ambiguous. Plutarco Elías Calles, Guillermo Lasso, René Barrientos, Ricardo Pérez Godoy, Luis Guillermo Solís, Álvaro Colom, Nicanor Duarte...Latin America seems to go through presidents rather more quickly than the U.S. :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm the creator of the original redirect. Although it was only a few weeks ago I cannot actually remember doing this (I create a lot of redirects). Probably I was thinking of people coming across the term "47th president" somewhere and searching for it in Wikipedia to find out what it referred to, it most likely being the US president. Assigning sequential numbers to presidents is something I associate with presidents of the US (I'm not aware of other bodies that do this, but I don't doubt others do). I don't have an opinion on what should be done with the redirect.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Extraordinary Writ. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Extraordinary Writ's findings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since the US is younger than countries with almost 100 presidents during their lifetimes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Matsubara dialect

• Matsubara dialect → Tokunoshima language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article. Google search pulls little results bar city existence and being a Japanese dialect. Blethering Scot 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're called dialects (方言), they're actually Ryukyuan dialects, and not part of Japanese (see Japanese dialects). As for the existence of the Matsubara dialect, there are some information about the pitch accent data from a quick search:

https://doi.org/10.15002/00012659

I wonder what else could be the criteria. Chuterix (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nesebu dialect

• Nesebu dialect → Amami Ōshima language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target article. No google hits on dialect, except for place existing. Blethering Scot 21:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Early Netherlandish painters

• List of Early Netherlandish painters → Early Netherlandish painting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not contain a list of painters. People looking for a list of painters would be misled, as their query is not giving them a list. People who are familiar with "early netherlandish painters", would already know the base of "early netherlandish painting", so going back to the general article despite seeking a list does not seem to be useful here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose the article had a list once. This is a case where the most useful thing would be a redirect to Category:Early Netherlandish painters, but there may be a prejudice against that. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is a list in the article lead, and this would not be a surprising target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• I spun the list out of the ENA article when that page was stubby and before it was expanded. And later changed the list article to a redirect. It could be reverted back to an actual -although uncited- list as it was here, dont feel strongly either way support this as wouldn't be difficult to find citations. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Greek words with English derivatives

• List of Greek words with English derivatives → English words of Greek origin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Greek morphemes used in English

The target is not a list of Greek words. The target is about English words, and not in a list. People searching for such a list would not find it at the target article, and with the preference of "greek words" being used first, the desire is for an article centralized around Greek words, which is not available. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note for those interested in WP nostalgia, this has 2001 history. Honestly, one of the strangest page histories I've seen around. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The target contains multiple lists of Greek words, so that part of the nomination is incorrect. Any list of English words of Greek origin that notes the original Greek word (as this does) is necessarily also a list of Greek words with English derivatives. The only issue is that the lists are organised by the English word rather than the Greek word. Does that make this misleading or otherwise not useful? I don't think so, but if a better target is available somewhere then it should be retargetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Interlingue periodicals

• List of Interlingue periodicals → Interlingue literature  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase "periodical" is not listed at the target article. There is no such list that exists here, and people looking for such a list would be misled by the promise of a "list of periodicals", which is not featured at the target, nor a list or any mention of "Interlingue periodicals" anywhere on Wikipedia, as it seems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not yet sure what the right call is here. For what it's worth, the target article does talk about the Interlingue magazine Cosmoglotta, and magazines are a type of periodical. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

List of molecules by year of discovery

• List of molecules by year of discovery → Lists of molecules  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target list of molecules has no mention of a "year of discovery". Is currently a misleading redirect as this cannot be sorted for in the target article's current state. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This was previously an article that was created in March 2018 by Zchemic then prodded and endorsed the same day by Graeme Bartlett and Edgar181 respectively. The concern was "This list is going to be useless as there are millions of molecules known, and it will become too massive. The idea of making and discovery of the molecules is also confused". The following day Zchemic redirected the article to the present target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete completely as this is useless as a redirect, and useless as an article. Perhaps in future there could be an article extending History of molecular theory with early discoveries. Anything after the 19th century would be far too much. And in the much earlier times the idea of molecule was less clear, and discoverers did not think they were finding molecules. I think that List of gases could have year of discovery added as a column. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, this redirect is misleading because it wrongly suggests we have a list of molecules by discovery year. There is a List of drugs by year of discovery linked to at the target article, but that's not the same thing. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 06:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Restore and take to Afd if desired. I get WP:NOTBURO, but all we can/should do here is decide that it's not a good redirect, i.e. WP:BLAR was not a good WP:ATD in this case. WP:AFD is the proper venue to decide whether enwiki could/should have a list article like this, after the deprod. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Restore per Mdewman6. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Graeme Bartlett. Restoration should not happen without evidence of notability or arguments that the list may be keepable. Unlike perhaps a couple others, I have faith that RfD participants can figure that out without needing to punt to a second discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that RfD participants are not the ones who should be deciding notability, because determining notability is the job of AfD participants. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

• List of Neverwinter Nights characters → Neverwinter Nights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters

There is no such "list of characters" at the target article. The only character that is EVER mentioned at the target, is the unnamed "player character", and one mention of a "King of Shadows" in passing. Was created as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters AfD. Nevertheless, this is not a helpful redirect in its current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and restore the content underneath (deleted edits from prior to 2016) so that a proper character list can be created at the target article. 2016 is the bad old days when non-notable stuff was deleted before redirection, even though ATD policy was still the same, we didn't always do it right. Also, naming convention is pretty standard--if you're cleaning up problematic/confusing redirects, this ain't one of them. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Agreeing with Clemens somewhat. While the list itself is very unlikely to ever be revived, it serves as a record and and helps link to the AfD discussion that took place, which also has a list of potential sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'll reproduce here what I wrote on my talk page: The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters was to delete and redirect, not only to redirect. Undeleting the deleted content would be contrary to the AfD outcome. It would need overturning the AfD closure, which would need to be done at DRV, not here. What's more, I can't even find deleted content to undelete. The deletion log indicates some sort of technical issue in 2016. Sandstein 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think this should be kept: a) For historical reasons. b) It's just the next best thing we have. There are hits, an people are redirected there, showing what little we have and that we don't have a separate article. c) That's where new content would be added. And there is such content! I can't say if there's enough to establish notability and could change the outcome in a deletion review, but there's more than during the time of the deletion discussion. Examples would be his Kotaku article or this book, p. 20-21. I'd like to add such commentary, but I have too much on my plate already. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and restore the content under the redirect, as per Jclemens; the contents of the old list are now at User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters so they can be moved back to article space. A short list can be merged into the main article until it can be spun back out again. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me how this got to my userspace. 2016 was after I'd was no longer an admin. Did I request restoration in the past and then forgot about it, or did someone just do this? Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You may have asked me to do that as I was still an admin at that time. BOZ (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as an old redirect with history, and I honestly believe said history should be restored if possible, even if only to the history of this redirect. Fieari (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This redirect is not old (2016 from a recent-ish AfD), and does not contain any valuable history. This RfD turnout is quite surprising all within a few minutes tbh. There is still NO characters at the target article, so the redirect is still misleading and this has not been remedied. All the history is in userspace which can be reinstated when it is ready. Does not need a misleading "list" redirect in the meantime. Sources can be copied to the Neverwinter Nights talk page, or grabbed from the AfD directly. We don't do redirects for the "next best thing we have", when we actually have nothing. The only thing that needed to be true for this redirect was to have "characters listed", and Neverwinter Nights does not even manage this in its current state. Articles don't need to exist as a redirect just to indicate where content "should" be added. In fact the opposite is true per WP:REDYES. There is no such content on Wikipedia for this topic at this moment. The only possibility would be to delete List of Neverwinter Nights characters (the replacement created by Sandstein), and move in the material from User:Jclemens/List of Neverwinter Nights characters to the same title, if consensus indicates material should be held here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  8 years is not old? I understand it's not from the 200x's, but 8 years is still a pretty long time... Fieari (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom., there is no list. The redirect is somewhat misleading and not helpful. Neverwinter Nights is the obvious search term, and if someone did, for some reason, search on this full name they would be better served with this list of results [26] rather than being jumped to a page that has no list. A case of a redirect actually making things worse. Old content is userfied and can be developed, so that consideration is moot. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

delete, if without prejudice to recreating if usable sources are found. list not present. i think misleading readers would do more harm than losing track of an afd thread in a mainspace page's edit history. even then, deletion would most likely link people attempting to recreate it to this discussion, which in turn links to that discussion, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Since when do redirects need sources? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I presume it refers to sources at the target article, to substantiate a mention of multiple characters and allow readers to receive sourced content, when it is specified in the search bar (via this redirect) that the reader SPECIFICALLY wants a "list of characters", one that we don't have anywhere in mainspace, nor any sources for. Redirects do need to be "reliably sourceable", because all material in mainspace must be verifiable, and redirects are material, and redirects are in mainspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We should indeed have a list of characters at the target, but the content is already available even if not in that page currently. No, redirects don't need to be reliably sourced, per WP:RPURPOSE. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RPURPOSE is a guideline; WP:V is policy. Redirects too must be verifiable. Alternate spellings can be verified by WP:COMMONSENSE. What reason-for-maintaining bullet point does this redirect (a redirect indicating a "list of characters") meet on WP:RPURPOSE? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, since COMMONSENSE can satisfy V, then, V's not really an issue, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

i said i'd have no prejudice against recreation if sources could be found cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't explain why deleting a redirect to a notable work of fiction would be influenced in any way by sourcing--presumably, non-primary sourcing--for a set of elements that meet WP:CSC clause 2. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are secondary sources out there which would allow to include some commentary on characters as a group and individually into the target, but which have not yet been employed. Like [27] or [28]. Or, from a very different angle, an analytical comment on player characters on Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens, p. 20-21. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now included a rudimentary listing of characters in the Reception section, with potential for expansion based on said secondary sources, which I hope solves the gravest misgivings of Utopes and cogsan. Based on this I'd argue for the inclusion of the old, userfied page into the history of the redirect, as it could be used as a basis to search for more secondary sources, if someone should desire to do so. Daranios (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

i don't think some examples in the reception section would count as enough to warrant a list redirect, so i guess my vote stays for the moment, with equally little prejudice against recreation cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: So what in your view is still lacking for such a redirect to be justified? Number of characters? Description/commentary? Presentation in bulletpoint form or some such? Daranios (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

what i think is missing is a list. "list of knives" probably shouldn't link to an article that only mentions santoku and bread knives, as an example. also as an example, characters of deltarune and that other game doesn't mention every character (where's lemon bread?), but it does have a good handful

so yeah, "number of characters" is the closest to my answer among the options provided, and if reliable sources only seem to cover three of them in any level of detail, i'd say press the big ol' return to red button cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete RfD does not have any authority over article content. We had an AfD, which does have that authority, and declared this should be banished. Now it's time for it to meet its fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It was the AfD which made this a redirect in the first place. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Leedsshire

• Leedsshire → West Yorkshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non plausible search term. Blethering Scot 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) 15:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Google doesn't return much however months ago, probably before this was created I did try searching for this and things like Ipswichshire, Chelmsfordshire etc. I did ask someone years ago if there should be "Leedsshire". There may be a problem with this redirect in that Leeds has never been the capital of West Yorkshire or even West Riding of Yorkshire but rather Wakefield so could arguably be Wakefieldshire which may also lead to ambiguity with the former county which arguably could be a target however we would probably prefer the current county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete its the name of a non-notable sports team (who played a match against the wonderfully named "Leeds Apatheticals") and a couple of local businesses, but everything else is hypothetical (not all for the same thing, e.g. one source described Halifax as the largest and most important place in Leedsshire) or borderline nonsense. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Future Survivor seasons

• Survivor 49 → Survivor (American TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Survivor 50 → Survivor (American TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of the 49th or 50th season at the target and, based on the lead, the series is currently only renewed up until the 48th season. As such, the redirects are misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

DELETE. Unnecessary and too soon. Season 48 hasn’t even debuted yet. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Totally WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Future United States House of Representatives elections

• 2030 United States House of Representatives elections → United States presidential election#Comparison with other U.S. general elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2032 United States House of Representatives elections → United States presidential election#Comparison with other U.S. general elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target at all. The farthest away election mentioned in 2028, making the redirects misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, too soon. Give it a couple of years and these can be recreated. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Way too soon. Besides, 2030 isn't even an applicable election- its either 2028 or 2032.^{removed as I might be wrong} Can be mistaken as a hoax ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Karhusaari (island)

• Karhusaari (island) → Angelniemi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect. There are several islands named Karhusaari in Finland, the island in Angelniemi is not the only one and probably the most notable either. The redirect had two incoming links, neither of which was actually about the island in Angelniemi: one was for an island in Espoo and the other for an island in Kuopio. I removed the wikilinks from both. This redirect should be deleted until we have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari. JIP | Talk 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this redirect when reviewing Karhusaari (disambiguation) because of the line in the article Angelniemi: "Other isles of Angelniemi are Angelansaari, Kokkilansaari, Pikkusaari and Karhusaari". If there are other islands then fine: mention them in the appropriate article and disambiguate at Karhusaari (disambiguation) to where this redirect should point. Otherwise, we actually do "have an actual article about at least some island named Karhusaari". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC) (Not an expert in Finland but once had a lovely trip to Helsinki)

Cricoarytenoid

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

There is also Cricoarytenoid joint and Cricoarytenoid ligament. This could be a set index like Arytenoid. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Presume good faith

• Presume good faith → Wikipedia:Assume good faith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

JPerez90, there's a reason we don't generally make these. See also The five pillars and The Manual of Style. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:XNR and sounding like an encyclopedic subject. Steel1943 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Alternatively, align with Assume good faith. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Assume good faith Good faith, where the general topic is covered and there's a hatnote to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Skynxnex (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Update retarget to final destination. Still think it's an acceptable redirect with that target. Skynxnex (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Good faith given Assume good faith goes there but otherwise could be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

• List of Chalcolithic cultures of China → List of Neolithic cultures of China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list of Chalcolithic cultures exists at the target. This does not appear to be a subject that is discussed on Wikipedia at this time. Previously existed as a list with one entry.

This title may be able to be salvaged if the list of Neolithic cultures is expanded to include Chalcolithic cultures. However, searching for an article about a "Copper Age list" and being sent to an article about a "Stone Age list" does not seem generally helpful in a vacuum, and would be confusing to readers if there is no indication or hatnote about why they ended up here (that there may not have been enough content to substantiate an individual page for Chalcolithic). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

• List of American Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters → American Athletic Conference men's basketball tournament  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters → Atlantic 10 men's basketball tournament  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "broadcasters" at the target article. No such list exists at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. I don't see the page history being relevant in this case, as I don't expect the articles to ever become notable based on the most recent flurry of list of broadcaster nominations we went through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

2041 Ryder Cup

• 2041 Ryder Cup → Ryder Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. No relevant info there, making this redirect misleading. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as pointless until we have an article on the event, years from now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, there are also 2025 Ryder Cup, which is closer, but still hasn't happened yet, but could get refined to the "Editions" section at least I guess, and 2024 Ryder Cup, which doesn't exist, due to the year shifting, but it was created back in 2018 before that happened, and contains no relevant content, so can safely be deleted. There are a couple more like that, but those existed with more content and were the result of page moves. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

November 5

Barangay 79

• Barangay 79 → Caloocan#Barangays  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are at least 3 Barangay 79s, and this one in Caloocan is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  None of the Barangay 79s are notable, the one in Caloocan was redirected via AFD this week , and none are plausible search items. No one's looking for Barangay 79s. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 22:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, as there's no particular info on this particular barangay. Disambiguation is inappropriate since all the disambiguated titles (if they existed) should still be deleted for the same reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Daesh Tunisia

• Daesh Tunisia → Ansar al-Sharia (Tunisia)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I was highly confused by this redirect, and my external searching of "Daesh Tunisia" led me to uncover that apparently it is the "name of an invasive crustacean", per [29]. This blue crab might be invading Tunisia, but what it is ALSO invading is this article which has nothing to do with the subject. No mention of "daesh", "crab", "crustacean", or even "blue" at the target article. People looking for information on this blue crab would be very confused by the topic of Ansar al-Sharia, and if these two DO have a correlation, such a correlation is unclear with zero mention. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Daesh is ISIS. This redirect is calling them Tunisian ISIS. They were closer to Al-Qaeda.

This name actually does get used in RS [30], but for Jund Al Khilafa-Tunisia or JAK-T, which we do not have a page on. We do have a page on the Algerian one though PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised we do not have a page on JAK-T PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to have an article created. Mooonswimmer 04:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 22:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Daesh is what the Arab world calls ISIS. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, UN Security Council, US Department of State, and European Union all mention "Daesh Tunisia" as an alias of JAK-T. Mooonswimmer 04:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Electrotechnology

• Electrotechnology → Electrical engineering  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to the brief page history of this WP:DICDEF, electrotechnology is not simply "electrical engineering". From my external searches of this term, I'm getting mixed results. The question then becomes... what would be the best location to target this term? Because the term "electrotechnology" is not written anywhere at the target. It seems to be a valid question if the two terms are "apparently not 1:1 synonyms". But if they are synonyms, then this, too, should probs be indicated somewhere, and I feel something about "electrotechnology" could be added to the article to substantiate the redirect in that case. This would answer the question for people who use an "electrotechnology" search term to navigate Wikipedia, instead of seeking out the very long article on all of electrical engineering. As it happens, Electrical engineering technology also exists as an entirely different article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary, where readers will learn this refers to both electrical technology and electrical engineering and can look up either or both if they subsequently desire. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 22:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox (channel)

• Fox (channel) → Fox (international)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fox Channel → Fox Broadcasting Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Looking at the page histories of both titles, the contents using the redirect title here at RFD later evolved to its current target. I'm listing this here for a fresh discussion of its either possible deletion or re-targeting/redirection. Intrisit (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Fox Channel should redirect to the same place (it currently doesn't) so I've added it to this nomination. Fox (British and Irish TV channel) isn't currently mentioned at Fox (disambiguation) although it presumably should be. Wherever it targets there should be a hatnote to Foxe Channel. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Set index. There are, I've discovered, lots of channels called Fox and more previously called Fox, including (and this is incomplete): Fox (British and Irish TV channel), Fox (Asian TV channel), Fox (German TV channel), Fox (African TV channel), Fox (Norwegian TV channel), Fox (Italian TV channel) and Fox (Hungarian TV channel). Fox8. Then there are various ones named Fox Life, Fox Sports, Fox Filipino, etc. We don't seem to have a single list of them that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Setindexify per Thryduulf. All these channels should be assembled in a list, since these terms can refer to any of them. Regards, SONIC678 18:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Setindexify per Thryduulf. Good find. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Grooving

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Starlow

• Starlow → Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Starlow debuted in this game, but she appears in later entries too. She doesn't have an entry on List of Mario franchise characters though. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

keep in absence of that entry, like popple (nintendo) redirecting to superstar saga when he was also in dream team cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge the page

• Purge the page → Help:Purge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very implausible for an WP:XNR TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong delete this could clearly refer to reload the page by purging the HTML/CSS/etc browser cache, for many social media sites. Such as the [F5]-meme used on 4chan -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Command doesn't work, someone made an WP:XNR redirect instead. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rediretc

• Wikipedia:Rediretc → Wikipedia:Redirect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very implausible typo on top of the fact that it's in project space. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment redirect was created in 2007. A single transposition error of two adjacent characters is a very likely form of typo, frequently appearing amongst touch typists. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete for the simple fact this redirect has no incoming links that are worth retaining. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete We do not need a redirect for every possible typo, and this one does not seem particularly likely. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete but only due to being an implausible typo. That this is in project space is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirct

• Wikipedia:Redirct → Wikipedia:Redirect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Slightly plausible error, but it's in project space. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment redirect was created in 2009. A single missing letter error is a likely form of typo when typing -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete for the simple fact this redirect has no incoming links that are worth retaining. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment That this is in project space is completely irrelevant. It's either a plausible type or it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested Articles/Business and economics/Companies

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Wikipedia:REVERET

• Wikipedia:REVERET → Help:Reverting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This misspelling already appears to be implausible, but it's is in project space so it's even less likely to get used. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this redirect created in 2022 has the page creation edit summary misspelling (fixed red link on Teahouse) ... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete since ... yeah, it's wrong and quite implausible, and the redirect creator should have fixed the incoming link rather than creating this redirect, but ... what else could this shortcut refer to? Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if this is kept it should be retargetted to Wikipedia:Reverting to match WP:REVERT. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, same as the others like this -- linking errors should be fixed when spotted, not made into redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above ---Lenticel ^(talk) 01:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RSreliable sources

• Wikipedia:RSreliable sources → Wikipedia:Reliable sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be another linking error. Looking at the page links, it appears to be a fairly common error where someone doesn't type "|" between RS and reliable sources. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, same as the others like this -- linking errors should be fixed when spotted, not made into redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete "RS" and "Reliable sources" are the same thing so it redundant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as unlikely spelling variant --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Chocottone

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

chocotone (one t) is a brazilian recipe featuring chocolate. no idea what a brazil is, but i hear it's relatively popular there. still unmentioned, though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep - from what I can tell (though my search results could be skewed by geography) this is a popular chocolate form of panettone, and that form is noted in that article's lede although not by name. The Brazilian chocotone appears to be the same thing but in Portuguese, which doesn't have double consonants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  between then and now, i may or may not have fallen into a downward spiral of inconsistent spellings and butcherings of italian names that start with t. for legal reasons, the correct spelling is both of them, at the same time

  banter aside, does this mean you found some evidence (reliable or otherwise) of the term being used outside of brazil? not even tricking google into thinking i'm the most american guy to ever exist seems to have yielded me anything besides brazilian results cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  The sources I was looking at were all Toronto publications, which is to say no, I did not exactly find evidence for its use outside of Brazil or its diaspora. But I think that's valid enough for a redirect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep it appears in English used as being chocolate panettone [31][32][33] --- I suggest that Chocolate panettone redirect be created and that Chocottone and Chocotone both have an {{R from avoided double redirect|chocolate panettone}} be attached to these two -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  that works for me. not for an actual mention at the article, since those are user-generated, but it's proof that the term is used cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Olivolja

• Olivolja → Olive oil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

swedish for olive oil. target seems to have no particular affinity with sweden cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't appear to contain any useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Olivolja is a Sicilian maker of olive and other oils, but I think not prominent enough for a {{R from brand name}} with no mention in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - even though I am Swedish, I see no purpose.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the English-language Wikipedia, we don't need a separate redirect from the Swedish name for olive oil. JIP | Talk 13:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ghost pepper (version 2)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: resolved. This was an artifact left over from when Anthony Appleyard moved Bhut jolokia to Ghost pepper back in 2020. I've moved the edit history back under Bhut jolokia, which essentially completes the WP:ROBIN. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

John Reilly (actor)

• John Reilly (actor) → John Reilly (actor, born 1934)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See recently closed RM. No primary topic; redirect to dab. 162 etc. (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. That RM did not reach a consensus that there was no primary topic, or about anything else. After discussion, the close was for the status quo. This redirect results from an undiscussed move in 2021 but has been stable since then. It gets few hits[34] but those that use it most likely want the current target or, if not, the single link from the hatnote. Redirecting to the dab page would make readers wade through 16 possible John Reillys before getting to the two actors near the bottom of the page, one of whom, John C. Reilly, is virtually never known as simply John Reilly. Station1 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  If John Reilly (actor) and John Reilly (actor, born 1934) are the same article, then the title of the article should be John Reilly (actor), to avoid unnecessary disambiguation. But we just had an RM, and there was no consensus to move to that title. 162 etc. (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  The RM proposal was to move the article to John Reilly (soap opera actor), not back to John Reilly (actor). You brought up the alternative at that RM and I agree(d) with you that would be the better title, but as you point out, there was no consensus. Neither was there a consensus to point that title to a dab page. A new RM focused on reversing the undiscussed 2021 move might be appropriate, but retargeting the redirect in the meantime would not be helpful to readers. Station1 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget John C. Reilly has 43,514 views compardd with only 2,556[[35]] for the 1934 one and people expect "Firstname Lastname" as titles of articles and even if some people include the "C" its unlikely almost everyone does. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sources indicate the opposite. Almost everyone does include the "C". Station1 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  People still expect "Firstname Lastname" even if some people use the "C". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to the disambiguation per Crouch, Swale and I've never been a fan of partial disambiguation at the best of times as it always feels too much like special pleading. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to the disambiguation page. Fails WP:AT being not WP:PRECISE enough to identify the topic. A primary topic does not carry disambiguation, so if this John Reilly were the primary topic, the page would be called John Reilly, which it isn't. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Granatawerfer

• Granatawerfer → Mortar (weapon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"granatwerfer" (from granate and werfer) is a plausible, if apparently archaic name for mortar launchers (though i'd associate it more with grenade launchers). "granatawerfer" is not a word, because granata is italian for grenade. opinions on its plausibility as a misspelling or something else i might have missed? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

should mention that i would create granatwerfer as a redirect to grenade launcher, but there are articles for three separate granatwerfer, which astute eyes may realize are all mortars, so i'll do it after this discussion closes to see where it should target. then again, judging by the articles' current states, grenade launchers and mortars might not have any particular affinity for germany in the first place. how complicated~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Granatwerfer is reasonable as either a redirect to mortar, or a disambig. Grantawerfer is a typo or else a literary weapon used across the dining tables of Islington and Trumpington.Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a useless redirect. As the nominator says this is not a word because one part is in Italian and the other in German. JIP | Talk 13:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ray Lavender

• Ray Lavender → Konvict Kulture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target in any capacity. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - according to Global Grind, Ray Lavender was an artist who had a minor hit on Akon's label Konvict Musik around 2007, who then left the label. I don't see any reliable coverage of that single, or of anything that Lavender has done since. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any relevance in the redirect, as Ray Lavender was not a notable figure while contracted as an artist of KonLive Distribution. He released 4 singles, none of which of was any relevance even with a T-Pain feature. His time was so brief at the label that most people are unaware that he was on the label, and was one of the main factors for my omission of his name in the former artists section. Eder Srld (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

23th Senate of Puerto Rico

• 23th Senate of Puerto Rico → 23rd Senate of Puerto Rico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete This was created by an editor who made a typo and accidentally created this redirect, and subsequently used by an editor three times who thought the correct word is 23th instead of 23rd, I have fixed all three occurrences of 23th Senate of Puerto Rico into 23rd Senate of Puerto Rico in Wikipedia and this redirect can be safely deleted. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:HESD

• MOS:HESD → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Manual of Style does not need its own pseudo-namespace Hexware (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete There are many "MOS:" redirects already, but I don't find this misspelling to be plausible as asserted by the creator of the redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a pseudo-namespace. Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS: does have its own psuedo namespace it's used all the time Cyber the tiger (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead of creating unnecessary redirects, maybe use your time in other ways. Wikipedia:Namespace, "MOS" is not a pseudo-namespace, but a real one recently created. Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete MOS: is a pseudo-namespace but we don't need a typo version of this shortcut. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - MOS: is a valid pseudo-namespace for manual of style pages, but this is another one of those recently created "one key away" redirects (from MOS:HEAD), and is additionally nonsensical because it doesn't mean anything in this form. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This redirect was created as a misspelling of an existent redirect. This is highly unlikely in any sense, and this title should be freed for a more useful purpose (whatever that is determined.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSSECTIONHEADINGS

• Wikipedia:MOSSECTIONHEADINGS → Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused short redirect; Correct form would be to WP:MOS#Section_Headings Hexware (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: first, a redirect cannot point to another redir; second, one problem with claiming "unused ... redirect" is that you cannot tell if it was used in an edit summary or not; third, WP:CHEAP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This is a valid shortcut. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Though this redirect creator has created some questionable redirects, this is not one of them. Makes sense, gets readers where they are intending to go. It's a win to me. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, if only as this for me is a WP:FRUIT situation. This editor has created so many bad redirects recently that for me, even slightly ok ones should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting, never seen that page before. Reminds me of WP:TNT. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  However, I think it's clear this editor wants to help somehow, so I think WP:BITE applies here (though I recently violated that myself, shame on me.) I mean, after mostly bad redirect creations, here's an okay one that hopefully can be an example of what to do rather than what not to do. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a good redirect. We don't retain editors by deleting their good redirects just because they also created some bad ones. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  THIS RIGHT HERE. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncomfiness

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

Not a word Hexware (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to wikt:Uncomfiness per my !vote on the "Uncomfort" discussion below. That is also a word, just not used as often. Regards, SONIC678 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncomfort

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

Not a word Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to wikt:Uncomfort, which defines the term and is the closest title match. It is in fact a word, just not used as much as "discomfort." As a search on Wikipedia can attest, it's used in several Wikipedia articles, either as a proper noun or a common one. Regards, SONIC678 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Someone looking for this term on Wikipedia will be better served by being directed to the Wikipedia article most closely addressing the concept. BD2412 T 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Touota

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

Unlikely typo Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - not a plausible typo. The creator has recently made a number of "next to each other on the keyboard" implausible typo redirects, such as Tsylor Swift and Mileu Cyrus, but these are unnecessary and opening the door to another Neelix situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Ivanvector.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as unlikely ... and ambiguous. Why not Tokota or Tonota? Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Useless.  Stepho  talk  22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What WP is not

• Wikipedia:What WP is not → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Short redirects to WP:xyz are written without spaces, and in all caps Hexware (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

keep. "wp:" automatically gets converted to "wikipedia:" for the purposes of literally anything besides typing and reading, so this one is fine in that area. could make an argument for the use of the abbreviation being a little implausible, but i'm not feeling it to be honest

also, see not-full-caps equivalents of actual short redirects, like wp:brd, wp:mos, and wp:th, and notice that despite what i typed, they got automatically converted to "wikipedia:" when linking cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep No good reason for nuking this. It's plausible and obvious where it should go. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless it's determined that "WP" is ambiguous, since the meaning of "WP" is pretty clear in a meta sense, this redirect makes sense. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as noted "Wikipedia" is abbreviated as WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Pablo Pivasso

• Pablo Pivasso → Pablo Picasso  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo Hexware (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - unlikely typo. Yes, "c" is next to "v" on a standard keyboard, but so what? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. An unlikely typo combination. Why not Pablo Pixasso (though I'd advocate that be deleted as well)? Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an unlikely typo or misspelling. No one calls him Pablo Pivasso. JIP | Talk 13:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfinished basement

• Unfinished basement → Basement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect Hexware (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete per nom. nearly everything that comes to be must at some point be unfinished cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  but a "finished" basement often is not finished Cyber the tiger (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  making it unfinished cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Completely useless redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget to Basement#Unfinished basement because apparently that is a section in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Basement#Unfinished basement. From my perspective (American English), "Unfinished basement" is idiomatic and is more specific than a basement which is not yet finished. Frankly, in my view this should be a redirect with possibilities. WallAdhesion (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Refine to the proper section, per WallAdhesion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Refine target to Basement#Unfinished basement per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ac/DC

• Ac/DC → AC/DC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect; When would a user have AC lowercased and DC uppercased? Hexware (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like textbook WP:CHEAP to me with no chance of ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We do have an entire AC/DC (disambiguation) ;; and the non-music electrical topic; the war of the currents between Tesla and Edison -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Charlotte Web

• Charlotte Web → Charlotte's Web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect; More likely misspelling would be missing the apostrophe Hexware (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Charlotte Webb. BD2412 T 17:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RASTONISH - neither the book nor the boat are obvious targets of this misspelling. Let the search engine handle it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Ivanvector and the redirect being WP:XY as a misspelling for multiple subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Steel. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:R from opposites

• Template:R from opposites → Template:R from antonym  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary/unused redirect; Antonym is the correct terminology Hexware (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep it is describing the situation properly, and not everyone would have the word "antonym" floating in the front of their minds; which could let people search for the Rcat type through its redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete for the rather pedantic reason of the fact that an RCAT template cannot be in both a redirect and its target since RCAT templates are intended to be only on redirects, thus the plural caused by the "s" in this title could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

• Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie. → Plaisir d'amour  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are the first two lines of this song, the lyrics of which are no longer mentioned at the target. No indication on why this song over any other song should contain its first two sentences as redirects, as such an act would be an exception and not the norm. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

• Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor → Lili Marleen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Vor der" not mentioned at the target article. Unlikely search term because pages about songs tend to be located at an article that matches their title, not this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per other discussions above and below. These are the first lyrics to this song, which someone might remember without retaining the title, so it's potentially helpful for people searching for the song in question. Regards, SONIC678 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

• Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition → Police and Thieves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page can be reached after the first three words. The rest of this lyric is not mentioned at the target page, and someone specifying all this information instead of stopping at "police and thieves" is likely looking for particular information related to this quote; information that we do not contain anywhere on Wikipedia. Zero mentions across the whole site. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep; the title of the target IS present in the redirect, which precludes any accusation of the lyrics searched not being present in the article. The rest is in the domain of WP:CHEAP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Not a useful redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Enteractive

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

unmentioned, results gave me some unrelated brand that does Things™. incoming links seem to imply that it's a developer that worked under ljn maybe probably, but that's all the info i got cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Interactive (disambiguation) as a (mis)pronunciation spelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Xenusia

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

Xenusia is a subgroup of Lobopodia, it shouldn’t be redirected to the parent clade. Plus, it’s widely used enough to warrant a page. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Nuh uh

• Nuh uh → Yes and no  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Nuh-uh. Not true. Not at all. or the sound it makes usually indicates no. Blethering Scot 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, cheap, common knowledge that this means "no", which is what the article covers. BD2412 T 17:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak refine to Yes and no § Non-verbal, where there's at least a little discussion of this sort of phenomenon, even if this specific example isn't mentioned explicitly. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Henț River

• Henț River → Crasna (Tisza)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Hent River → Crasna (Tisza)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Hent" is not mentioned at the target article. It is mentioned as a part of Săcuieu (river), as well, and should be pointed at a location where such a river is discussed. However, the target appears as if it may be ambiguous, and the redirect has history. Unsure what to do here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There's also Hent River, which I'm bundling here. Regards, SONIC678 16:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Yurasov

• Sergey Yurasov → Vladimir Yurasov  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• S. Yurasov → Vladimir Yurasov  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reference to Sergey in article. Google searches show Sergey but its to another Yurasov. Blethering Scot 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hallucishaniids

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

This page shouldn’t be redirected; the reason given is “monotypic taxon”, yet the group was designed to join Hallucigeniidae and Luolishaniidae, therefore it by definition cannot be monotypic. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

MagneLine

• MagneLine → Mortar (masonry)#Polymer cement mortar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unnotable brand. results gave me some type of medicine with the same name and magnezone, but not the flavor of mortar mentioned in the pre-blar history cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The product appears to still be available, albeit named "Magne Line" (with a space) and, through a series of mergers, is now owned by a company called Maedakosen. However, as that company doesn't have a WP article, the redirect seems pretty useless and I !vote for deletion. MarcGarver (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Mileu Cyrus

• Mileu Cyrus → Miley Cyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely error. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence of this being a likely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Are we seriously gonna make a redirect for every keyboard slip-up? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Tsylor Swift

• Tsylor Swift → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely error. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence of this being a likely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Sqift

• Taylor Sqift → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely error, not every adjacent key typo needs a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence of this being a likely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BASTARD

• Wikipedia:BASTARD → User:MZMcBride  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be a redirect from Wikipedia space to a former administrator's userspace. I'm generally okay with lowbrow hijinks in userspace, but IMHO this language is inappropriate as a page title in Wikipediaspace (which does not exist to please admins past or present). Sorry if I'm whizzing in someone's private pool, but this is an inappropriate word for Wikipedia to use for any person, not to mention lack of any reason to link WP space to userspace in such a way. I'd be happy to be incorrect in this case, but I hope I'm acting in the interest of the pedia. BusterD (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as inappropriate, and in any event, as obsolete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah well. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yay for compliments! Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: True, all fame is fleeting. One legitimate concern is, if kept, precisely where does it point? I'm sure there was some pride in such "recognition" but MZM is not the only legitimate claimant on eng.wiki. "Edit war of the bastards"; We might need to bring in George Martin to write it up. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

retarget to meeeeee

just kidding, delete. there may be some unambiguous, probably useful use for a redirect like this someday, but that day doesn't seem to be today, or any day before this one, or any day within this year. maybe some mos guide on blps of bastard children? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm sure this was hilarious in 2009. Anyway, after we've deleted it, please will the closer also consider imposing an appropriate level of create-protection.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - in-jokes are fine, but humour redirects pointing at a prominent user from project space send a bad message. The joke might be funny if you're in on it, but someone coming across it who isn't might think that this is the sort of abuse we expect editors to both dish out and tolerate; this one especially so since two former administrators are in on it. We should be setting a better example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter nonsense. But ... I may consider seeing if there is some sort of project names I've page to retarget this... Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  ...Yep, out of the results for titles containing "bastard" in the project space, I found no good targets. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder why. BusterD (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I'm just surprised that no essay titled something like Wikipedia:Don't be a bastard exists. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently, I'm not the first to think this. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Wikipedia:Don't be a dick exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not that I would ever want to be the Fun Police, but this just doesn't seem encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Redirects internal to the project namespace are not required to be encyclopaedic. That's not to say this is a good redirect, just that that is not a reason why it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Everyone seems to agree: this redirect is not legitimate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, this is essentially a borderline WP:G10. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E4CF:BC31:3E2B:DEFF (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete because inappropriate. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rage game

• Rage game → Rage (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is a genre of game out there called "rage game" in which their main objective is to make the players rage. Notable examples include Getting Over It and A Difficult Game About Climbing. Not sure if the genre is really notable or not, but there are at least two examples I can think off of the top of my head (and those were just limited to the notable ones!). Maybe add a hatnote for the video game called "Rage", which is the current redirect. Someone-123-321 (I contribute) 08:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

November 4

September 31

• September 31 → List of non-standard dates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of September 31 in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone unify it with #April 31? Web-julio (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note a redirect with this title was deleted in 2017, but a deletion review discussion overturned G4 speedy deletion as it had a different target (September). Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget. October 1 would parallel an April 31 → May 1 RfD. But September 30 might be the likely sought-for page for users who simply forgot September's last date. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Dhol (Kirat)

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

This is not a helpful disambiguator, as a "Kirat" variant is not discussed at the target article, so people specifying that they desire a "Kirat" form of the Dhol drum, would not receive it when they search for this title. Contains history. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fay Spaniel

• Fay Spaniel → List of Star Fox characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This character has no confirmed last name, and this isn't even the right dog breed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Google shows me that this name is in widespread use amongst fans, even amongst fans who say that they aren't sure whether she's a Cocker Spaniel or a Poodle. It's not just one corner of fandom, it crosses multiple different social media sites, fan sites, art sites, forums, and so on, and also it crosses over into the furry-sphere which is related but distinct from Star Fox fandom. It's certainly not an official name as far as I can tell, but the extreme widespread nature of this name being assigned to this character, rightly or wrongly, makes it a pretty plausible search. As a navigational aid, this will get a searcher to the right place where we have information on the character being referred to. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Herbert the Android Pig

• Herbert the Android Pig → List of Star Fox characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• We don't need to care about the history here - it's classic early-2000s fancruft of the sort that would clearly not survive today. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Greater Luxembourg

• Greater Luxembourg → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Greater Luxembourg (modern region) → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Greater Region of Luxembourg → Greater Region of SaarLorLux  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete all three.Retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. This Euroregion is never referred to as "Greater Luxembourg". РоманЖ (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Journal of Contemporary European Studies and Organic policies in Luxembourg do talk about a Greater Luxembourg area. The second link also has a map which largely matches the map in Greater Region of SaarLorLux. A mention of the first term needs to be added to the target. The other two are acceptable variants. Retargeting to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War (per the nom's updated recommendation) also seems like a good-enough option. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, possibly redirect to Luxembourg. The thing very definitely exists, see, for example [36] (there are dozens of solid peer-reviewed works using the term). According to this source, the Greater Luxembourg includes "partly derelict French periphery benefiting from the economic spillover of Luxembourg". Having once made an (accidental) stop there, I can vouch for the description. Whether this description matches the Greater Region of SaarLorLux, I do not know (the SaarLorLux seems much larger than what the works describing the Greater Luxembourg imply). Викидим (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

See also Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War for some historical background of the term. Викидим (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• MPGuy2824, Викидим, I updated my proposal. I think now that it is better to retarget to Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. РоманЖ (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a modern concept as well. It draws a lot of interest among researchers as, I think, the largest (in terms of interaction) trans-border conglomeration in the EU. While not formal, like Greater London or Grand Paris, it seems notable on its own, perhaps, in the future it will have its own article. For now, I think that a section either in SaarLorLux or Luxembourg would do IMHO. Викидим (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Closest equivalent is IMHO Paris metropolitan area. Викидим (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, per MPGuy. This is a solution in search of a problem. Whether or not strictly accurate, the term "Greater Region of Luxembourg" is widely used in reliable published academic source (1, 2). As for "Greater Luxembourg", this is also a commonly used term. Ernst & Young offer accountancy services for for "Greater Luxembourg" (3). So too does the UN (4) and the Lux government (5, "Given the important role of Luxembourg in the ‘greater Luxembourg’ labour market, the department could usefully explore funding opportunities in neighbouring regions..."). This is a very small selection. Where exactly is the problem with the current situation? —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it seems like a consensus to Keep, some participants are also saying they'd be okay with Retargeting so I'm going to relist this discussion to come to a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Mabe Village

• Mabe Village → The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Mabe (disambiguation), where several villages named Mabe are listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Canada bunting

• Canada bunting → American tree sparrow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I could be wrong, but, based on this source from The Canadian Encyclopedia, this is an ambiguous term. I also do not see it mentioned at the target in any capacity. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any evidence that "Canada bunting" is a species of bird or an alternative name for either the current target or the species mentioned in the link provided by the nominator. When searching "Canada bunting" in Google, I get mainly hits for buntings of the Canadian flag. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as the original name of the species, given by John James Audubon. Passengerpigeon (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I saw that when searching, but is there a source specifying that it is this species? The provided source seems ambiguous about which "tree sparrow" is being depicted. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• It certainly looks like it, and there were no Tree Sparrows in North America when that was drawn. Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, demonstrably ambiguous with Bunting (decoration) or Bunting (bird) from Canada. No mention of such a phrase at the article of American tree sparrow, and would mislead readers who were looking for other purposes only to end up at a page where the phrase "Canada bunting" never occurs. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Religion of nonvoilence

• Religion of nonvoilence → Jainism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling and seemingly an undue epithet for redirection. Remsense ‥ 论 21:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Misspelled and I don't think nonviolence is particularly associated with Jainism vis-a-vis any other religion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete one would think the Amish might be the target of this. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as overly misspelled. BD2412 T 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this error. Religion of nonviolence is red, but if it existed ought to go to Nonviolence. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vote for deletion

• Wikipedia:Vote for deletion → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

AFD is a discussion, not a vote. TheWikipede (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. In the olden days (pre circa September 2005) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was called Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and there are still references to the old name around and this is a very plausible misremembering of it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion was the original name of the entire deletion process, when that was the only deletion page. You could tag Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with {{historical}} make that a soft-redirect to make people see it is historical only. This could then hard-redirect to the soft redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep in any case, as a historical artefact of ancient Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, a reasonable search term, plus historical artifacts have their place. 'Ancient Wikipedia' is usable, although I call it 'Original Wikipedia'. Most of it is still extant. Not all of original Wikipedia is on mobile, but some of its best features are still read by millions of laptop and desktop users each day. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep yes its not a vote but as noted this was the original name and so will likely have usage even if old. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Albanian Italian

• Albanian Italian → Arbëreshë people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with Albanians in Italy—I recommend disambiguating. Cremastra (u — c) 20:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between whatever articles cover Albanians in Italy, Italians in Albania, mixed-ethnicity populations of Italian and Albanian ancestry, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dark Link/Shadow Link

• Dark Link/Shadow Link → List of The Legend of Zelda characters#Dark Link  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This combination of two different names for the character, combined by the / character, is a very unlikely search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: What's particularly odd is that apparently, most first-party sources consider "Dark Link" and "Shadow Link" two different subjects/characters, though Wikipedia currently doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Swiftmas

• Swiftmas → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RSURPRISE considering the term is unmentioned and the target section does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the target section does not exist, this was created as a redirect to Taylor Swift#Swiftmas in 2015. In 2020 it was adjusted to point to Taylor Swift with the rationale "This section is long gone". Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that explanation, given I made that rationale based on the creation edit and not the current revision of the redirect when I made the nomination ... and didn't realize it until you stated this! Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

oh come on, it's barely november

delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Swifties#Relationship with Swift. The term is mentioned there. Could see a reasonable case to develop a little info about it at Cultural impact of Taylor Swift given some coverage in sources[37] and then subsequently retarget. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Party in the UDA

• Party in the UDA → Party in the U.S.A.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another unlikely misspelling since 3 words have to be typed correctly before getting to the misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Very implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment it would seem like a plausible adjacent character typo on QWERTY keyboards, as the [S] and [D] keys lie next to each other. And Party in the USA is a perfectly acceptable way of spelling the name of the song, not needing the fullstops. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • However, this is a recently created redirect of the last week, so there is no long term history of usage, so the creator should provide lexical stats on the likelihood of this typo above the the background expected adjacent character typo rate of any adjacent key-pairs, in order to keep this around. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this error. I don't think the Ulster Defence Association were known for parties Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Party in the YSA

• Party in the YSA → Party in the U.S.A.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Borderline unlikely WP:SEO-ish misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Very implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it would seem like a plausible adjacent character typo on QWERTY keyboards, as the [y] and [u] keys lie next to each other. And Party in the USA is a perfectly acceptable way of spelling the name of the song, not needing the fullstops. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • However, this is a recently created redirect of the last week, so there is no long term history of usage, so the creator should provide lexical stats on the likelihood of this typo above the the background expected adjacent character typo rate of any adjacent key-pairs, in order to keep this around. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Snooze-A-Koopa

• Snooze-A-Koopa → Koopa Troopa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not mentioned anywhere. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a cruel summer

• It's a cruel summer → Cruel Summer (Taylor Swift song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Also a line in Cruel Summer (Bananarama song). No reason why one should be preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Setindexify per Steel1943. Personally I think of the Bananarama song first -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (...Now you're gone), or retarget to disambiguation page Cruel Summer. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

MoMA The Museum of Modern Art

• MoMA The Museum of Modern Art → Museum of Modern Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely redirect due to redundancy: Acronym at the beginning, then breaking down the acronym after the acronym. Reader would just ... type the acronym or the name, not both. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

dpn delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is how they style themselves on their social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr) making this a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep precisely per Thryduulf. BD2412 T 02:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, per Thryduulf. A legit alternate name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Partyintheusa

• Partyintheusa → Party in the U.S.A.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely lack of spaces. This redirect was created this year; such redirects are no longer technically necessary since the software that runs Wikipedia no longer requires using camel case titles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It is the hashtag spelling of the song, missing the hashmark, which is technically impossible on pagenames. Whether we should keep such around or not is a different matter. #partyintheusa or #PartyInTheUSA -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Partu in the USA

• Partu in the USA → Party in the U.S.A.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, Partu is not in the USA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it would seem like a plausible adjacent character typo on QWERTY keyboards, as the [y] and [u] keys lie next to each other. And Party in the USA is a perfectly acceptable way of spelling the name of the song, not needing the fullstops. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • However, this is a recently created redirect of the last week, so there is no long term history of usage, so the creator should provide lexical stats on the likelihood of this typo above the the background expected adjacent character typo rate of any adjacent key-pairs, in order to keep this around. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - unlikely error, I can't imagine someone typing that into the search bar, seeing a red link, and not realizing they made an obvious-looking typo. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Toyota CNa

• Toyota CNa → Toyota Sienna  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very unlikely phonetic misspelling, especially considering all the letters in the phonetic aren't the same case. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Extremely unlikely. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Useless.  Stepho  talk  21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Garbage truxk

• Garbage truxk → Garbage truck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typing the entire first word correctly, then somehow mistyping the second word, especially considering that Truxk has never existed, seems unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Implausible typo. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment it is a plausible typo on a QWERTY keyboard, as the [X] and [C] keys are adjacent to each other. Adjacent key substitutions are thus a likely form of mistype. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    • In any case, that being said, noting the plausibility, this is a recently created redirect from this week, so unless usage stats pop up that this particular spelling is more likely than the background error rate of adjacent key fumblings, I don't see much of a reason to keep it -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom, and maybe trout the creator or something. they've made a lot of indiscriminate typo redirects, wowie cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Cogsan above. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

WPNFCC

• WPNFCC → Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malformed shortcut missing the colon which makes it a cross namespace redirect as it is not in the Wikipedia namespace. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to non-readership content -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Either an error, or an inappropriate Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:N F C C

• Wikipedia:N F C C → Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Improper shortcut, shortcuts aren't supposed to have spaces like this. Implausible someone would type this instead of just WP:NFCC. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Embedded pun

• Embedded pun → Pun#Science and computing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned, target section no longer exists, results gave me puns embedded on things and ai slop cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Lowest form of humor

• Lowest form of humor → Pun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

entirely correct!! term mentioned once in passing, though, and results seem to be torn between puns, sarcasm (a close second, possibly tied with blp vandalism), and wit (though some refer to wit as the highest form) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

should mention. if not deleted, i'll be creating lowest form of humour to accompany it. just not gonna do it now because that'd require the effort of nominating it here, clumping them together, and then it might just get deleted anyway

should also mention that i'm not necessarily voting to delete, as i'm not good enough at dealing with lines that have gone into inspirational quote limbo to opine beyond "this might not be the right target tbh" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment my gut feeling is that this should be a blue link as a plausible search term. Search results for the British English spelling are roughly evenly split between referring to puns and sarcasm, while the US spelling is almost entirely puns. "The lowest form of wit" all relates to Sarcasm (almost certainly due to the Oscar Wilde quote), "The lowest form of comedy" is almost entirely puns (but the second hit says it is sitcoms). On Wikipedia, "Lowest form of humor" gets a mention at Felicia Lamport#Life and work as part of a long quote from a review of one of her books; "Lowest form of humour" is mentioned at the end of Pun#Shakespeare. "Lowest form of wit" is mentioned as the title of works by Leonard Rossiter and Louis Untermeyer but nowhere else in mainspace. "Lowest form of comedy" is the title of a reference at Cameron Esposito but gets no other mainspace uses. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Vague, could refer to almost anything, unfortunately. Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, per Thryduulf's research, puns fall within a reasonable definition and the term itself is familiar. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

ハンマーブロス

• ハンマーブロス → List of Mario franchise characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not helpful for the English encyclopedia. Appears to refer to the Hammer Bros. antagonists in the Mario franchise. TNstingray (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

weak refine to #enemy characters. yeah, that refers to hammer bros. mario is a japanese franchise (really japanese, even, have you seen how many tanuki they can cram into a single game?), so japanese redirects are fine and dandy, though this one isn't mentioned, so meh cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

ジュゲム

• ジュゲム → List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful for the English encyclopedia, and I don't see a connection to the Mario franchise. Google seems to point to Jugemu if consensus leads to this redirect being kept. TNstingray (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

keep. that refers to the lakitu. the japanese name is mentioned (if in a footnote), and while ジュゲム (jugemu) refers to lakitus, 寿限無 (jugemu) refers to jugemu jugemu gokō-no surikire kaijarisuigyo-no suigyōmatsu unraimatsu furaimatsu kuunerutokoro-ni sumutokoro yaburakōji-no burakōji paipopaipo paipo-no shūringan shūringan-no gūrindai gūrindai-no ponpokopī-no ponpokonā-no chōkyūmei-no chōsuke, where lakitu gets its name from. get nippon egao hyakkei'd lol cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Surface Laptop Studio 2

• Surface Laptop Studio 2 → Surface Laptop Studio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

SLS2 is a different product than SLS (1) Hexware (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

either keep in absence of an article for the sls2, or return to red so someone might create that article. i'm leaning towards the latter, but it's just around 15º, so weak delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am creating the article, but still a rough draft the moment [38]. weak delete and return to red in the interim given lack of information about it on the SLS 1 page Anguswiki (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WPT:NFCC

• WPT:NFCC → Wikipedia talk:Non-free content  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This a new cross-namespace redirect that showed up on my Quarry query for cross-namespace redirects that I wanted to run by the regulars at RFD to determine whether it is appropriate. We have few redirects to Wikipedia talk pages. This was originally a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria but that page is a redirect itself so I corrected it to point to a genuine talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - completely unnecessary redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G6. "WT:" is the correct shortening of "Wikipedia Talk:" 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ugh, I just took a look at the creator's other redirect creations, the vast majority of which are bad (most of the 1-letter-off typo variety, but also other types), and should probably be deleted also. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  See also WPNFCC, especially relevant to this particular case. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete improper use of a shortcut. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have the proper shortcut, WT:NFCC. This nominated redirect serves no helpful purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fântânele River (Mureș)

• Fântânele River (Mureș) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fantanele River (Mures) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fântânele River (Mureş) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There's also the version without diacritics, which I'll be adding here, since I think it should share the same fate. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled another version Fântânele River (Mureş).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think a Romanian/Romanian-speaking editor would be helpful here to determine whether this is actually a thing or not. Probably the result of some confusion with Fântânele, Mureș; the online source indicates that Fântânele is the name of a valley, but I'm not sure whether that translates to it being the name of a river. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have found this river on an old hiking map, where it's called "V. Fîntînele" (old spelling using "î" instead of "â", in full it would be "Valea Fântânele"). It flows into the Mureș at Lunca Bradului. The same river is called "Obcina Ferigelor" on this hiking map, and it is mentioned as such in this listing, page 265 and in this source, page 137. According to the latter source, it is 7 km long and has a basin area of 23 km². This document refers to the river as "pârâul Obcina Ferigilor (pr. Fântânel)". But, "obcină" means "ridge" and "vale" means "valley", so these names could also refer to the wider area the river flows in. Concluding, there is evidence that this river exists, but it doesn't seem very notable. The Mureș (river) article mentions "Obcina Ferigerilor" as a right tributary, so we could add "Fântânel" or "Valea Fântânele" as an alternative name there, or (re)create an article about the river. Markussep ^Talk 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Communist Party (Kosovo)

• Communist Party (Kosovo) → List of political parties in Kosovo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "communist" at the target article. A misleading redirect to a target where the party in question is not discussed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to League of Communists of Kosovo. मल्ल (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Heather Cerveny

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

D'ni Restoration Council

• D'ni Restoration Council → Myst (series)#Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "restoration" or "council" at the target article. Tagged as a fictional element. Page history indicates there used to be content here written entirely in an in-universe style, and any mention that may have once existed to the D'ni Restoration Council, has been wiped out entirely from Myst (series). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'ni Restoration Council, usual fancruft ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Diana Burnwood

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nomos Publishing House redirects

• Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice → Nomos Publishing House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Die Unternehmung → Nomos Publishing House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Redirect from a academic journal and its alternative name that has been publishing since 1947 to the current publisher. Used as a reference on a few articles. Nobody (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @1AmNobody24: The academic journal is not mentioned at all at the target, it's misleading in its current state. Even if it's used elsewhere, people will be misled by the redirect when there's nothing at the target, not even a mention. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I disagree. Even if it's not mentioned, common sense is still a thing. For example: A book that redirects to a person? I'd assume it's the author. A magazine or journal that redirects to a publishing company? Obviously it's the publisher. Nobody (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @1AmNobody24: Common sense is a thing, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to redirect to places that offer absolutely no explanation whatsoever to the relevance. Common sense would be a lowercase version of the article's title. A lack of relevance or explanation at the target is a very frequent and normal reason for deletion. It's the same reason we delete, for instance, characters of shows where there's no mention of them at said target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh The publisher can be of relevance. Some publishers have better Reputation than others, which, if the redirected journal is used as a reference for example, can influence the readers. I'm not saying this is the case here, just generally speaking. And while I agree that there are often deletions for lack of relevance or explanation. I don't think one should believe that unmentioned redirects always fit this criteria simply because they're unmentioned. Nobody (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Context is key, and there's no context at the target whatsoever in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

How many journals do they publish? If it's not an exorbitant amount, and if the count of 60 is accurate that's not too bad, I'd recommend just adding a list and keeping this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Crazee Dayzee

• Crazee Dayzee → Yoshi's Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - extremely minor character, unlikely to maintain a sourced mention in the article that doesn't violate WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:TRIVIA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sahatit

• Sahatit → Tirana Clock Tower  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect doesn't make sense in Albanian language. It's akin to having a redirect like "Of the clock" in English — incorrect and misleading. If it were "Sahati," it would at least be in the nominative case ("The clock"), but it would still miss the essential "tower" element. I'm an Albanian speaker and I've already created another redirect in a better form (Kulla e Sahatit) so this one can be safely deleted I assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klein Muçi (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

World's deepest cave

• World's deepest cave → Cave  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

deepest cave in relation to what? from entrance to lowest point (article says it's veryovkina cave), from depth of the lowest point (article says nothing), or something else? originally redirected to velebit caves, which that article says is only one of the deepest systems. i don't think the current target works since it only gives relative answers (really, it only gives one answer disguised as half an answer), but i also don't think it would count as trivia. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List of deepest caves - aiming at a list that is ordered by how deep they are seems more appropriate than targeting a specific cave, and definitely more helpful than targeting the general Cave article. We seem to do a similar thing for World's tallest building → List of tallest buildings BugGhost🦗👻 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of deepest caves per Bugghost. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Which world though? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  i'm assuming super mario world cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Close, but the answer I'm looking for is Pikmin 2. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  dammit undertale cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of deepest caves seems sensible. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Mlawu ka Rarabe

• Mlawu ka Rarabe → Rarabe kaPhalo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirects to Mlawu ka Rarabe's father, it seems unnecessary Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep Useful for people looking for royal geneaologies. However, there are WP:RETURNTORED considerations. As there are no other biographical detail other than the mention of being the son. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dream Factory (game developer)

• Dream Factory (game developer) → DreamFactory (game company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dream Factory (Japanese company) → DreamFactory (game company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dream Factory Co., Ltd. → DreamFactory (game company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Extremely novel typo of the company's name expanded to a number of redirects. Not notable enough to deserve being redirected. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Seems like a reasonable alternative rendering of a company name with unorthodox spacing. One of the cited articles [39] even spell the name with a space. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - per Ca - I wouldn't call adding a space between two words "extremely novel", so the mistake seems very plausible to me. BugGhost🦗👻 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Even so, I would rather only keep one of these redirects. The Co., Ltd. one definitely is unnecessary, and one of the first two redirects won't be cited much in articles anyway. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep very likely alt/mispelling or if it were an older version of MOS:TM it would be the recommended form used on Wikipedia. And the text of the article itself uses "Co., Ltd." so that is also likely -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

PKS 1402-012

• PKS 1402-012 → Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This belongs on the target list, but is just one of 8000, and isn't mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This was an article which existed for a short time, but was then BLARed by the creator/sole substantive contributor, Galaxybeing. If GB gives the go-ahead, this could probably just be G7ed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  oops, fixed ping for Galaxybeing 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Northern countries

• Northern countries → Global North and Global South  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Southern countries → Global North and Global South  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently created and very vague. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Without further context, these terms appear to be mainly used as synonyms in regard to their development. [40][41][42][43].

I suggest a {{redirect}} hatnote to nordic countries since they share the similar meanings, and I found one source that refers to the nordics as northern: [44] Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

After reading the below IP editor's comment, disambiguation may be the best answer. It is a vague, yet still oft-used term. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Northern country and Southern country, these terms also refer to Northern Hemisphere countries and Southern Hemisphere countries geographically (ie. Central America, Caribbean, North Africa, South Asia, are in the Northern hemisphere), but we don't seem to have good targets for those subjects. That is distinctly different from the Global North and Global South. And there's the related term for Northern country being Western country/Western countries in geopolitics, which is distinct from Western Hemisphere countries geographically (ie. Europe is missing, Global South of South America is included). -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Work is an honor

• Work is an honor → Gulag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Work is a honor → Gulag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Work is an honour → Gulag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Work is a honour → Gulag  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seemingly unmentioned at the target. Also could not pull anything obvious up with a general search. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments Appears to be a common refrain posted on gulags. The first thing a prisoner would have seen on their arrival at Vorkuta was a sign that said: “Work in the USSR Is a Matter of Honor and Glory.”[45], The emphasis is on the victims of the Gulag; the authors of the exhibition give a clear answer to the sacrosanct question, "To what deity were these sacrifices made?": No deity was involved. In some cases, a large ceremonial portrait of Stalin—the system's main demiurge— appears above the photographs of construction sites and camps. One characteristic example is the Museum of Military and Labor Glory (Taiga, Kemerovo). The exhibition "Rehabilitation" occupies a separate hall: in the "red corner" (traditionally used for icons) hangs a ceremonial portrait of Stalin decorated with barbed wire next to the slogan "For us, work is an HONOR, a deed of valor and heroism." [46]

A mention could potientially added, although I will leave it for others to find out if it is WP:DUE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have bundled Work is a honor, Work is an honour, and Work is a honour as clearly needing the same outcome of this discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, “Work in the USSR Is a Matter of Honor and Glory” is a common slogan of Soviet GULAGs.

https://tadexprof.com/vorkuta-gulag/ NagisaEf (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Jackie Aprile (disambiguation)

• Jackie Aprile (disambiguation) → List of The Sopranos characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It simply ain’t disambiguating anything. Roasted (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete While there are many characters of the same family that is named Jackie Aprile in the show, the page is not disambiguating anything. Was bot-created erroneously. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy per WP:CSD#G14. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The third bullet point of G14 is A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). since it's targeting a list, it isn't eligible for G14. There are multiple Jackie Apriles talked about on that page so seems close to correct. Probably not very useful but not sure if that's really enough to delete. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete G14 doesn't apply in a technical sense, but this is confusing and not useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Elon Musk

• This is Elon Musk → Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Didn't bother merging it with the other discussion because the other discussion is going to end early due to WP:G7 and this redirect is slightly less blatantly implausible than This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO, even if it's still very implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be an internet meme [47]. Not notable for mention in the main article. Readers following this redirect will be confused as the information they are looking for is not present. Delete Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is a meme. Your point is valid this might confuse some readers that may not know what the meme is. However most people that search this up knows what the meme is because no person that doesn't know what the meme is will most likely not search it up in that manor. Idek mann (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Idek mann (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

• 1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx → Silk Road (marketplace)#Later seizures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an R from merge. The history of this wallet ID is useful to preserve, but as a search term and as a helpful redirect it is neither of these things, especially so as the wallet ID is not mentioned at the subject, so there is zero indication what this string of 34 characters could possibly mean in relationship to the subject. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and add mention: Unambiguous. C F A 💬 01:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I added a sourced mention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbeitsamt

• Arbeitsamt → Economy of Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term is never mentioned in the target article. Perhaps it should be retargeted to Arbeitsamt in occupied Poland or be a disambig? It is also not mentioned in de version of the target article, de:Arbeitsamt does not have a wiki article yet (it seems related to the Public employment service) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORRED. This just translates to "unemployment office" or "employment agency" and Wiktionary notes it as "historical, –2004". We don't have any content specifically about these topics in German-speaking countries. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Bundesagentur für Arbeit. "Arbeitsamt" is the name of the official German state employment agency, which doesn't have an article on English Wikipedia (cf Jobcentre, which does) - the closest we have is our article on the government department responsible for these agencies. Tevildo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a WP:FORRED that doesn't have such a strong association with Bundesagentur für Arbeit so as to make it relevant to English-speakers. The most I could find in English sources were blog posts stating that German-speakers refer to the Bundesagentur für Arbeit as the Arbeitsamt. ― Synpath 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Actually Bundesagentur für Arbeit is the agency belonging to the ministry only and is divided into two divisions: Arbeitsagentur/Arbeitsamt for people who don't have a job for less than 12 months and Jobcenter for people who don't have a job for 12 months or longer. These are the official names. Killarnee (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

S-compact space

• S-compact space → Σ-compact space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
  

• Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [48] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).

  Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  

  (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).

  @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  
  

• Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it is a Eubot (talk · contribs) creation, Eubot made tonnes of these stupid incorrect Latin-to-Greek letter redirects -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  In the majority of cases Eubot ASCII-fications are plausible. This one isn't only because it conflicts with the notation for something else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

• Snapseed 2.22.412829873 → Snapseed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It would make sense to have a redirect for a particularly important software version, but that version (and its importance) would need to be mentioned in the target page. WP:NOTCHANGELOG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It also would likely want to go to a section header / anchor, instead of simply Snapseed. In any case, delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; there may be important info on this topic, but it's not here, and a redlink is the best way to convey that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello nice people ;)... i made it probably when i saw EXIF and see Software used, so i click and reroute to what we had (the article) and probaly that is it. Of course i wont bother if this is changed. Normally i use reroute for cameras in EXIF (EXIF is "cameras fingerprint"). Reroute=redirect --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as {{R from EXIF}} per PetarM. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Spacelike vector

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cancellated

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

"cancellated" means two different things, neither primarily associated with bones. "cancellous" is apparently more primarily associated with bones though, so that's neato cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between the relevant Wikipedia articles covering these meanings. BD2412 T 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikt. The original intention of this redirect was to target what is now Bone#Trabeculae (to where Cancellous bone redirects), but the other use of the word (Marked with cross lines) is mentioned in very many more articles, with no obvious general target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig per BD2412 with soft redirection as a second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  problem that i should have asked about before: what would those articles be? because one definition is as affiliated with bones as it is with sponges, the other could refer to any wacky cross, and neither seems to be discussed in any particular level of detail that would make it worth a dab cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ceddin Deden

• Ceddin Deden → Ottoman military band#"Ceddin Deden"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article now does not mention Ceddin Deden in any capacity anymore. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 contribs 11:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to İsmail Hakki Bey, where the song is described. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Decco Bishop

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

KP2

• KP2 → Teenage Dream  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. Also pointing at incorrect target. Blethering Scot 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate there is the KP.2 strain of SARS-CoV-2 mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant; the KP2 battalion of the His Majesty the King's Guard; Pickering-Pearson KP.2 listed at List of aircraft (Pi–Pz); Kore Potash (stock ticker KP2); KP2 control tone for the AT&T phone system covered at blue box; Korg Kaoss Pad KP2 listed at List of Korg products; Drulisvirus Kp2 listed at List of virus species; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate the IP makes a good case above for other search terms, just don't include this album there as that would be misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

November 3

KP1

• KP1 → One of the Boys  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. In addition KP1 is Katy Perry's second album, which makes target incorrect. Blethering Scot 23:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate There's the KP1 battalion of the His Majesty the King's Guard; ORP Batory carrying pennant number KP-1; Kimmig Kp 1, a varietal of grape at List of grape varieties; KP.1 strain of SARS-CoV-2 mentioned at COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore; WW2 Allied convoy KP.1 at List of Allied convoy codes during World War II; KP-1 borehole of the Kuraszków in the Drzewica Formation; Kathu Pan 1 (KP1) in South Africa mentioned at Hafting; KP1 is a synonym for KPS 10721 covered at KPS 9566#KPS 10721; Navassa Island (KP1) covered at Amateur radio call signs; Kępno (line station code Kp1) listed at Railway lines of Poland; Przondovirus Kp1 listed at List of virus species; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate the IP makes a good case above for other search terms, just don't include this album there as that would be misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Dabify per IP. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Holy shit, we're gonna fucking die

• Holy shit, we're gonna fucking die → Comair Flight 3272  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Statement Pilot made. No mention in article, and lack of notable sources available. Blethering Scot 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. In addition to everything brought up by OP, this is also... incredibly vague. I'd first expect this to be a quote that shows up in practically every horror movie ever made. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Incredibly vague and not mentioned in article. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous comments; strong sourcing is needed for a catchphrase to redirect to an article about an event, and that seems lacking. Carguychris (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Surprising

• Wikipedia:Surprising → Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:SURPRISING → Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprising  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should probably have the same target for these two. As it happens, WP:SURPRISE and WP:SURPRISING have had differing targets for well over a decade. Is this a good thing? You tell me, although I'd wager not, as it's TRULY a WP:SURPRISE for which page you end up at between the two, all depending on the verb conjugation. I wouldn't expect all editors to be familiar about which goes where. :P Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget both to WP:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment. This was the first target I thought of. I also looked through the backlinks to WP:SURPRISING, and I didn't find anything of which the meaning would be especially affected by the retarget. Duckmather (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep WP:Surprising and retarget WP:SURPRISING to match
  1. I created WP:Surprising to easily conjugate+link WP:SURPRISE (principle of least astonishment), since that has been a relevant and guiding principle in various discussions. It is indeed WP:Surprising that WP:SURPRISING links to a humorous essay and not to the supplement to the WP:Manual of Style.
  2. WP:ASTONISH, WP:ASTONISHING, WP:Astonishing all link to the same target, so it makes sense for WP:SURPRISE, WP:SURPRISING, WP:Surprising to as well.
  3. WP:SURPRISING is being wrongly used by editors most of the time assuming it targets the principle of least astonishment: 2009 May, 2016 August, 2018 October, 2022 August, 2022 November 15 (the nominator used the correct form [[WP:SURPRISE|surprising]], then a responder used the incorrect link [[WP:SURPRISING]], clearly expecting them both to link to the same target), and 2022 November 18, which all account for ~66% of WP:SURPRISING's natural transclusions. "Wikipedia:SURPRISING → Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprising" is and has been clearly causing more harm than good for many years.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Target both to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment, which is also the target of WP:SURPRISE. Make a new shortcut-- WP:NOTSURPRISING-- to lead to WP:Things that should not be surprising. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Target both to Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment per Tom.Redding. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Brrrt

• Brrrt → GAU-8 Avenger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from sound that is made. No mention in article or notability and seems an implausible term. Blethering Scot 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as vague. This seems to be an onomatopoeia for a lot of guns according to GSearch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

delete. vague onomatopeia currently more associated with skibidi toilet or any variant of the "[thing] go brrr" meme. even if tiktok didn't exist, it would have to complete with other guns that shoot things fast cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, vague WP:FANCRUFT from the online military aviation and air-combat gaming communities, but unknown in broader popular culture. Carguychris (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as vague, since it could refer to the M134 Minigun or other rotary guns. And there's the slender antbird that has this birdcall -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"E-SAF"

• "E-SAF" → Aviation biofuel#Sustainable aviation fuels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a plausible search term. Already redirect of E SAF. Blethering Scot 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The quotation marks make this implausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Lists of charcters

• Minor Charcters in Twilight → List of Twilight characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Charcters of Strawberry Panic! → List of Strawberry Panic! characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Kamen Rider Ryuki charcters → List of Kamen Rider Ryuki characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of charcters in Resistance series → Resistance (video game series)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Charcters in the Iliad → List of Homeric characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects don't have as much history besides fixing double redirects and adding the misspelling template (and, in the Iliad one's case, surviving a speedy deletion nomination in 2012 because it was created in 2007), and they haven't gotten very many pageviews nowadays (correct me if I'm wrong, though). I'm not 100% sure "charcters" is a plausible misspelling of "characters," so I'm bringing them to RfD to discuss. My preference is deletion, but I'm open to other outcomes. Regards, SONIC678 22:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

delete all I am a person who would tag these as spelling errors. But they are not useful, with hardly any page hits. And searching Google only yields Wikipedia or its mirrors for these errors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all as unlikely and illformatted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all. While I think that "charcters" is a plausible misspelling, it probably doesn't help a significant number of readers since it applies (or would apply, if extended) to potentially hundreds of pages about radically different sets of charcters. Page views appear to bear this out (if there are exceptions, they don't appear in this nomination). Readers searching for particular charcters are more likely to find them by searching for the works in which they appear, thereby avoiding the misspelling entirely. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all - per other arguments and nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

John Shedletsky

• John Shedletsky → Roblox Corporation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non Notable employee. Youtuber Roblox Blethering Scot 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete My search did not turn up potiential sources for a mention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bible Hub

• Bible Hub → Portal:Bible/Web resources  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Strange redirect. Appears to be referring to https://www.biblehub.com/, which is linked to on Portal:Bible/Web resources. Delete. C F A 💬 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this WP:ASTONISHING redirect to portal space. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  creating this redirection, my initial idea was that maybe some kind of redirection would be better than no article at all, but okay :) I don't mind deleting it, since the final page really is about more topics than just Bible Hub and seems like it's not in the spirit of the English Wikipedia Niepodkoloryzowany (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia does not use hub nomenclature for centralized page of resources. As for the particular website, that would be deleted per WP:REDYES as there is no article here. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There also might be a future article for the website here per WP:REDLINK. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

SUE MEEE?

• SUE MEEE? → Bia (rapper)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article. Non Notable lyric. Blethering Scot 22:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Not a lyric, it is a name of a diss track by Bia [49]. A mention should be added. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Still not sure its notable enough to even be mentioned.Blethering Scot 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

EbonyPrince2K24

• EbonyPrince2K24 → Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No Mention in target article. Non Notable. Blethering Scot 22:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

KVV Heusden-Zolder

• KVV Heusden-Zolder → K. Beringen-Heusden-Zolder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently this and the target are two different clubs, see User_talk:Abcmaxx#KVV_Heusden-Zolder. I am a bit confused because the interwikis seem to disagree? This needs to be untangled, and deleting this redirect is only part of the work. Ping @User:Abcmaxx for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Endo (cannabis)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: now deleted

Ekaladerhan n'Izoduwa n'ovbie Ogiso

• Ekaladerhan n'Izoduwa n'ovbie Ogiso → Oduduwa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Name is not used anywhere. C F A 💬 21:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Tatiana Maksimova

• Tatiana Maksimova → Tatiana Vishnevskaya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cannot find any sources using this alternative name. C F A 💬 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cho-Island

• Cho-Island → Niaoyu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article; source linked in edit summary for this page's creation does not have this name either. LR.127 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No source indicating this name.--S8321414 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete My searches came up blank. Also ambiguous between several Korean mini-islands. [50] Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per other arguments Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Ca's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

United Rapes

• United Rapes → Rape in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect LR.127 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This redirect serves no purpose. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Effectively non-sense, and even if it wasn't, it would be highly unlikely that the term United Rape would have anything to do with Rape in the United States. Possibly also an issue with the U.S.-centric POV. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as unlikely synonym at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and send to WP:DAFT per the above. I also googled the term and found nothing worth mentioning. Duckmather (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a synonym for the target subject, to say the least. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per other arguments Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Circlejerk subreddit

• Circlejerk subreddit → Reddit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's no List of subreddits or anything of that sort I can tell (I did a google search to be extra sure and the only thing that came up was actually a Wikidata item), and I'm not sure whether such a list would meet WP:NLIST. So, delete, at least for the time being. Duckmather (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

1996 in California

• 1996 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1997 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1999 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 1999 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2000 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2001 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2002 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2003 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2004 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2005 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2006 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2007 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2008 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2009 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2010 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2011 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2012 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2013 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2014 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2015 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2016 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2017 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2018 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2019 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2020 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2021 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2022 in California → List of years in California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion. I believe that links to year articles should remain redlinks instead of redirects, so that we can better see which year articles still need to be created. Other reasons why this isn't a good redirect is that the target page contains no information about the redirect title (i.e. someone specifically searching for "1996 in California" is just met with links to other years they weren't interested in). HertzDonuts (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete these unhelpful circular redirects. Redirecting to a page that has the year listed as a link, and then the user clicks that year and gets sent back to the page they started at, is super unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all to encourage article creation. There were definitely a lot of events that happened in these years in Calfornia, both notable enough by Wikipedia's standards and not, and creating a circular link isn't going to get people what they're searching for. Regards, SONIC678 22:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:REDYES. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete all - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Indy HeroClix (heroclix)

• Indy HeroClix (heroclix) → HeroClix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate DAB formatting by listing it both inside and outside the parentheses. Delete as unhelpful redirect. If kept, please redirect to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series. TNstingray (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Yes, indeed, bring me to the page about a heroclix! Which one? The one that's a heroclix! This is a very implausible disambiguation attempt, and we don't need it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Move the non-insignificant edit history to Indy Clix (which seems to be the real name per Google searches) and retartget to List of HeroClix supplements#Main series as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland → User:Daniel Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject Baronage of Scotland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We shouldn't start having project namespace redirects redirect to user's personal sandboxes. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. This is like a mainspace page being redirect to its Draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as not only useless but misleading. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Handwriting expert

• Handwriting expert → Graphology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would think that the modern primary meaning of "handwriting expert" would be the person who scientifically examines handwriting to determine authorship, not the pseudoscientific person who analysis handwriting to divine personality characteristics. I am on the fence about whether this should be retargeted to Graphanalysis, or disambiguated. BD2412 T 16:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm. I think I'd lean toward retargeting to Forensic handwriting examination, which is already a dab page with a couple potential entries, but I don't feel super strongly about it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • An expert is not an examination, though, and Graphology (which should be mentioned on a disambiguation page for the nominated term) is not forensic. BD2412 T 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Questioned document examination as avoiding double redirect from Graphanalysis, which has a hatnote to Graphology. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Dana Fuller

• Dana Fuller → Dana Fuller Ross  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: "Dana Fuller Ross" was a pseudonym not shortened to "Dana Fuller". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Dana Fuller Ross does not mention notability, has no references. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Update' someone converted the target Dana Fuller Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Piruzān

• Piruzān → Abu Lu'lu'a  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Piruzan" in the article. The redirect is categorized as R from an incorrect name Pīrūzān, but Pīrūzān doesn't exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Coramandal FC

• Coramandal FC → Andhra Pradesh Football Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

should be deleted until there is a list of associated football clubs in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

List of chairpersons of the Telangana Legislative Council

• List of chairpersons of the Telangana Legislative Council → Telangana Legislative Council  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list present on the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

PGC 2399018

• PGC 2399018 → Principal Galaxies Catalogue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This galaxy is part of the target list, but it is one of 73,000 and isn't mentioned there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not mentioned. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This used to point to 2MASX J09175344+5143379 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which used to be a 20kB article before it was BLAR'd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The west has fallen, billions must die

• The west has fallen, billions must die → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting#Perpetrator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be from an alt-right meme, but isn't mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shooting occurred in 2019, meme popped up in 2022. Don't think there will be a reference. Delete TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

People might want to know about the origins of the meme. Keep --Uglytriangle999 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Web interfaces

• Web interfaces → User interface#Types  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redundant redirect since we already have Web interface Nuclearelement (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

speedy keep and retarget to Web interface TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Web API along with Web interface and Web-interface. I probably should have checked whether web interface was a redirect or not. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Web interface A plural form is a completely reasonable redirect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy retarget to Web interface, completely valid {{R from plural}}. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I was tempted to speedy close this to match Web interface but that is a redirect to User interface#Web interface. Of course that could be a fine retarget and then tag Web interfaces as R from plural and {{R from avoided double redirect}}. However, I noticed that there is also {{Web interfaces}}, which has Web API as it's "primary" article. Given that is a full article, I'll suggest retargeting both Web interface and Web interfaces to Web API and add a redirects here hat note there mentioning/linking to User interface, something like: "Web interface" redirects here. For the user interfaces, see User interface and Web application. (since Web application also has some bits about the interface. It does seem like our coverage of web-based interfaces seem incomplete.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  May have to re-evaluate the close of Web-interface below if my suggestion gets any support. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Web-interface

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Neo-mooris

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Neo-moors

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Çornosturuf

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kırıvçe

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

Seems to be Turkish-style transliteration? Regardless, unmentioned at target, and searches have not helped elucidate the meaning of this redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO

• This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO → Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no need for redirects of random phrases. Killarnee (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• This is actually an old meme about Elon Musk and just a redirect that is a way for people to get to the page if they prefer to search that way here is my source:[51] if this gets terminated, I understand. Idek mann (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as unmentioned/per nom, and also suggest adding This is Elon Musk, and someone might want to take a look at some other questionable redirect creations by this same user. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see. Also please what other redirects do you mean that are questionable sir? Idek mann (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete another redirect that is similar to this has already been reviewed. There is no need for another one.[52] Idek mann (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"There is no need for another one" is not a valid argument for a deletion. And just because the other redirect isn't listed for discussion or was reviewed doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible that it gets deleted too. I think in this case it would be appropriate to either keep both or delete both. Killarnee (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood Idek mann (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if the creator's argument isn't valid, RfD and speedy delete are completely different processes. If the creator wants their redirect to be deleted, then so be it. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. A user doesn't need this to find the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 05:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

List of zombie other films

• List of zombie other films → List of zombie films  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

1) "List of [genre, element, etc.] films is a questionably plausible format, 2) the redirect doesn't make it clear which zombie movies it's meant to exclude, and 3) the number of pageviews this redirect is getting has been declining over the years. I'm not sure we need this redirect, but I could be wrong, and I'd like to hear your opinions about this. Regards, SONIC678 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. What is a "zombie other"? Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete it appears to be a temporary title from 2013 to create a new list of low-budget films. Obviously the placeholder title is of no importance. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment considering the list intro on the target, concerning what a zombie is, it excludes films like White Zombie (film), etc; those containing Voodoo/vudun zombies (cursed noncontagious reanimated corpse slaves who follow commands of its master) and other traditional West African folkoric/religious/mythological concepts and similar and derivatives like those from Haiti; so there could be a list of non-stereotypical zombie films; ie. those not evolving from "Night of the Living Dead" which introduced the homophageous reanimated dead who like to eat brains and infect people with their bite. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as ungrammatical. The draft that 65.92.246.77 was moved to List of low-budget zombie films, so there's no list of losing page history. Duckmather (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ramstyng

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

Very implausible misspelling. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, would be an R3 if it were new. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There's also nothing I can find that people would refer to as "Ramstyng" (other than this redirect), either on google or onwiki. Duckmather (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2

Jishan Alam

• Jishan Alam → Bangladesh national under-19 cricket team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed on target page. Not yet notable eithier. Blethering Scot 23:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete to uninhibit the Search function, which would find 13 mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Mentioned on a number of other pages, which provide useful information about him, unlike the current target location. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital

• Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital → Bagram Airfield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Craig Joint Theater Hospital → Bagram Airfield  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Craig" or "Theater" at the target article. This redirect is tagged as having possibilities, but such possibilities are closer to impossible if this redirect is a blue link and pointing at a title where the hospital is not discussed. Is mentioned on 3 pages: List of hospitals in Afghanistan, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, and Advanced cardiac life support. Unsure if any of these are truly ideal, however, or if WP:REDYES would apply. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, for most of its life (since 2010), the redirect actually pointed to a section discussing the hospital in the Bagram Airfield article, until the section was removed in Special:Diff/1032112406 in 2021. I'm frankly not sure whether the section should have been removed under the reasoning that was given. – Recoil16 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• If relisted, should be bundled with Heathe N. Craig Joint Theater Hospital. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah Al Mamum

• Abdullah Al Mamum → Bangladesh national under-19 cricket team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed on target page. Blethering Scot 22:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Crop Protection (journal)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Cruciverbalist

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

No mention of this term at the target article. Is tagged as "an alternate name" and "an alternate language", but I'm doubtful of both of these claims, as the word is in English and has a definition of "someone who makes crossword puzzles". However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, and with no mention of the definition or relation to the topic, this is not helpful as a redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:R#KEEP 3, They aid searches on certain terms. The term has currency in crossworld. [53] [54] [55] (PS: NOTDICT doesn't really apply; if anything it suggests making a redirect.) (PPS: Agree it shouldn't be tagged as Latin.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree this is a plausible search term, but our Crossword article is unhelpful to those who don't know what the word means. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT in the sense that we host encyclopedia articles. We do not host infinite dictionary entries on Wikipedia, and we do not host infinite redirects for every related word either. I was originally suggesting deletion, but a wiktionary soft redirect is probably the most helpful outcome here, which links back to the pages for crosswords. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added a sourced mention to the Crossword article. Duckmather (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep It is a term for people who make crosswords, not sure how it falls under WP:NOTDICT. A mention has been added. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Nose-pickers

• Scottish Nose-pickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scottish Nose Pickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scottish Nosepickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust^(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per 35. Possibly speedy as well. Maybe those sources are good, I don't know. But it is definitely not helpful for regular readers, because the only evidence that they might be at the right place is tucked into an October 2024 discussion in projectspace (this one). So readers are unable to verify any of that, or "easily check that information comes from a reliable source". On top of that, it's G10. No mention of "nose" or "picker" at the target. The example textualized at the WP:G10 policy page clarifies that "mentioned attacks are valid". It's never been the case where the opposite is acceptable (unmentioned attacks). Delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, tag as non-neutral. This is a perjorative name that isn't clearly linked to its target at first glance, but as Thryduulf states has a long history of being used. I disagree with the IP's assertion that someone searching for this topic would 100% be trying to find out more info about what the name comes from-- they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  "they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to". But we have no information to help them determine that, or why it does. Wikipedia is not Google. If an ignorant reader puts in in the search bar, they'll have no idea why they landed where they did, with no information about the phrase they were looking for. It's misleading and a waste of a reader's time. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable action here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The readers would probably notice that the acronyms of both are the same. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, maybe not. And even if they do, they'd have no idea why they were redirected. Is this a common term? Is it a well known thing that someone used once with some encyclopedic history? Is it vandalism? The ignorant reader has no way of knowing, because we have no information about it. Wikipedia is not Google -- it's not our job to tell people what the term refers to without context; it's our job to provide the context. And if we have none, then the redirect shouldn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf. Sure, some readers aren't going to realise the implication of this redirect's existence (that this redirect is a term used to refer to the SNP). But if this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  "If this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication", and that's bad? Offensive redirects which aren't discussed at the target sounds like a reason to delete such redirects (RFD Del #3). I feel like we'd rather not expose readers to unsourced political attacks in the form of redirects, especially so because there's no information or sources in the article they end up at which could back up this title, and therefore no way for readers to determine if this attack has ANY basis in reality. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  (other than from the existence of this redirect). J947 ‡ ^edits 09:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Term in use. No mention needed at target, as the redirect itself will provide information to the searcher-- "What is this? Oh, it's an insult for these guys." Tag as non-neutral redirect. Fieari (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  "'What is this? Oh, it's an insult for these guys.'" Really? Who coined it? Who famously used it? Is it vandalism? We have no information about it, and thus the redirect shouldn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Nose picking by country#Scotland. Delete per IP 35.139.154.158. I'm happy to pick this back up if a mention were to stick. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Chaotolerance

• Chaotolerance → Chaotropic agent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "tolerance" or "chaotolerance" at the target article. Seemingly a portmanteau of "chaos tolerance", but without an explanation at the target page, people using this search term would be confused as to what it means or how it relates to the subject, with no description or definition to warrant the redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or soft redirect to wiktionary. The definition is essentially "tolerance to chaotropic agents/conditions," and this page is the most relevant on-wiki result for a search of Chaotolerance. I don't think a user that has need to understand this term (it's very, very niche with something like 80-90 hits on Google Scholar) will be particularly surprised by landing at Chaotropic agent – the key concept in the definition of the word. ― Synpath 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a soft redirect to wiktionary in this case, as the only mentions of "chaotolerance" on all of Wikipedia are on the pages for Wallemiomycetes and Wallemia sebi. It would be better if Chaotropic agent spoke about "what makes something chaotolerant" or "what even is chaotolerance", but it does not. However, the wiktionary entry would indeed answer this dictionary-esque question. If that result occurs, I'd also similarly create Chaotolerant in suit, pointing towards Wikt:chaotolerant. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or soft redirect to wiktionary, with a preference towards keeping. WP:ASTONISHment should not be an issue upon landing here... the word itself makes the definition clear upon landing at this article... tolerance for chaotropic agents is chaotolerance. Doesn't take exceptional thought to figure that one out. Fieari (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Ra'ad 1

• Ra'ad 1 → RAAD (anti-tank guided missile)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The more I research this redirect, the more confused I get. For starters, this redirect formerly targeted the article that is currently at Fajr-3 (artillery rocket), and did for the past six years. However, before that, this redirect targeted the article which it currently targets. However, to throw some more confusion into the mix, another similarly-titled article, Raad-1, exists. I may have figured out a better plan for what to do with this redirect by now if it were not for its incoming links; I am not clear what subject these links are meant to refer to. I'm thinking disambiguate is the way to go here, but I'm incredibly unclear what the base title should be for such a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment both RAAD (anti-tank guided missile) and Raad-1 say they mean Thunder and Thunder-1. ; while Fajr-3 (artillery rocket) seems to mean Aurora-3 or Dawn-3 ? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at Raad-1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

• Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district → Boudh district#Purunakatak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Among the temples listed at the article, "Bhairabi" isn't one of them, and the section this redirect points to no longer exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Burnt Food

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

• Barney's Magical Musical Adventure → Barney & Friends#Movies and specials  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Magical", or "Musical Adventure" at the target article. People looking for this individual show would not receive what they were looking for at the target.

The only mentions of "magical musical adventure" on all of Wikipedia are at David Joyner (actor) (which is unusable imo) and Barney (franchise), which is only mentioned once, in a sidebar. I'm not convinced this is the best option either, but at least better than no mentions (which is the status quo).

It might've been possible for me to retarget to Barney (franchise) without RfDing, as a means of getting it off the current target where its not mentioned, but I slightly prefer deletion of this redirect and/or recreation as an individual page, if that's even possible. Pointing as a redirect to Barney (franchise), with its only mention contained in the infobox, is not very ideal for this subject. All of the other Barney DtV home videos in the infobox seem to have their own standalone articles, so perhaps this one has some hope as well? Especially with the history behind this title, (even if it was supposably unreferenced since 2007, until being BLAR'd in early 2024). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently, this was on List of Barney and Friends episodes at one point. Perhaps the list of specials can be restored to that page? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Farm park

• Farm park → Zoo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this is an accurate description of zoos. Zoos are definitely parks, but they aren't really producing anything like farms. Even petting zoos, which have domesticated animals, can't really be described as farms. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, a little googlin' comes up with quite a few actual places describing themselves as "farm parks", which tend to be visitor attractions which are something like a park, but based around farm life, and not anything related to zoos. Delete as misleading/WP:REDYES. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for no good target. Like zoos, farm parks are visitor attractions with animals but that's about where the similarities end. Those in urban areas might also be called City farms, but our article on that is focused on ones whose focus is on food production rather than being a visitor attraction so it wouldn't make a good target here. We should have content somewhere about this type of establishment (not necessarily a stand-alone article) but if we do I can't find it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Question - What is the difference between a farm park and a petting zoo? I would have thought them synonymous, but you've asserted they're not. I admit ignorance here. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say that a farm park is a broader attraction that might include a petting zoo but might not. A petting zoo is focused on animals that can be petted, regardless of whether they are typically found on a farm, while a farm park would typically be much larger spatially, include attractions not based on animals, and might also have animals that can't be petted. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Zulu Christianity

• Zulu Christianity → Christianity in South Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Zulus live in South Africa but I don't see anything about Zulus practicing Christianity so what's the point? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Zulu people#Religion and beliefs which has relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per Presidentman. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per above, this is where we have information on this topic. Fieari (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Shen an calhar

• Shen an calhar → World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

How did this end up redirecting to WoW? Apparently, this somehow got redirected to the wrong franchise. Slight research shows that it's supposed to be from Wheel of Time. That being said, there doesn't seem to be a mention on that on there either. It appears that "The Band of the Red Hand" is a more common name for that in-universe group that the articles do mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of The Wheel of Time characters#Mat Cauthon, as that's also what Band of the Red Hand redirects to. Procyon117 (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment, upon further inspection, turns out it did originally redirect to the correct franchise, but was changed for an unknown reason. Could probably just be reverted back if you're not opposed to doing so. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Example of a redirect

• Wikipedia:Example of a redirect → Wikipedia:Redirect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't an example of a redirect redirect to like an example page? I don't think anyone wants to use this just to get info about redirect policies. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe someone wanted to use this for example purposes, but if so, it's currently unused, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep it around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Seems useful for demonstrating to a new editor how a redirect works. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Help:Redirect#Syntax which is probably the best place that contains redirect examples. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per Godsy. That will work equally well for those using the redirect for demonstrating how a redirect works, but also be more useful for those looking for example redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep (preference) or Retarget (2nd choice). I'm actually fine with the current use, being an example to show to newbies during mentorship or whatever, but that purpose will not be interfered with much if we switch the target. The current target is more detailed about what a redirect is, the proposed target gives more detailed instructions on how to make a redirect. I think both are useful to a newbie, but the current target makes slightly more sense to me. Fieari (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Lana Lang and Clark Kent

• Lana Lang and Clark Kent → Smallville  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete
1. WP:XY
2. These characters existed long before Smallville.
3. They have their own pages. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, pretty classic case of XY. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, this is clearly Superman III -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

-1'

• -1' → −1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Questionable redirect because of apostrophe. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, no apparent reason for this WP:UNNATURAL redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Duckmather (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. If we had content about things -1 feet in length it might be a viable search term, but we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't think of a situation where someone would search this. Haven't come across many -1 foot objects, either. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Georgea

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

Georgea isn't really that close to Georgia. Also, there are people whose first/last names are Georgea so it would be kind of a surprise if someone was wanting to search Georgea, but nobody whose names are Georgea appeared in the disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it pronounced differently? We only seem to have one article with such a name documented, Georgea Regout, and it doesn't have pronunciation listed. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Georgea Regout as {{R from given name}}, although the presence of other mentions in mainspace might mean that we might want to setindexify/disambiguate it at some point. Duckmather (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yosi (Nintendo character)

• Yosi (Nintendo character) → Yoshi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling along with disambiguation. Don't see that as very plausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The base name Yosi already redirects to Yoshi, {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} for a misspelling with no other topics is a stretch too far. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Unambiguous and plausible mispelling. Japanese phonology doesn't really distinguish between "sh" sound and "s" sound. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The misspelling by itself is plausible, but combining a misspelling with unnecessary disambiguation makes this redirect too implausible IMO. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - the combination of a misspelling and incorrect disambiguation is too much to warrant keeping. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as an alternative romanization of the Japanese name (not a typo, not a mistake), per WP:RFOR. Hepburn gives us Yoshi. Nihon Shiki gives us Yosi. Policy is that foreign language spellings and words are appropriate redirects if the subject matter is related to that language, and this case matches. Fieari (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pufferthorn

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

This is a species that appears in the Skylanders series, which isn't mentioned at the target article and wasn't at the time of the redirect's creation. One notable Pufferthorn named Pop Thorn may have been famous for ending the Trolls' usage of his species' thorns to brush their hair, and he is mentioned in Chris Edgerly's article, but I'm not sure about redirecting this thing there because it barely describes the species and the character other than Edgerly voicing him. I think maybe we should delete this redirect unless someone can provide a justification and/or a suitable alternative target. Regards, SONIC678 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Lu Tianna

• Lu Tianna → Kirsten Gillibrand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's unclear why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete This site and other, seemingly less reliable, sources indicate that "Lu Tianna" is a Chinese-language name adopted by or used to refer to Gillibrand. There is precedent to keep these sorts of names, as seen in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 31#Foreign language redirects to Kamala Harris. But, unlike Harris's Chinese names, I don't find evidence of widespread use. I am willing to reconsider if evidence that this is indeed commonly used by Chinese speakers to refer to Gillibrand exists. Note that Lu Tian Na, which is used here by the New York Times, exists as well. I am not a Chinese speaker so cannot say if the number of words makes a difference. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is treated like a Chinese name, then the variant spellings available from "Lu Tianna" would be "Lu Tian-na", "Lu Tian-Na", "Lu Tian Na" -- and the flipped forms "Tianna Lu", "Tian-na Lu", "Tian Na Lu" -- NYT uses one of the styles you can do with the syllables. In the PRC, the preferred form would have a single "word" to represent a name, so "Lu Tianna" if Lu is the surname and Tianna is the given name. This isn't the preferred style used in Hong Kong or Taiwan though. That is dependent and independent on romanization method, as some people style their names differently from the romanization method's preferred form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Her Chinese name is known by the Chinese-language world, used by Chinese-language media. I can search a bunch of news article if I search on Google by her Chinese name "陸天娜" [62][63][64]. The name Lu Tianna (陆天娜; 陸天娜) is used by herself, pretty irrelevant to her English name. Lu Tianna, Lu Tian Na, Lu Tian-Na, Lu Tian-na are essentially the same, just with or without space or hyphen. It is just the difference of transliteration, all of them are used to some degree (and actually "Lu Tianna" is the most conventional transliteration). However, the transliteration is not a conventional way to refer to her, not in Chinese media or English media. This makes me doubt but I am still leaning that it is more useful than harmful. Sun8908 _Talk 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Tripartite Treaty (1906)

• Tripartite Treaty (1906) → Ethio-Djibouti Railways#Construction (1897–1917)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Section includes one paragraph of some relation to the treaty, but the target itself includes a redlink to 1906 Tripartite Treaty. The topic is definitely worth its own article, so could just mark {{R with possibilities}} and leave it be.

• Delete as only marginally related. Tule-hog (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Tisha Punia

• Tisha Punia → Archery in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No point in this redirect, there is no coverage about him in this page. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Handegg

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

Opening a discussion as this redirect's target has gone back and forth between Handeck and American football since its creation without any consensus. I would say it should clearly point to American football (or possibly Gridiron football), as even a fairly uncommon term for a major sport is far more likely to be the intended meaning by most users rather than an alternative spelling of an extremely small settlement on Switzerland. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• 18 Wikipedia articles have mention of Handegg as a Place. There are none for Football. Handegg as reference to Football is an urban slang contrived pejorative inferred to have originated with "round-ball" Soccer enthusiasts, who actually comprise an extremely small sample of "actual" soccer fans and aficionados -and- within that segment of slang usage, it is not used in the targeted American, Canadian or Australian vernaculars. Web searches reveal a mixed rejection/acceptance consensus. Finally, I don't know if this discussion's initiator may be a "such a slang user" themself (no problem for me) -or- has even previously edited redirects to American, Canadian or Australian football, but redirecting to Football effectively serves as indirection for the uninformed (which slights Handeck/Handegg references) and furthers the "joke" of Soccer origins.DeXXus (talk) DeXXus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems the article on the place was moved from "Handegg" to "Handeck" without discussion. I don't know if that was a good move or not, but even if so, this redirect should stay at the place name, which does include a Wiktionary hatnote, which even notes that it can refer to other flavors of football, but for which we have no encyclopedic content about the term itself. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Keep, in case it wasn't clear per my comments above and Mx Granger's clear explanation below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment hand-egg and Hand Egg points to American football, according to our Wiktionary entry, this is wrong, since it applies to all grid-iron, and rugby as well. hand egg is a redlink, while American handegg, Canadian handegg, and Australian handegg point to the expected destinations. --- I would suggest that hand-egg be turned into a set index of the grid-iron, Aussie, Gaelic, and rugby forms and their balls; "hand egg" would repoint there. "Handegg" would keep pointing to "Handeck" with a hatnote to the new set index at "hand-egg" which would also show wikt:en:hand-egg and wikt:en:handegg and hatnote Handeck; which has the redirect Handegg, Guttannen -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  This seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  A disambiguation page would also make sense, but because the usual spelling has no hyphen the disambiguation should be located at Handegg rather than Hand-egg surely. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are multiple uses of "Handegg" to refer to Switzerland on Wikipedia already, including other articles with that in their titles, so it seems better to use the form that is not used by Switzerland for the SIA name -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  IOW, hand-egg is the WP:NATDIS form for the sports topic, which does not refer to Switzerland, thus a better pagename for the title of the set-index -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The slang term is not mentioned in the American football or Gridiron football articles, so retargeting there would not serve our readers.
  • A reader who is familiar with the slang term and wants to read about American football or Canadian football will most likely search for those more conventional terms rather than an uncommon slang term.
  • A reader who encounters the slang term and wants to know what it means will most likely be confused by a redirect to American football, as the slang term isn't mentioned or explained there. That reader is better served by the current redirect and hatnote to Wiktionary.
  • A reader who is looking for the Swiss village, which is spelled "Handegg" in some sources, is clearly best served by the current redirect.

I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario in which a reader would be better served by a redirect to a football article than by the current redirect. See Talk:Handeck for past discussions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Set-indexify per the IP editor. There isn't a primary topic between the slang uses and the settlement so its right that the setindex is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bart (devil)

• Bart (devil) → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of the word 'devil' on the page; original page contents seem to be a random listing of pranks the character does in various Simpsons episodes. Xeroctic (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed, makes sense to redirect to either Bart (disambiguation) or Bart given that Bart Hamilton is also a plausible article readers may be looking for. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem to me to make sense to do either of those things. Just delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete AFAICT Wikipedia has no content on any devils named Bart. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's plausible that a reader could see the Green Goblin as a devil, and redirects are cheap. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  "It's plausible that a reader could see the Green Goblin as a devil...". No it's not, especially when combined with the implausibility of searching for as "Bart (devil)". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Tony DiGerolamo

• Tony DiGerolamo → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention on the page; nor on List of The Simpsons comics. This deleted page about a comic writer redirects here, although it probably is meant to target the page about the comic book section of the franchise, as it contains content about the comic book series with the same name as the current target. Xeroctic (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of American comics creators. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Restore and send to AFD (or PROD). The current target is clearly inappropriate, but so is the list above, since that's a navigational list of authors we have articles about, which this currently isn't. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of American comics creators. WP:BLAR is valuable here, as while the article did not contain any secondary sources, I strongly suspect that secondary sources WP:EXIST for this artist, given his confirmed portfolio, and so the article history should be kept in-tact for whoever wants to fix the article. Yes, this means that the link on the list becomes a circular link, but I can think of little reason we would want to fully delete this article and its history. Perhaps it could be converted to a soft-redirect to encourage article restoration with sources? Bart Simpson definitely isn't the right target, mind you. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Draftification might be appropriate for that, but either this guy has a mainspace article and should be on the list, or he doesn't, and shouldn't. Keeping a list entry as a circular redirect to a BLARed article isn't really appropriate. (I really have no opinion on the actual notability, but the article as it existed had no sources). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Blue Yoshi

• Blue Yoshi → Super Mario 64 DS#Gameplay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Blue Yoshi is only mentioned in passing as one of four color options, and blue Yoshis appear in several other Yoshi games throughout the series. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Yoshi. This is the main article and color variants are discussed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

clump together with yellow yoshi since those two colors will pretty much always pop up together. otherwise, the same vote there applies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "clump together" means in this context? Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

i'm told some countries refer to it as "bundling entries together" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you meant the nominations? I thought you were referring to the redirects. Got it, makes sense now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

not that that matters much now, since it's almost close them o' clock. oh well~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per Tavix. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yellow Yoshi

• Yellow Yoshi → Super Mario 64 DS#Gameplay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yellow Yoshi is only mentioned in passing as one of four color options, and yellow Yoshis appear in several other games before and after this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Yoshi. This is the main article and color variants are discussed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

retarget to yoshi, as blue and yellow are the most common (and thus notable) yoshi colors that aren't green. both have existed since world (and so has red, but no one cares about red yoshi) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget Per Tavix. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Ultrajectine

• Ultrajectine Communion → Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ultrajectine → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The expression is not used anywhere in the articles, so it is a WP:RSURPRISE. The name "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" was previously present at Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), but was removed in 2023 as it was not supported by any source.

"Ultrajectine" is a pseudo-Latin adjective that simply means "of Utrech" (see: wikt:Ultraiectinus), and I did not find any use of this pseudo-Latin word to refer to the city of Utrecht.

Thus, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus Google Scholar shows several uses of this term in old Latin sources but very few in English. I don't think there's enough to say that this is commonly used to refer to the Union of Utrecht in English, but it's possible that someone might come across this term. Redirecting to Wiktionary seems best here given it is more common in Latin sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Waking the Dragons

• Waking the Dragons → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect, "waking the dragons" is not a concept discussed at the target general article for Yugioh. "Waking", nor "dragons", is mentioned at the target.

If there's not an existing Yugioh location that this is able to point at, in an attempt for WP:ATD, this can be easily retargeted to Waking the Dragon which is an article that exists, and in the search bar having two would otherwise be confusing. I'm nominating here instead of BOLDly retargeting because I'm on a bit of a roll and there may be common threads if these are all "arcs" of Yugioh, as they seem to be, so better to have them all listed here for assurance and consistency. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget this and Waking the Dragons series to Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters season 4. Am I missing something because this seems obvious: "In the United States, the season was broadcast under the subtitle Waking the Dragons..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Memory World

• Memory World → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Memory" at the target article. As it happens, this whole title is one letter off of existing redirect "Memory word", and may be misleading for people who miss the letter "L" there (which may be possible per Falcoln). In any case, the redirect is already misleading as this concept is not discussed at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom before tetsuya nomura finds it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Mentioned in List of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Duelist Kingdom

• Duelist Kingdom → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of a "Kingdom" at the target article. People looking for this information would not be satisfied with just the general concept article for Yugioh. This redirect has ample, non-negligible history, but is currently misleading as a redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Pegasus' Cards

• Pegasus' Cards → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Pegasus" at the target article, making this redirect confusing and does not give the context to readers that they were searching for relating to Pegasus' cards; (if they wanted to read about Yugioh, they'd type in "Yugioh", not "Pegasus' Cards"). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

King of Games

• King of Games → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While roughly translating to "Game King", "King of Games" appears to be a separate entity and both are entirely ambiguous and not particularly discussed. In the context of Yugioh, "King of Games" is a "card with a 1 in 250,000 chance of being pulled". However, none of this context exists at the target article, and this appears to be an undiscussed subtopic which seems to not be necessary as a redirect to Yugioh. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

delete. on top of the nom's rationale, it's vague as fr*ck, being pretty easy to confuse with the lord of games from that one banjo-kazooie game i want to forget exists, plus other examples i might be forgetting cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Buster blader

• Buster blader → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "buster" or "blader" anywhere at the target article. Was created as an unsourced stub in 2011 by an account as their only edit; swiftly BLAR'd after a couple minutes. Not a useful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel!

• It’s time to du-du-du-du-du-du-du-du-duel! → Yu-Gi-Oh!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible to spell out. Neither It's time to du-duel!, nor any of its infinite variations exist as redirects. No mention of this phrase at the target article general article of Yugioh. Obviously, no mentions of this phrase exist anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Banning policy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Blocking policy

• Blocking policy → Wikipedia:Blocking policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Blocking policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Although that might be a common usage today, I think Access control is a better target to cover the broader concept of a policy to block access. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fine with me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Though this can clearly indicate block allocation policy... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. "Blocking" has several ambiguous contexts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have blocking and there are potentially other forms of blocking that could have policies however it could be useful to new users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. "Blocking" is just so ambiguous this is not useful. Block allocation, Banning, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Access control per Isaacl and Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Blocking makes the most sense to me if we retarget, but really, I don't know what we'd gain by having a redirect from here to there. Not going to help with searches, not going to help find more specific content. Access control would be a surprising place to land at if you're looking for one of the other senses of the phrase. —Cryptic 06:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Wesk retarget as potentially useful but I'm also fine with deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget to where? There are multiple suggestions. Jay 💬 10:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Block (Internet). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I think this is the same as banning policy, people are trying to retcon targets for a weird redirect that shouldn't have been created in the first place. None of the suggestions are great really, I agree with 65.92, it's too ambiguous. Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per Legoktm above. Veverve (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Username policy

• Username policy → Wikipedia:Username policy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• User name policy → User (computing)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• My question with XNRs to projectspace is always, "Is it plausible that someone would be looking for this internal page while new enough to not know what namespaces are?" Given that for many people creating a username is the first step in contributing to Wikipedia, I find the answer in this case an emphatic yes. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Username policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  That section provides a bit of info on operation system restrictions for usernames. A username policy is generally about rules enacted by an organization about usernames (thus is at the discretion of the organization and not solely due to technical limitations). isaacl (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have username policies and there could be other uses that don't involve computers etc where usernames have policies. Also User (computing)#Username format doesn't appear to discuss policies so it probably not a good target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. There is so much material that could be built about controversial username policies for social media and accounts allowed by corporations. There's the unreasonable name length bans for users of various services that appear in the news now and then, about people with long names or short names, not allowed names, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pppery. That page already has a hatnote pointing to Wikipedia:Username policy. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format. Seems right to me. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Tamzin on this one, the username policy trips up so many new users that I think having an XNR is more helpful than harmful. Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note that User name policy that was created in 2006, has targeted User (computing) since 2007. Any outcome would need to be consistent. Jay 💬 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I have added User name policy to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to User (computing)#Username format and move the article hatnote to the section, with a better explanation of why WP:USERNAME is linked, so that those users who are as of yet unfamiliar with namespaces can find what they are looking for. The current hatnote is insufficiently explanatory, and if I was confused and looking for the wikipedia username policy I doubt I'd understand the current wording. Fieari (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Claire Miller

• Claire Miller → Spy School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a fictional character in a 2008 film - cannot see any point in the redirect, and confuses with another Claire Miller (with no article as yet). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Claire Rochester as {{R from married name}} -- there are multiple characters with this name without character articles residing in film articles, but this person also has this name and has an article. The Spy School character isn't even mentioned in the plot summary of the film. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

ChinaFile

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#ChinaFile

Chir'daki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Murder of Paige Chivers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Toady (Nintendo character)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 1

Usurper King

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

India women's national futsal team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Zelda 2016

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Carlos Brown (cricketer)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gilon Tyson

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Adam Thomas (cricketer)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

OFM Sykes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#OFM Sykes

Nimar Bolden

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jediah Blades

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Redirect/Archive 1

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Good articles on Wikipedia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Good articles on Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Retarget

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Wikipedia:Retarget

Bibi the butcher

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Bibi the butcher

P Diddler

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kylie Koopa

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of characters in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Manual of Style:

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Manual of Style:

Mario &Luigi: SuperStar Saga

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Belly Blech

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Panjshiri dialect

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia Manual of Style

• Wikipedia Manual of Style → Wikipedia:Manual of Style  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's categorized as a redirect from misspelling, but the space and colon are pretty far off. Maybe if people wanted to see Wikipedia's MoS, it could be useful. Kind of plausible but also unnatural redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

that's a plausible redirect if i've ever seen one. from a look at the rcat functional index, i have no idea which other rcats would fit here. i guess remove r from misspelling as not a misspelling and weak remove r to project page as apparently that one isn't meant to be used in mainspace cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: This shouldn't really be in question in my opinion. Should have been an rcat update and move on considering how plausible it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, not understanding what the concern is. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to non-readership content. If we kept this, then any page in projectnamespace could acceptably have a redirect of this form. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep very plausible redirect. I often make these sorts of mistakes (space for colon) when typing. Furius (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:XNR. Veverve (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per TeapotsOfDoom. I can't imagine why anyone would type this without wanting to see Wikipedia's MoS. The general problem with cross-namespace redirects is that they allow unsuspecting readers to fall into the backside of the site, as if you're walking around a museum and a normal doorway leads you into a furnace room suddenly. But this one is more like a doorway bearing a big "Furnace Room" sign; people won't end up here unintentionally, and (unlike in museums) we don't mind visitors intentionally reaching the furnace room. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You could say the same thing for Wikipedia Redirects for Discussion or Wikipedia WikiProject Biography or any other page in WPnamespace -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:XNR and a bit of WP:SELF. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, but not because this is a misspelling, but because I think a non-editor reader might look up what is Wikipedia's house manual of style. So for me this is the exception to WP:XNR, and would not support other examples. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely unambiguous, plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No Original Research

• No Original Research → Wikipedia:No original research  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XNR but it's quite literally the first thing that pops up when you search the phase on google. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• retarget to Wikipedia#Content_policies_and_guidelines, per the just-closed discussion on no original research (whose outcome I disagree with, but whatever at this point). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as as the expression is vague + WP:XNR. Veverve (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy retarget per previous discussion as its the same term just different capitalization. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. In general we shouldn't mix these two namespaces. Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per previous discussion, no meaningful difference in the capitalization. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per Fieari and Crouch, Swale. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WP;OR

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

BLP:CRIME

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Great Depression in the Middle East

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Great Depression in the Middle East

Pink Yoshi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hez

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

Nobody calls it that. This redirect is extremely implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete. yeah, results gave me assorted brands, assorted bands, and men cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Natchez–Adams County Airport which has IATA code HEZ. Possibly disambig if we can find any other uses. I can only find a handful of uses, such as: HEZ, ICAO airline code for Arrow Aviation (an obscure Israeli airline which doesn't even have its own article - see List of airline codes) and a few partial title matches like La Neuville-en-Hez. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I've changed my vote to Disambig as per 65.92.246.77 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate Natchez–Adams County Airport, wiktionary:en:hez; Arrow listed at List of airline codes (A); HEZ (Haupteinflugzeichen) is covered at Lorenz beam; Hez (Hezuolinite) is mentioned at List of mineral symbols; Hezekiah Walker (born 1962) is nicknamed "Hez"; Hez is a character from The Shannons of Broadway. Per French Wikipedia La Neuville-en-Hez ("New Town in Hez") is named after Hez Forest (12th c.) where it is situated, the forest is now called fr:Forêt de Hez-Froidmont; Hez Forest is listed at List of forests in France. A seealso for Grand Hez in Bouillon, Belgium could also appear. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment sample dab page drafted below the RfD header at the page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig per the IP editor's draft. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

• Featured article candidates → English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The process is not mentioned in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

i mean... wp:fanom is right there... will still vote to weak delete as "not on the plausible side of xnrs" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and per this RfD, it was retargeted to English Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, the previous section title of the current target. Jay 💬 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination featured article

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diddler and The Diddler

• Diddler → Cheating  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Diddler → Sean Combs Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The first redirect was created by a new user in 2015. Unsurprisingly, the topic isn't covered in cheating. The second term is an informal term for Sean Combs. Hence, I'm asking to delete them. Tavantius (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, classic {{r from avoided double redirect}}. Diddler => cheater => cheating. Cremastra (u — c) 00:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Term has very unfortunate and known implications towards children and nobody ever uses this term for anyone above age in general vernacular. This is a SALT candidate for sure. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean. Could also just... retarget to pedophilia. Most everyone who uses the term is referring to that, anyways, might as well take 'em to where they expect to go. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• disambiguate per the two uses described above, and a see also to Diddle (disambiguation) ; and also the uses Diddler (trolleybus) operated by the London United Tramways, Didier Casnati (stagename "The Diddler"), Jeremy Diddler, P Diddler from P Diddler And The Fearsome Foursome, The Diddler from Bluntman and Chronic, The Diddler from Megamaths, Diddler from Pirates (1986 film), Diddler from Most Extreme Elimination Challenge, Diddler from Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight, "The Diddler" song from Ideas+drafts+loops, "Diddler on the Roof" at Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2017–18, "Diddler" as shown at Riddler in other media, "The Diddler" novel by P.G. O'Dea -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • NOTE disambig drafted for evaluation below the RfD header on the redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The Diddler redirect should be added to this RfD -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @65.92.246.77: Done. Tavantius (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguation of Diddler is clearly justified by the draft page. The Diddler may need to be its own DAB page, since we don't target redirects to DAB pages. It just needs to include the subset of Diddler targets that specifically have the article (seven by my count). There's no mention, referenced or otherwise, of Sean Combs being known as The Diddler at the time of my writing this. ― Synpath 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • We do target DAB pages with redirects, WP:RTODAB, but this kind of variation isn't mentioned in the examples. ― Synpath 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    • WP:THE would suggest that "The X"/"A X"/"An X" and "X" should be combined because of how Wikipedia treats titles with "The"/"A"/"An" and whether our guidelines find the "The"/"A"/"An" significant or not, which would be different from how people encounter it in the real world. Such as the example given of "The Journey to the West"/"The White House" uses the preferred form "Journey to the West"/"White House", thus separating out a "The Diddler" would be counter-productive, unless the page grows so large that navigability would suggest a split be made. The Doctor (disambiguation) leads to Doctor (disambiguation) showing a usage of the combined disambiguation page for the forms "The Doctor" and "Doctor". As does Nightmare (disambiguation) which combines "(A /The )[Kn/N]ight(-/ /)[m/M]are(s)" forms. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, no need for a separate DAB page (struck). I was thinking it was a little silly when I wrote it, but didn't check further after reading WP:RTODAB (confirmation bias strikes again). Going back again I see you're right and WP:DABNAME covers this under point five. ― Synpath 23:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

intriguingly, the redirect was created by @FunkMonk, a veteran user with over 100 thousand edits. Tavantius (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Which one? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• A quick Google search should give the answer, it's a common nickname related to the allegations:[65][66][67][68][69] FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig Diddler based on the draft and retarget The Diddler there, where there are multiple fictional characters named exactly that mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination of The Diddler had the incorrect target. I have fixed it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Time of Shedding and Cold Rocks

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Late 00s recession

• Late 00s recession → Great Recession  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambigous with Panic of 1907 and possibly Panic of 1901 (depending on one's definition of "late"), given the redirect does not make it clear which century it refers. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and add a hatnote. Very nearly 100% of google hits for the exact phrase return results related to the target, so in practice it is nowhere near as ambiguous as it seems in theory. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  "...in theory"? Literally explaining how something is ambiguous and providing examples is not a theory, it's a fact. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Something is ambiguous in theory if the plain reading of the words can refer to multiple things. It is only ambiguous in practice if people use those words to refer to multiple different things. Only the latter matters for our purposes, and people don't use these words to refer to things other than the current target, even if they theoretically could. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  ...I think you have the concepts of being ambiguous and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC confused with each other...? Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  They are related. When something is only used for one of several theoretically possible meanings, that meaning is by definition primary, but there can also be a primary topic when multiple meanings are in use. In the present circumstance though, whether you want to say the current use is the primary topic or the current use is unambiguous in practice, the outcome in terms of the redirect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Moneygeddon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Eirik Suhrke

• Eirik Suhrke → Ridiculous Fishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14 § Eirik Suhrke – keep

Currently links to composer Eirik Suhrke's name lead to the article for the game Ridiculous Fishing. This has created confusion on some talk pages as he is credited with working on multiple games and his mention on the Ridiculous Fishing article is confined to one sentence saying he was the composer for the game. Given the lack of coverage on the man himself and the extensive list of notable works he's been involved with it seems it would be best to delete the redirect, given it points to an article that contains just as much info on him as that of any other game he's worked on. XeCyranium (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listed the previous RfD from 2017 and notified of the discussion at the target and creator's pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Mainspace draft User:Czar/drafts/Eirik Suhrke per the last discussion to solve the core issue. I'd argue he's better known for Ridiculous Fishing than the other mentions but with a dedicated page that would not be necessary. czar 16:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Snake eyes

• Snake eyes → Snake Eyes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was, for a long time, an article about rolling two ones. Redirected to Craps#Rolling in 2020, as it was deemed not notable enough for a standalone article. Later retargeted to the dabpage. I'd argue this is a good situation for WP:DIFFCAPS - the craps meaning is the primary topic, and nothing at Snake Eyes is referred to as "snake eyes". 162 etc. (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Move the disambiguation page to Snake eyes. There are two notable things possibly called "Snake eyes", at that capitalization. The dice roll, and the actual eyes of an actual snake. I suppose the latter term could also be used to describe reptilian eyes in other contexts (aliens, or the like). The content on the dice roll should be restored and merged somewhere appropriate for that content. BD2412 T 16:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Move the disambiguation page The purpose is to bring people to the page they are looking for. I think the DAB page lists the media and the "rolling of the dice" definition. There have been two major movies with the same name over the past few decades that might bring people to where they want to go. If people search "snake eyes", it should bring them to the DAB page instead of the "Craps (rolling)" section that does not have a DAB link. Marty2Hotty (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note that Snake Eyes is currently at RM. 162 etc. (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) is, with implications for Snake Eyes, but I don't see that going anywhere. BD2412 T 03:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• This title should lead readers to the disambiguation page. Whether that is because the dab page is here, or because it redirects to the dab page at Snake Eyes I have no preference. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Marzipan joyjoys

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Marzipan joyjoys

Menthol Moose

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Haskell Harr

• Haskell Harr → Percussive Arts Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Haskell Harr is a Percussive Arts Society Hall of Fame member, but that is as far as his connection goes. He is currently not listed on the page. I would prefer this to be a redlink to encourage the creation of a proper article. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm.Keep. I created that redirect but I have no recollection why. Typically when I create one, it's because I was searching for a term and never found it, so I create a redirect to a related term in case someone else might also look for it. I have no objection to deleting this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Edit: Changed to "keep" after reading Thryduulf's comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Restore mention and keep. He was mentioned in the article when the redirect was created, and indeed remained so until the section was boldly removed by the nominator in September this year for being "incomplete and unwieldy". It was incomplete - the website lists 152 members, the list had 136 when it was removed, but that's just a reason to tag it as needing an update (or better still just updating it) not removing it. It doesn't seem unwieldy at all, and indeed such content is encyclopaedic so should be restored. The redirect should be kept if the mention is restored but deleted if it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Azaroth

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

This is an ambiguous misspelling (and see @VeryRarelyStable:'s edit at [70]). It may be better to delete than to guess which misspelling the user wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Azeroth, which is a likelier target of this misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Azeroth per Presidentman, and add Azathoth to the hatnote on that page. BD2412 T 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Horribly ambiguous, as illustrated by the hatnote on Azathoth. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No need for ambiguous misspellings. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  A misspelling that is only off by a single letter for a topic on which we have an article really does not seem ambiguous. There is already a hatnote as it is, so there is no harm in retargeting. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that it's also off by a single letter from Ataroth. So why there? You're guessing, and we might as well let search do the guessing instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would hazard that vowel misspellings for a likely schwa sound are substantially more common than consonant misspellings for a completely different sounding consonant. BD2412 T 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as its very ambiguous given the articles mentioned above and also links like Azarath and Azarath (band) are also just one vowel off. We shouldn't try and divine what is intended. I usually say 'leave it to Search' here, but Wikipedia yields poor results for me, and this search may be better left to Google/DDG/others. ― Synpath 04:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Synpath: The assertion that it is "very ambiguous" would appear to make the case for disambiguation, wouldn't it? BD2412 T 12:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    Fair, I meant ambiguous misspellings, which afaik you can't make a DAB with. ― Synpath 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per BD2412. Neither "Ataroth" nor "Azeroth" is likely as an "oops I hit the wrong key by accident" typo (either in QWERTY or Dvorak), but it's likely as an "oops I didn't know how to spell it" typo. If I hear someone pronounce "Ataroth", I won't use this spelling (it's a voiced sibilant sound, not an unvoiced dental stop), but I could easily use this spelling if I hear someone pronounce "Azeroth". Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Azeroth, per above. Not a plausible typo, but a very plausible misspelling. No objections for a hatnote. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget Per above. A plausible mis-spelling (I had to do a double-take to work out why it wasn't the world from Warcraft). FOARP (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Morgan Smith (rapper)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Benji Floros

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Shattered Island (Skylanders)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 31

Counter-Strike player models

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

White Gangster

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SpydaT.E.K

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

GKR (DJ)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ricardo Drue

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Standard articles

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore

WPSECONDARY

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tesonet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Tesonet

WH:HG

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedily deleted

PKS 0451-28

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#PKS 0451-28

Nortwest Airways

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

buccal organ(s)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Strogino CS Portal

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Building a sentry

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Day belt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hat Simulator

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Hat Simulator

The Human Aquarium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#The Human Aquarium

2029 in spaceflight

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#2029 in spaceflight

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2031 Africa Cup of Nations

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2033 SEA Games

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lists of Telugu films of future years

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

IRAS 13349+1428

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#IRAS 13349+1428

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Putting wedge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Putting wedge

Cackala

• Cackala → Kamala Harris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - this is contentious information about a living person; if it is not notable enough to be described on Wikipedia with an inline citation to a reliable source, the redirect is WP:G10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete silly childish nickname that I doubt very much will ever really be a search term. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". The National Review article doesn't say "Cackala"; it's a comment in the comment section (WP:NATIONALREVIEW is "no consensus" reliable anyway). Moonbattery is a WordPress blog. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep Very widely used to the extent it's plausible someone will see it out of context and look for information on who it refers to. "Childish" nicknames are definitely not G10 material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:G10. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Thryduulf, your declining of the speedy deletion nom and then also !voting here is an improper WP:INVOLVED action. Please revert one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that this was inappropriate and neither action was in my capacity as an admin. Anybody can contest a speedy deletion nomination (other than the creator, in some circumstances) and it was already being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  100% not WP:INVOLVED. All speedy deletion requests (other than office actions and copyright violations) are negated if any user objects, and as there is already a non-unanimous deletion discussion underway (this discussion), the article is not eligible for G10 and any admin acting responsibly should have declined the request. The accountability policy deals specifically with admin actions, not all things an admin might do; some take the view that declining a speedy deletion request is an admin action regardless of the fact that any user can decline, but !voting in a straw poll is definitely not an admin action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep because I don't imagine Kamala Harris would be particularly worried about a redirect to the Wikipedia article on her, and so BLP worries aren't major. I'm amazed that WP:RNEUTRAL is being used as a rationale for deletion (and even speedy deletion!) when it says nothing other than "treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect" with only an implication of applying slightly more caution. The point is – it's a plausible search term as it's a nickname so divorced from Harris' actual name that readers would be liable to not immediately understand to whom it refers, and seek this site for an explanation. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  "it says nothing other than 'treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect'"

  In fact, it says redirects that are not established terms – used in multiple mainstream reliable sources – may be nominated for deletion. And even: G10 and G3 may apply. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficiently in-use in the wild that someone may legitimately be confused by it and want to know who is being referred to. Redirects are generally non-user facing, so this should not introduce any WP:BLP issues. I might have suggested it be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, except to my astonishment he actually hasn't used it personally that I can tell, it's just in wide wide WIDESPREAD use by his fans. MAGAs are weird. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - This is textbook WP:RCOM, without there being any prominent use of it as a reference to Harris. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf et al. Silly nickname, widely-used in social media (which makes it plausible enough for keeping). Reasons for deletion seem a bit over the top IMO, considering that this isn't a grave insult in any way. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:RNEUTRAL's stated exception: not established terms [that] are unlikely to be useful may be deleted, in this case under reason for deletion #3: The redirect is offensive or abusive. A non-neutral term is established if it is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. This particular term is not, apparently appearing in zero mainstream reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Our gauge for "widespread use on social media" normally is the published opinion of reliable sources, not editors' assertions that it is so, nor editors' claims to have seen this or that on Twitter. Have we lowered this standard for BLPs when the subject is a political figure? Or does WP:BLP still say things like "never use [...] social network posts [...] as sources of material about a living person" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a huge difference between things that appear in articles, that is, are "user facing", and things meant to act as navigation aides. The former needs proper sourcing, the latter just needs to be helpful and not misleading. Redirects absolutely do not need to be held to the same standard as article text. Fieari (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Non-neutral terms widely used on social media and similar but not regularly reported in mainstream media are exactly the sort of things people will search for, either because they want to find neutral information about the subject and don't realise the term is non-neutral or not mainstream or because they don't know or don't remember who/what is being referred to. Wikipedia redirects help both these groups find the information they are looking for (which is after all the primary goal of Wikipedia). They don't need to be neutral (indeed per WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly so), they just need to be accurate and useful. All that needs verifying is "is this term used to refer to the subject of/information found at the target?" and social media is reliable for that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example.: I'm not as sure of that. WP:RNEUTRAL's language is if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral. Being used in multiple mainstream reliable sources is the way a non-neutral term becomes an established term, or at least that's what was agreed at the guideline establishes a term. With social media so diffuse and disparate, both big and siloed, I'm not sure how we can collectively feel sure of the reach of a term not otherwise recognized. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Enix150 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  As noted above, this redirect is compatible with RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target, plain and simple. All this back-and-forth about neutrality is smoke and mirrors. Anyone looking for encyclopedic information about the nickname will find none (nor is there a mention anywhere in WP), leaving the reader with wasted time at best, and confusion at worst. John Q Reader searches for this, finds himself at the Harris article and wonders, "why am I here? is this a nickname? why? is it her own nickname? someone else's? good? bad? in between? is it vandalism?" etc etc. People have mentioned "valid search term", which is it, but for itself, not for Harris. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Lego racers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Firstly

• Firstly → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Secondly → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Thirdly → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Not a term that should be wikilinked. If readers wanted an article about 1, they would search up one, not a derivation of it. It has low pageviews therefore I do not support a soft redirect, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neutral on redirecting to DAB per 65.92 These are related terms, but none of the usages(I am not familiar with all of the listed items) can be called "firstly", "secondly", "thirdly". Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bundled Secondly, Thirdly. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to First (disambiguation) / Second (disambiguation) / Third (disambiguation) -- respectively ; as {{R from adverb}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (all). The dab page is inappropriate, as there are no particular matches there. And otherwise way too vague to retarget anywhere else. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlikely search term, rarely (if ever) would assist in navigation the site. Drdr150 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to wikt:firstly, wikt:secondly, wikt:thirdly. These redirects are decades old, and they've seen thousands of pageviews each – we shouldn't delete them as long as they've got reasonable targets. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget either to wikt per jlwoowa or to dabs per IP. The advantage of the target being a DAB is trigger tags and they will be unlinked as unnecessary WP:OVERLINK.

  Web-julio (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per jlwoodwa. C F A 💬 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at First, Second (disambiguation) and Third.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer to delete; soft redirect to Wiktionary as an second option. If an article is ever created on ordinal adverbs, or mentions of the adverb forms added to English numerals#Ordinal numbers, that would be an obvious retarget. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ape Escape Racer

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Ape Escape Racer

Jamison Wesley Crowder

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

We're Barack

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Young FC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bhuna FC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bright (Suikoden)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gamma Squeeze

• Gamma Squeeze → Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Gamma squeeze → Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Either delete the redir or fix the content of the redir target article. The Short squeeze article currently has no mention of "gamma" or "gamma squeeze" whatsoever. N2e (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Fixed nomination which was malformed. @N2e: You need to place the nomination template below the html line for it to work properly. I've fixed this now. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the redirection is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Squeeze so this isn't a BLAR situation. Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Also bundle Gamma Squeeze into this. Jay 💬 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with "Gamma Squeeze" as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Byron Cemetery

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Byron Cemetery

List of Super Heavies

• List of Super Heavies → SpaceX Super Heavy#Development  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term "Heavies", created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page on talk pages. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I already interacted with the nominator about this here but I don't think these RfDs get much foot traffic so I'll chime in. "Heavies", as described in Wiktionary is "plural of heavy". Our disambiguation page Super Heavy includes SpaceX Super Heavy. Within SpaceX Super Heavy there is a list of super heavy vehicles, aka "super heavies". This list is the current target: SpaceX Super Heavy#Development. Redirects are cheap, if this saves one editor/reader one second in finding or linking to the target it is fine by me. Redirecting List of Super heavies and List of super heavies to the same target is also fine by me also. I don't get the joke.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Changing my mind on this one. It is plausible that someone looking for a list of superheavy elements (link) could go for "List of Super Heavies". So it could be safer to remove the redirect. We could link to the disambiguation page, but that includes a band.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    I mean, a disambuigation page WOULD technically be a list of things we consider "super heavies"... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    Hehe. Well typing out the strike syntax is painful on my phone so I won't change my !vote again, but yes the retarget to disambiguation page looks the best. Commander Keane (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    There already is a page Super_heavy serving that. Thus, would it be ok to change the redirection to it? 47.67.225.78 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    Retarget to Super heavy (the disambiguation page) per my comment above and the tank comment below.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure I understand the IP's argument? 'Heavies' is just... the plural form of 'Heavy' used as a noun, as in the SpaceX Super Heavy-- I could easily see multiple SpaceX Super Heavy rocket stages being referred to as "Super Heavies". If you follow the link given, you are, in fact, given a list of all Super Heavy rocket stages that have existed. Unless there's a better target for the redirect, we keep here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Super heavy as per the discussion above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. WP:BOLD :) 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't do that. We still have an active RfD; as per the text at the very top of this very WP:RFD page, it's very much not a good idea to change or rename the target of a redirect while it's under discussion due to it causing unnecessary problems for the closing admin and any other discussion participants. I reverted the good-faith edit here, but please don't do it again. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment a "super heavy" is an armoured fighting vehicle, a type of tank. That would be the first thing I'd expect from such a title, a list of tanks -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Super heavy. I added Super-heavy tank to the DAB per IP above me. Fieari (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree with retarget. This is about the plural, and this is about a list of them. There are no named/numbered super heavy tanks. Ergzay (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

KEEP List of Super Heavies is clearly different from the disambuigation page. If ya'll want, it can be renamed to List of Super Heavy Boosters.

Redirecting it to Super Heavy makes no sense. Looking at the Pageviews for each of the pages listed on the disambuigation page may help determine what people think of when thinking of "Super Heavy". Each number is the most recent # of pageviews listed.

Super Heavy (Proposed Redirect Target): 25, Unrated (disambuigation page)

Transuranium element: 141, C-class

SuperHeavy: 57, Stub-class

SuperHeavy (album): 12, Start-class

SpaceX Super Heavy (Current Redirect Target): 1127, B-class

Super-heavy tank: 364, Start-class

The current redirect target has more views than all the others. Combined. And then almost doubled.

EDIT If anything is going to be the redirect target for 'List of Super Heavies", its shoubl be Super Heavy booster.

Additionally, turning List of Super Heavies into a dedicated article (Alongside List of Starships) is being discussed here.

This is not without precedent: List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters exists, after all. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment- Guidelines suggest notifying the creator of the redirect if it is being discussed: "Please notify the good faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect"

This was not done, for either this or the previous proposed deletion. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment- "the current redirect target has more views than all the others." - this is self-serving. E.g., as Google looks up Wikipedia, it follows the redirect and spams the search results with the booster. It is irrelevant, though, as there exists other important "super heavy" meanings and the redirect has to respect that. I still think deleting would be best, but disambiation is second. Keeping is futile.

47.67.225.78 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The views of the Super Heavy article redirect briefly increased views by ~40, well within normal variation at the time (current variation is around 200 per day).

Current views of the redirect is 10. 10 views is nothing when daily variations are measured in the hundreds.

This still puts it well above the other pages. Combined.

Also, @ing users involved in dicussion regarding creation of List of Super Heavies.

@Ergzay, @HLFan, @Spookywooky2 You were all involved in the discussion that resulted in the disputed redirects creation. Redacted II (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion was month ago, about "List of Starships" and finished. Has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, but call helpers as you like. Nevertheless, there is nothing called itself "Super Heavies", it's at best a plural referring to multiple entities called "super heavy", at worst nonsense. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A discussion that led to the creation of a redirect is valid in a discussion regarding a potential deletion of said redirect. In fact, you are supposed to notify the creator of the redirect and any main contributors. You failed to do this for both this attempt at deletion AND the previous proposed deletion. Redacted II (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@47.67.225.78 Please don't assume bad faith with statements like "meant to be funny" and "personal playground". That's extremely inaccurate. The plural of Heavy is Heavies or possibly Heavys in this case. It's a perfectly fine redirect. Your posting history shows a clear personal hatred for Redacted II. If you continue this behavior I will personally make it a goal to get you IP banned for this type of hounding. It is entirely inappropriate. Ergzay (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

(Just so you are aware, I have reported them before, but the admins had no interest in doing anything about it) Redacted II (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppeting only applies to accounts, not IP addresses, so your issue was probably harmed by not reporting things correctly. Also I think you picked out too many examples of simply uncooperative comments without enough examples of personal attacks. Keep the report focused. There's no rule you can't make a second ANI report after some time has passed with new events. It's been three months. Ping me on my talk page if you do and I'll back you up if there's sufficient evidence. Ergzay (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It was likely killed by that mistake.

I'll give them another chance before trying ANI again. Redacted II (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ Ergzay. Funny how you accuse me of assuming bad faith, while doing the same with implying several other "misdoings" which have been rebutted long ago... Could you and your buddies please stop rallying against me? This seems to be a campaign to discredit me and this redicect discussion while no factual arguments are made. Totally out of context and just WP:PA 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

So, saying that a B-Class article is a users "Playground" is okay, but correcting you for repeated violations of WP:AGF (and ignoring established facts) is a Personal Attack?

Okay.

Sure. Redacted II (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Also don't redirect. Redirecting to Super Heavy makes no sense given that several items on that page could not possibly have a list made of them. At worst, it should have its own disambiguation page created and the SpaceX link made the "primary topic" for the subject. Ergzay (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is already a pseudo-disambiguation page for Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay, not sure I follow your logic. Are you suggesting that we keep the redirect to the SpaceX list? You said "several items on that page could not possibly have a list made of them". On Wikipedia we have a list of superheavy elements (link), a list of super-heavy tanks (link) and the list of super heavy rocket boosters (link). Perhaps changing List of Super Heavies into to disambiguation page linking to these lists is appropriate.

Also, I see no primary topic out of these lists, and article quality ratings and view counts probably aren't relevant in this case.

I am definitely going to eat some humble pie over my comment about these discussions getting low foot traffic. Commander Keane (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane SpaceX Starship is regularly in the news making media headlines super heavy tanks and superheavy elements are not. That's why I would call it the primary topic. And I agree with "Perhaps changing List of Super Heavies into to disambiguation page linking to these lists is appropriate." However I will note that there's the related page List of Starships that links to the equivalent page for the upper stage, though I'm sure there's tons of other lists of starships of various meanings elsewhere on wikipedia we still have it as basically the primary page, without even any disambiguation pages. I'm not sure how these two cases are different. And finally, this is all prep to turn it into a separate page like like List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters once the list gets sufficiently long to split out. Ergzay (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is already a Super Heavy disambiguation page. And out of every article mentioned here, SpaceX Super heavy is both the highest quality (B-Class), most viewed, and the only one of "High Importance" to a WikiProject.

Redirecting the list to a disambiguation page that gets between 1 and 25 views per day (with the spikes in viewership matching the dates of Flight 1, Flight 2, Flight 3, Flight 4, and Flight 5) makes no sense at all.

(Also, I do believe that the list is already long enough to turn into a separate page, and has been for some time) Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Stone Jesus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Stone Jesus

Alpha myrcene

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Srishti

• Srishti → Hindu units of time  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The Sanskrit term means "creation".[71] Hindu units of time doesn't really talk about creation the way Hindu cosmology might, but rather units of time that can be associated to personalities (Brahma) involved in creation. Jroberson108 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig or Retarget to Sristi (given name), depending on whether the name constitutes a primary topic (I have no opinion on that, but the other uses probably aren't derived directly from the name - as mentioned above, "Srishti" is the Sanskrit word for creation). If retargeting, also create Srishti (disambiguation) for the other uses. The target doesn't mention "Srishti" at all so is clearly not a good target. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the current target is inappropriate, but is there a PTOPIC? I'll try to draft a DAB in any case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cremastra (u — c) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra this is out-of-process, now the page is both a redirect and a disambiguation page. It's very confusing for readers. Why didn't you wait until this RFD was closed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Liz It is very standard practice to draft disambiguation pages below rfd templates. In fact, the comment in the template says Don't add anything after this line unless you're drafting a disambiguation page or article to replace the redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 02:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

John Atoms

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

BlueChew

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gxarha

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Il giustiziere

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 29

Worm that turned

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Killer Mountain (logo)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack)

• Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack) → Khaidi No. 150  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm nominating this one separately because of its history—it apparently used to be an article about the movie's soundtrack until a deletion discussion in April 2017 (the participants of which that resulted in it being redirected to the current target. Aside from spikes in 2021 and 2022, it hasn't been getting very many pageviews since then, so I'm not 100% sure we need this lying around, plus I've also created the correctly spelled Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) (which should help readers find the intended target), so I'd like to hear all your thoughts about this. Also, the participants of the deletion discussion (TheLongTone, Jennica, Bovineboy2008, Serial Number 54129, and Jo-Jo Eumerus) might want to weigh in on the matter, so I'm pinging them in case they have anything they might want to add. Regards, SONIC678 05:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Restore the four revisions that were deleted at AFD (as I do not see a policy-baaed reason that justified their deletion in accordance with the WP:ATD !votes at the debate), merge the page history up to Onel5969's revision into Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), move the talk page to Talk:Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack), then delete the remaining 2024 revision. ✗plicit 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure I understand Explicit's proposal above, but whether the history of the former article is being maintained at Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack) or Khaidi No. 150 (soudtrack), the target (for both or just the one not deleted) should be refined to Khaidi No. 150#Soundtrack, and I will shortly change this for Khaidi No. 150 (soundtrack). A7V2 (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I Like My Cheese Drippy, Bruh

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

三州府

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#三州府

2025 Dutch general election

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#2025 Dutch general election

Good Article nominations

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Communism:Overview

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Space In Stereo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Starlow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Starlow

Grooving

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Grooving

Site-specific Comedy Opera

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Site-specific Comedy Opera

Tapestries Muck

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

康米

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dimethylxanthine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: set indexify

Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dirhodium tetrakis(trifluoroacetate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Murgh cholay

• Murgh cholay → Chana masala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target dish is detailed as vegetarian, and has no information about murgh, murg or chicken. Delete, as I see no other article on enwiki with this specific murgh dish. Jay 💬 08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Was going to get to this one, probably tomorrow or in the next couple days (whenever I got back around to the Murgh topic). No mention of "murgh cholay" at the target article, thereby making this a misleading redirect as we do not discuss this subject or any mentioned variations of murgh there. Retarget to Pakistani cuisine#Punjab where the dish is discussed with the most depth I've found. Readers can then scroll down two sections as it is also discussed in the #Saraiki section. It is also mentioned at Lahori cuisine, but with little depth. As long as it doesn't stay pointed at a page where it is never mentioned on. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did not do a good job of searching. I have struck off that part from the nomination. Added a citation needed at Pakistani cuisine#Punjab since that section seems to be a summary of Punjabi cuisine which does not have mention. Jay 💬 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Jokestress

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joe Hill (journalist)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joaquin Salamanca

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jank fraction

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jacob Condra-Bogan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jackask

• Jackask → Jacksfilms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• JackAsk → Jacksfilms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Jackask" at the target, nor any mention anywhere on Wikipedia outside of one, on John Milhiser, where it is listed as a "television title" that he acted in. For a Youtube series that is intended to be pronounced similarly to Jackass, such a misspelling seems to be the likely ask for searchers of this term. Especially since this Youtube series is not discussed at the target article for Jacksfilms. The singular mention at John Milhiser can very well be a piped link to Jack's general article, forgoing the need to have a potentially misleading redirect as a result. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as {{r without mention}}. People searching for this term are unlikely to be looking for a different topic. It is mentioned on Digital Trends, which is considered a reliable source. ✗plicit 14:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• I could not find a way to insert this Q&A show into the target article. But I'm hoping someone else can, so Keep, or tag as {{R without mention}} per XPLICIT. Jay 💬 10:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hydrocal

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hot Chips

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Herd morality

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liongate Home Entertainment

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Her Royal Hotness

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Her Royal Hotness

Henț River

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Henț River

Hahn Mahlay

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gomberg radical reaction

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Clara Gleeson and etc.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Game data

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

インターネット・アーカイブ

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uikipedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mollejon Dam

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects

Crapulinsky

• Crapulinsky → Napoleon III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy for the reasoning behind this RFD. I didn't notice that the other redirect was misspelled at first. To keep this short, retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Nickps (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at either the current or proposed target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nominator's rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Crapulinksy. As far as I can make out, this word is used once in the 18th Brumaire and nowhere else. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  But so what? Just because a word is used in an essay doesn't mean we should redirect that word to our article on that essay. There's no mention of it at the target. This would be unhelpful to anyone who knows where it's mentioned, confusing to those who don't, and misleading to everyone looking for information about this, whatever it even is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a mention added. Searching for the word/name, I did find a number of people referring to this written work, specifically about this name. The following academic paper (a reliable source) [72] even discusses, briefly but specifically, what the name means in Marx's writing. I think that merits a mention. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Such a mention would be highly WP:UNDUE -- it's only even a footnote in your source. And the only reason you're talking about adding it is because this RFD is here. Redirects should follow content, not the other way around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, no mention of this phrase at the target article. Contains no valuable history so no context will be lost on deletion. There IS value in deleting this though, as we will no longer be misleading readers with the promise of "crapulinsky" content that does not exist not only at the target article, but "crapulinsky" does not exist anywhere on all of Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, per Utopes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How many of us have them

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 28

Universe (artwork)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Matthew sucka

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete.

Wokot

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Jealousy definitions

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: move

Nintendo Twilight

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mormons Losing Money

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

4-aminopurine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Black Yoshi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Falcoln

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Mabe Village

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Mabe Village

Zelda: The Wand of Gannon

• Zelda: The Wand of Gannon → Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

his name was initially inconsistently spelled, with "gannon" having been used from 1 to alttp in japan, and only in 1 (and later zelda's adventure, but no one cares about that one) in not japan, so it was already out of the equation by the time the cd-i games were out. point is, getting two names mixed up and using an outdated spelling of that name doesn't seem that plausible cogsan _{talk page? contribs? it's yours, my friend} 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, plausible and unambiguous; deletion of this does not improve wikipedia BugGhost🦗👻 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Further detail because this is getting more deletion votes than I expected: According to our article Ganon, In the Japanese versions of the first three games, his name is anglicized as "Gannon", with the citations implying that the spelling "Gannon" was still being used in 1991 (the Wand of Gamelon came out in 1993). Both the Gamelon/Ganon and Ganon/Gannon mixups are both very plausible in my view, and there is no alternate article that this could possibly redirect to - user definitely wants to find the current target. BugGhost🦗👻 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently, "Gamelon" is a setting, not an alternative name for Ganon. For this reason, the redirect is erroneous and not a title match in any form or variation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  correct, gamelon is the place, ganon (which the game explicitly spells with only two ns) is the green guy cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep. I will point out that even though Gamelon and Ganon are not the same word, they DO start and end with the same letters. Given Gamelon only appears in this game, while Ganon is the name of the series' overarching antagonist(s), it's perhaps plausible to get the two confused-- "Okay, so the name is Wand of... something? Starts with a G, ends with N... oh, silly me, it's Ganon!"

However-- and this is a big however-- the addition of misspelling Ganon does reduce plausibility a little more-- however, I would like to point out that this is also an extremely common misspelling of Ganon's name, so perhaps it doesn't hurt plausibility as much as it first appears?

I won't fight too terribly hard if it's deemed that this combo is still too implausible to be considered. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Too many errors. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Slightly Weak Keep per Lunamann, plus the fact that while acknowledged as an error since, the original Zelda game does officially use the spelling "GANNON" with three Ns. This was unambiguously an error, but an official and published error. Someone could plausibly remember that it was an error from back in the day, and think it applied to this trainwreck of a terrible game. My !vote is a bit stronger than Lunamann's very weak keep because of this, but it's still slightly weak as I wouldn't feel the need to fight vigorously for keeping it. But I do think it's harmless, with an unambiguous target (even if in error), and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete too many errors. "Gannon" misspelling has no affinity, this is not the original Zelda game, and we won't be having Gannon misspellings for every single future Zelda game just because it was a typo in only the manual of the original. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Too implausible of a mistake. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

nah, i think 5 delete votes to a keep, a really weak keep, and a slightly less weak keep would have been enough cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussions are based on the strength of arguments, not the strength of bolded !votes. As it happens, it is 3 to 5 numerically, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You may be right in principle but I'd avoid making a comment like this if you're WP:INVOLVED. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

i'll also kind of disagree with that, since even the substantially weak keep vote that the less weak but still weak keep vote was based on argued that getting two names mixed up and misspelling said wrong name might not be all that plausible cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I could reasonably see someone making both errors. Ganon being the main antagonist of the franchise (and of this game) and starting with the first two letters of Gamelon could potentially cause confusion, as well as Gannon being a typo the first game in the series itself made. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Problem there is then, a reader could search this redirect expecting the target to contain the subject at Ganon, which it does not. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think they would - when they are redirected to the article they would see that the title is actually "Gamelon". BugGhost🦗👻 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Horse Grass

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Facecore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ruffian (Star Fox)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Herbert the Android Pig

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Herbert the Android Pig

Fay Spaniel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Fay Spaniel

Uppers (video game)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Greater Luxembourg

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Greater Luxembourg

Canada bunting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Canada bunting

Loudward

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The Rhythm of ALT

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nomos Publishing House redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Nomos Publishing House redirects

Heather Cerveny

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Heather Cerveny

Harapanahalli railway station

• Harapanahalli railway station → South Western Railway zone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "harapanahalli" at the target article, or any other indication about a "Harapanahalli railway station" at the South Western Railway zone article. The only mention of "harapanahalli railway station" anywhere on Wikipedia is at the overarching article for Harapanahalli, but this article has a good number of problems and only contains two references, so it begs the question whether the railway station needs to be mentioned there either. In any case, it seems that there may need to be a change to either the target, or to the content, or to delete entirely if its not necessary to be included anywhere. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Add mention. Railway stations that verifiably exist (and this one does) are always plausible search terms and are always DUE for a mention on the article about the line and in articles about the settlement they serve. Note also this was a BLAR and should not be deleted without an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello I'm the person who created this page the Harapanahalli Railway Station which is functioning currently six trains are operating through this station please help me to publish this article

Thank you :) Darshan Kavadi (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• comment Each of the three division articles has a list of the stations within the division. These lists appear to be incomplete do I cannot give an appropriate target, but whichever applies would be a good target. Mangoe (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• I cleaned up the language at Harapanahalli#Railway Transportation. There are still no sources, so added a {{cn}}. Jay 💬 10:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

New York City Birth Index

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fund for the City of New York

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fpoon

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Fpoon

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Erasing rule

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Electrotechnology

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Electrotechnology

DXAP-TV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Diana Burnwood

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Diana Burnwood

Dhol (Kirat)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Dhol (Kirat)

David Carroll (academic)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

September 31

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#September 31

Darts Australia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Danut Murariu

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

April 31

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#April 31

Daesh Tunisia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Daesh Tunisia

D'ni Restoration Council

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#D'ni Restoration Council

October 27

Tata (Persian King)

• Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Chrysolith

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

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf's analysis. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf, perhaps an actual mention on the Peridot page is warranted to prevent any cases of WP:RASTONISH. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Chrysolite since it seems to be just as ambiguous as that term, for which it seems to be an alternative or foreign variant. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to the disambiguation page Chrysolite, per Felix QW. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget Both with and without the "e" (and with a "us") in many European languages the terms have have over the last 100 years or so become more specific. But our enquirer may not have found the term in a modern work. Of interest there is nomenclature for the subspecies, chrysolite de Saxe being topaz, chrysolit[h]e du cap being phrenite. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC).
  
• Retarget, no mention of "lith" at the target page so "lite" captures all desired usages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Geez, a 4th relist, but wow ... the direction of the discussion seemed to change substantially after the most recent relist, so it's worth giving this another go to see if consensus gets clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy but delete LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy

Universal Studios

• Universal Studios → Universal Studios, Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Universal Studios" is typically used to refer to either Universal Pictures, the film studio (as a nickname/former name), or the various theme parks around the globe named "Universal Studios" that are operated by Universal Destinations & Experiences. The parent company of both divisions is also named Universal Studios, Inc., which is where universalstudios.com points to (versus universalpictures.com and universaldestinationsandexperiences.com). Universal Studios currently redirects to Universal Studios, Inc., making it an unnecessary disambiguation, but a recent RM ended with no consensus for a move. Previously, the redirect pointed to Universal Pictures. I'm not convinced a primary topic can be determined here, given the two- or three-way split, so I would call for turning this redirect into a disambiguation page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Electing for disambiguation per nominator's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Universal Pictures (second choice is disambiguation) – At the very least, we have a rough consensus here against Universal Studios, Inc. as the primary topic, with some in that discussion leaning toward Universal Pictures instead. Universal Pictures was originally titled Universal Studios for more than a decade until an undiscussed technical move occurred (never got the discussion it deserved). Then recently in May, the redirect was changed to point to the parent company article instead of Universal Pictures (again, no discussion until this month).

Best case I can present here is that the number of monthly pageviews Universal Pictures receives dwarfs every other Wikipedia article covering some aspect of the company. Outside of Wikipedia, it's much of the same. When you visit the main company's website, the film IP is front and center. When you visit their theme parks, film is front and center there too. Marketing? Yep, still front and center. The entire company revolves around (and depends on) it's film intellectual property, despite having a presence in other areas. Clearly, "Universal Studios" is a term that is most closely associated with the motion picture division of the company. The only other real competition here is Universal Destinations & Experiences, but per WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate, we simply place that in a hatnote like it is currently at Universal Pictures. If someone really feels a disambig page is necessary, we can add that to the hatnote as well. Simple.

BTW, even if the result is no consensus, the redirect should revert back to its former target, Universal Pictures. There doesn't appear to be consensus for that change either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that consensus is presumed unless reverted, so we do have four months worth of implicit consensus for Universal Studios' current target, and many years worth of implicit consensus for Universal Pictures' current title.

Now, let me present a counterargument. If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine, depending on where you are located, you'll most likely see results for the theme park closest to you. For me, it's Universal Studios Hollywood, but you might get Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, or Universal Studios Beijing. What you likely will not see is Universal Pictures, the film studio, because the word "Studios" does not appear anywhere in the name "Universal Pictures"; it's simply being used as a shorthand or nickname. If you look at sources that discuss the film studio and theme parks, most use "Universal Pictures" to refer to the studio and "Universal Studios _____" to refer to the parks. I don't dispute the fact that Universal Pictures is more notable/important/popular than Universal Studios (the theme parks), but what's the evidence that readers are likely looking for Universal Pictures (a non-title match) rather than the many other pages whose title contains "Universal Studios" when they search the latter term? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"consensus is presumed unless reverted" – I know you know I'm a longtime editor (15 years in fact), so you don't need to explain implicit consensus to me, probably just like I don't need to explain to you that it's also the weakest form of consensus that only exists UNTIL "disputed or reverted" (either qualifies). It should be clear I've disputed it, but even if that escaped your attention, did you already forget about this revert by Intrisit? Or how about this revert by 162 etc.? Perhaps I should also take a moment to point out that STATUSQUO is just an essay with zero bite, since you've used it as justification in one of those reverts.

"we do have four months worth...for Universal Studios' current target", "many years...for Universal Pictures current title" – Really? Prior to May, we had 7 years for Universal Studios → Universal Pictures! You can't see this in the immediate history, because the redirect was overwritten in December 2023 by a page move, but it had been like that for years following the 2017 technical move I linked above. 4 months doesn't hold a candle to 7 years, but regardless of the comparison here, presumed consensus is non-existent at this point. It's the same deal regarding the "Universal Pictures" article title. The article was previously titled "Universal Studios" for nearly 14 years, nearly double the amount of time it has been titled "Universal Pictures". Arguing in favor of recent presumed consensus while conveniently ignoring the previous presumed consensus that existed for a greater length of time doesn't make any sense. Your "preface" didn't do your counterargument any favors.

"If you look up "Universal Studios" on any search engine..." – I think it's time you move away from this notion of relying on a basic web search for the premise of your argument. You did this in the previous discussion, and I showed back then (as I'll do now) that these are misleading arguments to bring to the table without proper context. The problem with using Google in the manner you are doing so now is that the "top hits" are tailored to advertising. SEO marketers exploit weaknesses in Google's search algorithms, such as PageRank, to game the system and push to the top of search result rankings. The problem continues to get worse each year, despite improvements made by Google and competing search engines. What you are witnessing in the results is bias; a bias toward marketing/selling/advertising. A better test would be to use Google Books, search on "Universal Studios" in quotes, and then on the results page, refine the results by using the dropdown "Any document" and selecting "Books" only (IMO, the other formats are more likely to cover travel and leisure in the form of advertising, skewing the results). Now what you'll find is that the first page is 4 hits movie studio, 6 theme park. There are some Econoguide and other travel-type publication hits on the next couple pages that favor theme parks, but from page 4 through page 10, the hits are predominantly the movie studio, and by a wide margin. I didn't spend time digging beyond that, but feel free, as this is a more reliable result that holds more weight. Do you find that interesting? I certainly did.

In any case, this may not be the so-called evidence required, and a disambig page is still an acceptable alternative, but let's not pretend that the recent change to the redirect back in May has any kind of standing consensus. Should this discussion end in no consensus, you can bet I'll be reverting that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I recognize implicit consensus is a weak form of consensus; I was addressing your previous statement that there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target and Universal Pictures' article title — this is not accurate, although there may be stronger consensus for an alternative.

14 years and Google Books are because Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios, not because Universal Studios is currently the common name for Universal Pictures. My search engine example was an effort to put ourselves in readers' shoes and surface what they are most likely looking for. As I noted in the RM, I agree it's not perfect, but it still shouldn't be entirely discarded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"there was "no consensus" for the redirect's current target...this is not accurate" – My statement is entirely accurate, and either you don't seem to fully understand the concept, or you have misinterpreted my statement. Presumed consensus did exist from the time the redirect was changed in May up until the time the recent RM discussion was underway. But it disappeared, poof, vanished, during that discussion as soon as it became obvious that editors disputed the May redirect change. This is why presumed consensus is not worth spending so much time dwelling over or using as a basis for an argument; it is extremely weak. Consensus through editing is no longer presumed when disagreement becomes apparent. As for Universal Pictures, I assume you're referring to the "undiscussed" move comment I made about never getting the discussion it deserved, but I never mention "consensus". You may want to start using quotes to make sure you're getting it right.

"Universal Pictures used to be known as Universal Studios" – I am not following this logic at all in how this relates to 14 years on Wikipedia. Are you trying to draw a correlation between the two that is factual, or just sharing an opinion? Google Books is something concrete we can look at and take into consideration. You're welcome to contribute something as well. The web search, however, is the opposite: flawed and uninformative.

There is also another angle to consider that I pointed out in the RM discussion (which BTW you seem to be avoiding). The pageviews count (1) at Universal Studios, Inc. shot up drastically following the redirect change, which comes as no surprise since we all pretty much agree the redirect change was the wrong move. This is just more supporting evidence of that. It's worth seeing that first and then comparing the pageviews count (2) at the former target, Universal Pictures, you'll notice the 8k+ dropoff that could have happened didn't really happen. A little fluctuation, but not much. The article's traffic essentially holds steady. This implies that Universal Pictures was likely to get that traffic regardless. Kind of an important aspect to consider as well in addition to Google Books and the other points made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to Universal Pictures' infobox, it was formerly named Universal Studios, so I assumed this is why the Wikipedia article was only moved in 2017 and why some Google Books results use "Universal Studios". If the infobox is wrong, please correct me. Yes, I was referring to your comment on the "undiscussed technical move" of Universal Pictures, and perhaps I shouldn't have paraphrased that as "no consensus", but it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates an absence of consensus for the current title.

Regarding the pageviews argument, I no longer claim that Universal Studios, Inc. is the primary topic for "Universal Studios", so I don't contest that Universal Studios should not point to Universal Studios, Inc. I am calling for it to be disambiguated because I don't think Universal Pictures is more "primary" than Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, et al.

Interestingly, my Google Books results look different than yours. My first page yielded similar results, but pages 4–10 actually had mainly results for the theme parks. Perhaps more telling is that most results for the film studio pertain to the studio's "classic films" (typically the monster movies), i.e. when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios. These results were more or less identical when signed out in an incognito tab, so I'm not sure why you got such drastically different results. In any case, while I still don't think we should discard "regular" search entirely (this is how most of our readers navigate the web, not through Google Books or Google Scholar), I took a look at Google Scholar, and the results are similar to Google Books: 5 about the theme parks, 1 about the parent company (hmm, interesting), 3 about the film studio, and somehow the Masterminds production notes ended up on the first page. Second page onward are predominantly about the theme parks, with some monster movies sprinkled in. Google News is virtually all about the theme parks. Are you getting similar results? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"it seems you were implying that the undiscussed technical move indicates..." – Nope, simply saying it didn't get the discussion it deserved, full stop. In that discussion, we would have found out if it had consensus. I'm not claiming to know what the outcome would have definitely been.

"I don't know how accurate this is, but ... it was formerly named Universal Studios" – Company infoboxes, especially when they're collapsed like that, rarely get the attention they need to be accurate. This one has an entry for 1996–2014 that is conflating the company with the motion picture division (you can read this in the body), which actually demonstrates the point I'm trying to make! "Universal Studios" is often used interchangeably to refer to "Universal Pictures". People often do this. Books often do this. Editors on Wikipedia apparently do this (thanks for the example). Just another real-world example of why it's harmless for the redirect to point here.

You're missing the point about the the pageviews data. I already acknowledged we all agree about the parent company. This is what you need to focus on. More than 8,000 monthly hits at that redirect (people navigating to "Universal Studios") were taken away from Universal Pictures, yet this went nearly undetected in the average monthly views on that page. The traffic there essentially stays the same. I don't think we can ignore something like that.

"...when the studio was (presumably) named Universal Studios" – So here's what's going to happen. I'm going to explain this, and you are going to move onto the next perceived flaw you can find and see what you can expose. But nevertheless, the company originally opened as Universal City Studios in 1915. Its film division has always to some extent been known as Universal Pictures (there may have been a "Company" tacked on at one point in the mid 20th century). But what you'll notice is that there are books, newspapers, and magazines published from the 1920s all the way through the 2010s that still state "Universal Studios" when casually referring to either the company or the film studio. Interestingly, even from the very beginning, they preferred to drop "City" from the name in publications. Also, it didn't seem too important to distinguish "Universal Pictures" from the main company name. Seems they were always viewed predominantly as one and the same.

That's my personal understanding based on how the terms are interchangeably tossed around in sources. Only in official business relations or documents (or on screen) is extra care seem to be given to "Universal Pictures", which doesn't make it the common name, nor does it necessarily make it a good article title. As for your Google Books results being different than mine, I'll re-run it and post a list of my results. I don't see why those would be different unless we are running the search differently. Google Scholar is fine, but I think Google News suffers from some of the same bias and should be discounted. It's not a good test for this particular topic/debate. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's say Universal Pictures is often referred to as "Universal Studios" by academic sources (I take issue with this assertion and ignoring other types of sources, but I'm just going to WP:LETITGO and move on at this point). For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the studio is just as common as using "Universal Pictures", which is the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers. But how does this show that the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the film studio is substantially more common than the use of "Universal Studios" to refer to the theme parks of the same name? The pageviews argument is interesting, but I think we have convincing evidence that it is also very common to use "Universal Studios" to refer to ... well, Universal Studios. If the parks weren't named "Universal Studios", that would be a different story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm back after stepping away for off-wiki commitments. At this point, the lack of participation from new editors (aside from 2pou) indicates this debate has run its course. I'm actually surprised it's still open, but I will close with this...

Your observation "the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures" relies on non-independent, primary sources. I'm sure you're aware from other discussions that when COMMONNAME is invoked, we seek out prevalence in independent sources. We wouldn't treat a primary topic redirect any differently.

The pageviews argument is just one of several angles given, along with Google Books (despite our experiences diverging in this RfD, which may need further exploration down the road). Then there's the WikiNav data explored below illustrating that guests searching for "Universal Studios" are not immediately jumping to theme park articles as you would expect after landing in the wrong article. The hatnote is right there at the top, front and center, and this might be the most convincing data to date (though you may find a reason to doubt it as well if you are beyond convincing, but if that's the case, why bother debating?). Redirecting to a disambig page isn't the end of the world. Not terrible, not great, not really optimal, but fine for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Also back after a few days of absence. The portion of my quote you left out is important: the name seen in the opening credits of virtually all Universal pictures and therefore recognizable to most readers (emphasis added). I brought this up because anyone who has seen a Universal picture in the last few decades will likely remember reading "Universal Pictures presents" in front of every film. They won't recall hearing "Universal Studios" anywhere other than (possibly) common parlance or the theme parks ("We're going to Universal Studios!"). This is not advocating for simply adhering to the WP:OFFICIALNAME, I'm making the case that it is the common name precisely because general audiences are so widely exposed to use of the official name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate - This seems to have clear WP:X or Y (or Z or XX or XY or XZ or YX or YY...) problems. Using the traffic to determine a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case seems flawed. Traffic is going to be driven up because nearly every film from Universal will be linking there as the distributor, skewing the traffic data. You can actually see this as 60% of arrivals to Universal Pictures is coming from other articles (as opposed to search, other namespaces, external, etc.). I wish the WikiNav clickstream worked for Universal Studios, but I think it does not because it is a redirect. Despite the hatnote, people do not get funneled to the Destinations & Experiences page... likely because people arrive via other articles, and they aren't actually searching for one of the Universal Studios parks in those cases. There are just too many options, so a dab page seems to be the most logical solution.
  Link to WikiNav clickstream data discussed. -2pou (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: Just a preemptive apology to the closer for continuing this very long RfD. The following points need to be made, despite that this round of debate appears to be headed to disambiguation (an acceptable option).

2pou: Glad you jumped in and brought up WikiNav. That's where I was going next before getting sucked into off-Wiki commitments. First, I should clarify that I wasn't arguing that Universal Pictures depended solely on traffic from the redirect. This page gets over 100k monthly views, and the redirect is only responsible for approx 6-7k views. My point was that in the 4-month period following the redirect change, its monthly view count remained fairly steady. There was some fluctuation, but not enough to match what the redirect consistently brought to the table. Is it possible that incoming traffic from other sources saw an uptick during the same timeframe? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unlikely.

So getting back to WikiNav data... You were on the right track, except we should be evaluating the redirect target "Universal Studios, Inc.", which is where people land when searching for "Universal Studios". This is a point of interest, because in earlier discussion we've concluded that "Universal Studios, Inc." fails as the primary topic. We'd like to get a glimpse of where outgoing traffic is headed. In theory, there should be a significant number landing there unexpectedly, leading to some portion of outgoing pageviews headed toward other "Universal Studios" articles. So what does the WikiNav data reveal? Universal Pictures is the #2 hit with 1,520 targets, and none of the theme park articles are in the top 10...Wow! In fact, you have to expand the top 20 just to see one, where you'll also see a partial title match named "Universal Animation Studios" ranked at #12 (151 targets). "Universal Studios Hollywood" sits at #17 (62 targets), and "Universal Studios Florida" sits at #19 (56 targets). They're barely a blip on the radar in comparison. The page gets a total of 14k monthly views, which as we discussed above owes a big chunk to the redirect (6k+ redirected hits per month) that changed in May. These two sets of numbers can help us draw a pretty reliable conclusion.

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! For all this talk about the theme parks being one of the intended targets for those searching "Universal Studios", that doesn't appear to hold any weight whatsoever according to the WikiNav outgoing data. Something should be registering out of thousands of redirects, but we aren't seeing anything. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (updated 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC))

@GoneIn60: Sorry; I didn't mean to suggest you were relying solely on traffic. I understood that, I just wanted to make sure we don't just look at the number it spits out without considering those factors because it was going to be a very high number regardless. I did look at the Universal Studios, Inc. clickstream, and I, too, found it interesting that it didn't funnel people to any parks. I was discussing the Universal Pictures info because I was looking closer at the long-term history before the redirect was retargeted. While I think the data for Universal Studios, Inc. was interesting, I'm seeing that the data is a bit older. It says the data was dumped in August 2024, so it hasn't actually captured the incoming/outgoing traffic since the retargeting on September 10. Overall, I do lean towards disambiguation due to the sheer number of options, but I do agree that if it were to remain a redirect, Universal Pictures is the better option. Several articles for older films, actors, actresses, directors, etc. link there intending the (now) Universal Pictures page. (Yes, that can be resolved via clerical edits...)
I didn't realize until now that Universal Studios, Inc. was only "created" (via a split and move of sorts by HeroWikia - legacy company still captured at MCA_Inc.) in April this year. -2pou (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

2pou, unless I'm missing something, this all goes back to the redirect change made in May by MinionsFan1998. So the data in August 2024 would be a valid date range to assess.

As for a disambiguation page, I don't disagree there needs to be one. However, I disagree the title of it needs to be "Universal Studios"; instead it should be Universal Studios (disambiguation). We can link to it in a hatnote at Universal Pictures, a common practice described at WP:DISAMBIG#Deciding to disambiguate (and also something I mentioned in my original !vote). Then restore the redirect to its original target (Universal Pictures) based on the evidence provided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I didn't go back through the history far enough when I saw the 10Sep retarget. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't have super strong feelings about where the dab page goes, but I do have doubts in having Universal Studios, Inc. as the target. -2pou (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm with you about the current target. It's the least qualified for sure. My concern with having the redirect go to a DAB page right off the bat, is that there will be quite a bit of work needed to resolve the issues it creates. There appears to be 3,862 Wikilinks from articles using the redirect, and when you look at a lot of those links, they were created with the intention of directing readers to Universal Pictures.

Here's one random example I checked from the list...Piper Laurie. Just read the opening of the Career section and this source (the latter of which was inserted by one of our great copyeditors who sadly is no longer with us). "Universal Studios" is being used in the context of the film studio. We could potentially see many hundreds, if not thousands of these links now land on a DAB page unnecessarily.

We are left with three options:

1. Keep as is – Worst one. Universal Studios, Inc. is essentially the history of "Music Corporation of America", how it came to be, its 1962 buyout of Universal, and everything post-buyout. Many who land here will be confused, as they expect to be reading about Universal's history.
2. Retarget to DAB – Better, but far from perfect. Retargeting here will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly). It will also create the most work moving forward to manually update and correct these links down the road.
3. Restore original target → Universal Pictures – Best by far given the # of Wikilinks, along with WikiNAV data on the topic phrase "Universal Studios". In addition, we have some loose off-Wiki data from Google Books that seems to support long-term significance in favor of the film studio (theme parks compete but do not overtake the film studio in this space).

Knowing what you know now, 2pou, are you still split between options 2 and 3, or do you have a preference between them? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: The "Retargeting [to the disambiguation page] will essentially break a lot of these older links that were meant for "Universal Pictures", forcing readers to make an extra hop (and to choose correctly)" will not be a concern if this redirect is disambiguated, considering an internal Wikipedia project page, WP:DPL, encourages editors to disambiguate links that link to or point to disambiguation pages, and there are several editors who work on this. Seriously, if there is one aspect of Wikipedia I have seen consistent over the past 10+ years, other than article creation, it is the plethora of editors ready to disambiguate links. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Even more interesting to me is that the very first link in the article appears in the hatnote which reads, "For the theme parks, see Universal Destinations & Experiences", yet it doesn't even register in the top 20 for outgoing traffic! The hatnotes (on both Universal Studios, Inc. and Universal Pictures) are new and were added by me on the day I opened the RM that preceded this one. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

InfiniteNexus, thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch that in the history. Looks like you added the hatnote on August 31, and I like how you placed both options in there (the main theme parks article and the film studio article). Hopefully we'll get a chance to see WikiNav update soon to show September's data. Its clickstream data dump usually drops in the first few days of the following month, and from what I gather, this is usually processed and displayed about a week later on the 12th. We'll know shortly if the theme park company link in the hatnote became a factor in September.

It's also worth noting a few things. Using the "Search" box to jump to your next destination will still be tracked by WikiNav in outgoing traffic. Even without the hatnote, WikiNav would have still been capturing searches from that page. So for Universal theme park seekers getting their searches right on the 2nd try (by being more specific), we would have seen that in the August data. So I'm a bit skeptical we'll see a huge difference, but we'll see. In addition, the version of the article heading into August did contain Universal theme park links in the Takeover section as well as in the navbox at the bottom. To be fair, "Universal Pictures" was more prominent, appearing one section earlier and also in the infobox. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Universal Pictures as the primary topic and {{r from former name}}. The individual theme parks (Universal Studios Hollywood etc.) are partial title matches, so none of them would be reasonable redirect targets. The broader Universal Destinations & Experiences isn't referred to as "Universal Studios", and per GoneIn60's analysis above, people who search for "Universal Studios" alone aren't usually looking for it.
  I don't see the need for Universal Studios (disambiguation) if it'll only list two other articles. Why not just a hatnote? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that the individual theme parks are partial title matches means they are equally plausible candidates for the primary topic as the film studio, which is a zero-title match. A disambiguation page would include Universal Pictures, Universal Studios, Inc., Universal Destinations & Experiences, Universal Studios Hollywood, Universal Studios Florida, Universal Studios Japan, Universal Studios Singapore, Universal Studios Beijing, and Universal Studios Lot. See how it's difficult to prove that the film studio (which, again, does not even include the word "Studios" in its name) is more primary than any of these other candidates? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. If anything, I would believe this redirect is the WP:COMMONNAME for the theme parks, but per the above conversation, seems I may possibly be incorrect in that stance. Either way, I oppose "retarget to Universal Pictures" as there's more than one potential subject to claim the nominated redirect as a common name, and the winner of that trophy is certainly not the film production company. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note – This discussion seems to have stalled. If the closer finds consensus against the current target, but no consensus for which page to retarget, they should perform a WP:BARTENDER close and use their best judgment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Note – In addition, the page that is now named Universal Studios, Inc. was formerly known as MCA Inc. until a cut-and-paste move occurred in April. AKK700 03:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @AKK-700: How is this relevant to where Universal Studios should point to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  wait, this isn't the right place to point this out... I think I should take this somewhere else. AKK700 04:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Barangay 79

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Barangay 79

User:@Sir MemeGod

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

"Degrassi characters" redirects

• Charcters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Characters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Characters of Degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Degrassi characters → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Back in 2021, the target page was moved from the last redirect's title to List of Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High characters (which is worth keeping at the current target since it's accurate and describes exactly what is promised by its title) to avoid confusion with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi: Next Class characters, but apparently these redirects have stayed at the target for all these months since this move happened. I'm not 100% sure if the current target is the best place to take readers searching any of these terms; but I'm torn between keeping, disambiguating, and deleting; since the target article is the longstanding page of each redirect. I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss the best course of action, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Regards, SONIC678 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig they are all plausible but ambiguous search terms with no obvious primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig between the locations of all the character lists, for Kids of Degrassi Street, Jr.High, High, School's Out, NextGen, NextClass ... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Charcters of degrassi as a WP:COSTLY, unlikely misspelling. (I currently have no opinion on the rest.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Inside Head

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go

• A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go → Yankee Doodle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Despite being implausible, unlikely as a search term, and wholly unmentioned not at the target article, but also unmentioned across all of Wikipedia, the redirect is also incorrect. It should be "heigh ho", not "heigh o". This exact spelling becomes near impossibly unlikely in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that all this time we're simply targeting "Yankee Doodle". People looking for the correctly spelled lyric, will not find it here either. No mention of "hunting" at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I just realized: these lyrics aren't even for Yankee Doodle! A-Hunting We Will Go has existed since 2010 so I have ZERO clue how this could have possibly happened, besides expectable carelessness from the mass-redirect creations of unmentioned & unverified lyrics, filled with typos and implausible formatting.

For this page, A-Hunting We Will Go does currently contain lyrics in the article, and the lyrics indeed say "heigh ho". But these are also unsourced and should be removed from the article as well, per WP:NOTLYRICS and not being encyclopedic content. Lyrics can be included on Wikiquote or Lyricfinder if desired, or wherever the appropriate place to put such lyrics, on any site that isn't Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a lyric database). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go anyways, despite the impending removal of lyrics; the title of the song IS present in the redirect, and it would definitely be going to the right place if retargeted.

In other news, this was APPARENTLY created from scratch in August of this year by user:Kjell Knudde; however the history indicates that Kjell was merely adding categories to an existing redirect?? I've got no clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go. Cremastra (u — c) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go per above. If someone searches these lyrics and ends up at the page for a song that doesn't contain them, chances are they might be WP:ASTONISHed at this. It's preferable to lead them to a song that actually contains them to prevent this from happening. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: The lyrics have been removed from the article, because Wikipedia is not a lyric database, furthermore the whole section was unsourced. Also keeping in mind that these are not actually the true lyrics of the song. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, it should be delete nor a specific retarget into A-Hunting We Will Go. There is no match within it's lyrics. Thus, it is include for WP:COSTLY applied. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Icarus58 But, someone typing in these lyrics will still get given the song to which they belong to. Given that the title is the first line, it should be clear why they're being redirected. I do not see how WP:COSTLY applies. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I noted for that — sorry. Please see if this is match with a source: [73] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Noting: It's not a match, because the song goes "heigh ho", and not "heigh-o" as the redirect uses it. And without a sourced mention at the article, this material, (even if it is "correct" or "incorrect") cannot be reliably verified. And this one is incorrect, so it certainly can't be verified. It is WP:COSTLY because we cannot and should not be expected to maintain unverified lyrics, ESPECIALLY so when they contain obscure errors, as Wikipedia redirects, WP:UNNATURAL. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given it's a folk song, I think "heigh ho" and "heigh-o" are within the realm of acceptable variation. Cremastra (u — c) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Implausible, this is more in the realm of the search function than a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Plaisir d'amour ne dure qu'un moment. Chagrin d'amour dure toute la vie.

Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Vor der Kaserne vor dem großen Tor stand eine Laterne und steht sie noch davor

Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Police and thieves in the street, oh yeah, scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

Choose life (quote)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters

• List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of charaters in grand theft auto advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of charaters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of characters in Grand Theft Auto Advance → Grand Theft Auto Advance#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list or section at target. However, Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters does exist, but it does not contain a list of characters. (List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Restore redirected article [74] until and unless a valid AFD of the article is done (rather than a unilateral undiscussed and unproposed redirect). Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Restore without prejudice per Softlavender and WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Czar since they WP:BLARed List of Grand Theft Auto Advance characters in 2015 [75]. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retain. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a perfectly valid target and alternative to deletion for character lists that are clearly without sourcing for independent notability. The plot section covers everything the reader needs to know about these characters. Sending this unsourced "list" to AfD is needless process unless you think deletion is a better outcome than redirection here. If the "list" title is the issue, then rename as "Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance" but you'd still have the old title pointing to that redirect. czar 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add that many, many "Lists of GameTitle characters" articles redirect to their parent articles' Plot sections same as this does. It's a common redirection because these character lists are just as commonly created, almost always without regard to sourcing. czar 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore article? Or simply refine to the "Settings and characters" section of the current target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete There is no way that the original LoC would survive AFD, and the game itself is only 10ish hours, so even a (new) character section as redirect target seems overkill. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retain per Czar. Softlavender and Thryduulf suggest restoring and sending to AFD for procedural reasons. as Sgeureka recognizes, this will surely fail to be retained at AFD, which as Czar correctly points out, will likely lead to a redirect. I see no reason to go through that process. Thryduulf points to WP:BLAR, but I see nothing there requiring us to restore it or go through AFD, since no one appears to be arguing for the article to restored.
  I'm confused by Steel1943 and Sgeureka's insistence that the redirect target be an actual list. Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters is a fine target without any modifications. We can and routinely do redirect list titles to articles which discuss the list subject but aren't lists. Daask (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Do not Keep/Retain as no list exists at the target. Other list redirects may exist but because they haven't yet been discussed at RfD. Agree with Czar's compromise of moving the BLARd page to Characters of Grand Theft Auto Advance and refine to Grand Theft Auto Advance#Setting and characters. Make it a move without redirect and delete the other nominated entries. Jay 💬 13:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Jay in that there is no list; someone using this redirect-- which would require someone looking for a list-- would be WP:ASTONISHed to find themselves here. Thus, I disagree with the idea that retaining this redirect is a good idea. I also question the idea of renaming these redirects, given WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Is the history of this page truly important enough to keep that we should rename the redirect in order to prevent it going away when the redirect is deleted, given the extremely low likelihood of it being brought back to a proper article (given its unsourced and non-notable nature)? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. not present, history had no sources cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. In some cases not explicitly targetinng a list might be harmful, but this isn't one of them. These character lists are common on Wikipedia and we should take readers to where there is relevant information. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep As a prequel to Grand Theft Auto III, the game features both new and returning characters. The protagonist is an original character named Mike, who in his quest to avenge the supposed death of his partner, Vinnie, crosses paths with several prominent criminals that offer him assistance. These include explosives expert and firearms trader 8-Ball, Yardies leader King Courtney, and yakuza co-leader Asuka Kasen, all previously featured in Grand Theft Auto III, although their characters received significant changes in appearance and lifestyle to reflect who they were one year prior. is close enough to a list for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the "charaters" redirects as implausible misspellings, but weak keep the correctly spelled ones per Czar and others. The target section may not exactly be a list, but as others have argued above me, it's the closest thing we have on Wikipedia to a list of characters on that game. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience readers who are looking for relevant information on these characters. Regards, SONIC678 16:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Pure cruft; unnecessary; pointless to restore. Even if LISTN could be passed, it would need TNT. Not salvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

2025–26 Formula E World Championship

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Antelope horns

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

India as a potential superpower

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Hi-IN

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Th-TH

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Neo-mooris

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Neo-mooris

Neo-moors

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Neo-moors

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Çornosturuf

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Çornosturuf

Kırıvçe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3#Kırıvçe

Necko Jenkins

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 26

The ancient city

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Murgh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Murgh

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

Burnt Food

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Burnt Food

Michael J. Burns

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canales semicirculares anterior

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cadenas y canales de televisión

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

CSSBuy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cruciverbalist

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Cruciverbalist

Crop Protection (journal)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Crop Protection (journal)

Crean Hill, Ontario

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Craig Joint Theater Hospital

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Craig Joint Theater Hospital

Cowboy Luttrell

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Cowboy Luttrell

Roger M. Cooke

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Conerve

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#Conerve

Communist Party (Kosovo)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Communist Party (Kosovo)

CNN Underscored

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Enslaved Africans

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pizzaface

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Fântânele River (Mureș)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Fântânele River (Mureș)

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

Ra'ad 1

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Ra'ad 1

Melonade

• Melonade → Homestar Runner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Retarget to wikt:melonade as the best information currently available on this word. I have doubts it is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to make an article here at this time (but who knows in the future...). Fieari (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unmentioned and WP:REDYES 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No article has any substantive material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• REtarget to melon where melon juice redirects to -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikt:melonade per Thryduulf Fieari. Enix150 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Enix150: Thryduulf hasn't participated in this discussion. Jay 💬 17:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to melon, as redirects to Wiktionary are probably best avoided. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or weak retarget to Wiktionary:melonade. I oppose "retarget to Melon" since per the existence of Lemonade and Limeade, this title probably has some WP:REDLINK potential that is not adequately explained at Melon. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Nose-pickers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Scottish Nose-pickers

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Linjian

• Linjian → Lin Jian  (talk · links · history)

The name, which is that of a town in the Chinese province of Shandong, is being redirected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson with same name. Either it should be deleted or be redirected to the target page I have given.Toadboy123 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• NOTE this is a malformed nomination. There is no RfD header on the redirect. The current target of the redirect is Lin Jian, and not that contained in the opening of this section. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Lin Jian is definitely the wrong target. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate with a see also to Lin Jian (林剑) and Linjiang (disambiguation); there is Linjian (临涧镇) in Pingyi County, Shandong, China; there is Linjian (林尘镇) in Zijin, Guangdong, China, listed at List of township-level divisions of Guangdong; Chen Linjian listed at 2020–21 and 2018–19 Chinese Basketball Association seasons; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The first option to think was disambiguate per 65. However, note that the town in Zijin, Guangdong, China, is spelt Linjiang, and another town in Huazhou, Maoming, Guangdong, China (zh:林尘镇) was mistakenly written as Linjian in the list of township-level divisions of Guangdong, but it is actually pronounced Linchen (see also: Huazhou, Guangdong#Towns), which I have corrected, so it is not an entry. Therefore, there are only two valid entries (Linjian as the town in Shandong, and Chen Linjian the basketball player) with zero entries having the actual article, which makes delete the best choice, unless at least one of the article is created. Sun8908 _Talk 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• @Toadboy123: You had edited Linjian to remove the redirect, but you did not provide a new target, which is why your edit was reverted. Who is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China spokesperson you mention in the nomination? Jay 💬 10:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  That person is Lin Jian. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misunderstood. In the nomination you mentioned .. the target page I have given. Which is that target page? Jay 💬 23:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7#It's time to d-d-d-d-duel

Tiff & Tuff (Chara(c)ters)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hall Airport

• Hall Airport → Kaufman, Texas#Features  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

2001 attacks

• 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2001 terrorist attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001 per @SeaHaircutSoilReplace. Hasn't this been RfD'd before? The term is too ambiguous to target an article about any particular incident, even if 9/11 is the most historically significant. Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Carguychris This redirect has not been RfD'd before, which I find ridiculous. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, I think it was something similarly worded and vague, like "2001 terror incident". I just recall making an almost identical comment before. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just found 2001 terrorist attacks via WLH, and added it to this proposal. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Carguychris and PARKANYAA: you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#2001 New York attacks (that nomination was withdrawn), although neither of you commented on in that discussion. I too remember something similar to this and that's the only one I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf That was in fact what I was thinking of. I recall another similar one though... but that doesn't really matter I guess haha. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA after some more searching I've found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#2001 incident that Carguychris did participate in. The outcome was to delete because it was too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was the other one! Thanks. I saw that - I rarely vote in RfDs but I lurk a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, that was it. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree with the nomination, these redirects do not assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack in 2001, rather that 9/11 would be the primary topic for these terms. All this is saying is that someone searching "2001 (terrorist) attacks" would 'highly likely' be looking for 9/11 over all other topics. While 2001 also had events like 2001 anthrax attacks and the shoe bomb, all pale in comparison to 9/11. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 9/11 is the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @Tavix @CFA Even if it was the primary topic, I don't think anyone would search for "2001 attacks" or "2001 terrorist attacks" if they were looking for 9/11. Most likely they'd just search for, well, 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems pretty plausible to me, actually. Redirects are cheap. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unclear how the "redirects are cheap" claim applies here at all. The issue is where the redirect targets, not the redirect's existence. Saying this redirect is cheap is akin to not having any type of argument of any stance in this specific discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I made some searches with [76] and [77] other [78] search engines [79] — the 9/11 terrorist attacks are definitely the PTOPIC for both redirects. I don't see how someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, mostly because no evidence is given to support this assertion. Cremastra — talk — c 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom, simply due to the year which the current target occurred being less notable than its month/day combination. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, given the below discussion, I do not believe that the year by itself is sufficient to almost guarantee that readers are looking for the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per very clear WP:PTOPIC. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like the primary topic to me too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @Fieari @Pppery Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. All the recent pageviews for them in the past couple weeks are people coming to this RfD anyway.
  • 9/11 views
  • 2001 attacks views
  • 2001 terrorist attacks views

SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Last year, 2001 terrorist attacks got 29 views, which is good enough for me. Even if nobody is using it (and that's not the case), that's not a reason to delete per WP:CHEAP. Cremastra (u — c) 14:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra It's not about deleting the redirects, it's about retargeting them to more appropriate targets, as I suggested when I first started this RfD 2 weeks ago. Besides, I only suggested deleting the more recent redirect as a last resort. Aside from that, I never suggested deleting the older redirect created back in 2006, just retargeting it to a more plausible target. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace Then I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Just because it's the primary topic doesn't mean people are gonna search for it. As you can see in the viewcounts for the 3 redirects, the latter two get like, nothing, compared to the 9/11 redirect. How do low pageviews point to retargeting to List of terrorist incidents in 2001? Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra Because barely anyone uses the redirects for going to the 9/11 page (given the pageviews). Because people are more likely to search for 9/11 instead of either of the 2 redirects, it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents (given the massive ambiguity of "2001 attacks" compared to 9/11, see Chaotic Enby and Steel1943's points), in spite of the points of 9/11 being the most notable of all the other 2001 incidents. PTOPIC isn't exactly clear if people don't search for the 2 redirects and instead search for 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@SeaHaircutSoilReplace If "barely anyone" uses the redirects for navigating to 9/11, I don't see how the pageviews will increase if we retarget. I still don't entirely follow your train of thought here. People do use these redirects, and since 9/11 is the PTOPIC here, I simply don't see how retargetting to a more general target is the most helpful option for readers here. Like CFA and Tavix said, it's the primary topic and redirects are cheap. You say it only makes sense that the 2 redirects redirect to the list of 2001 incidents, but I'm still struggling to understand why it makes sense. You seem to be assuming that readers don't use these redirects because (in your view) they point to the wrong place, and that by retargetting to a more general target, pageviews will increase. Readers aren't looking at RfD. They aren't going to spread the word that the redirect got retargetted. Cremastra (u — c) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I still don't think 9/11 will be the primary topic, and I never will for that matter. As said earlier, "2001 attacks" is far too vague for anything, including 9/11, to qualify for its primary topic. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. By the way, WP:ICANTHEARYOU seems to apply here. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are editing disruptively. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

All right, sure. But I don't think accusing me of sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is, in fact, very productive here. But I digress. The searches do show it's the primary topic for me, but PTOPIC is something reasonable people can disagree on; it's often hard to find. I still don't understand what pageviews have to do with anything, but I'm happy to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the horse be. This discussion is probably due for a close anyway. Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per nominator. The 9/11 attacks were not the only attacks to happen in 2001. JIP | Talk 08:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nominator. While 9/11 was by far the most significant, the anthrax attacks are not to be discounted. Retargeting to the list of attacks in 2001 would still help those looking for the 9/11 article as well as feel consistent to those looking for other attacks. I think it's worth noting that there are fairly large attacks that happened in Angola, China, and Kashmir in 2001. From an internationalization perspective, I can easily see how Wikipedia users in those countries may be thinking of these attacks instead of 9/11 when trying to find "2001 attacks." Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of City 17

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obstipation

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft redirect

Wikipedia:VB

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Sonam Maskar

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uncle Cosmo

• Uncle Cosmo → Columbo (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Uncle Cosmo was a nickname sometimes used, as is correctly indicated by the "R from nickname" template used in the redirect. Please do your homework prior to making nominations, because this is easily destroying carefully created infrastructure and costs time which could be better spend on improving or adding contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This could've been caught by simply plugging in "Uncle Cosmo" Columbo into Google. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  i did that before, and got one result saying it used by his nephew in one episode (episode 60, to be specific), and never again by anyone else, and that result was in page 2 of 2, in a suspiciously old-wikipedia-mirror-shaped site, unsourced, mentioned in passing, and buried among unrelated uncles named cosmo seemingly related to people seemingly known as "colombo". looking again, it's the same case, but now there are also reports of some "rfd" thing started by someone named "cogsan". no idea who that is, but he sounds like he'd be a total wonk

  i would withdraw based on this, but the fact that there are no sources, reliable or otherwise (google told me there was something around quora, but i didn't find it there) that even imply anything about this (nick)name's existence aside from up to this diff which another site seems to have yoinked by accident, while "frank" and "philip" have a citation each (yes, i know the latter is false), leads me to question if it's worth keeping, as the only mention i found outside of fancruft in the target's edit history was still circular

  if you two found something i didn't, i would appreciate it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hm. Checking myself, you're right-- I'd initially seen the first result being Quora and went, "Okay, this is a known answer.' In reality, it... was not. Whops. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  clearly, his first name is "lieutenant" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ronnie Nyakale I don't think a Quora answer is sufficient to provide evidence for this nickname, especially when it is unmentioned in the target. I couldn't find any other sources either. OTOH, "Uncle Cosmo" is listed as an alternative name for Nyakale in his infobox. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's mentioned, but it's unsourced. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  After doing some digging, it looks like it is the name of his character in the TV show Generations: The Legacy. I've added a sourced mention there, so I now propose targeting that page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

retarget to generations: the legacy, since it's the best we got cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IBP

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Back to Gecko

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

MOS:ASTRO

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chaotolerance

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Chaotolerance

ChinaFile

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#ChinaFile

Chir'daki

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Chir'daki

Murder of Paige Chivers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 2#Murder of Paige Chivers

Chlaenius atratulus and Chlaenius azureulus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cozy horror

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chlaenius anchomenoides and some

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

October 25

Wikipedia:ZNB

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Geoffrey Chalmers

• Geoffrey Chalmers → Michael McConnohie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Geoffrey Chalmers – Keep

• Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [80] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers soliciting input. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete if there is no reliable source. May be re-created when source is available. Jay 💬 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: semi-involved relist to close the 7 October log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep if unambiguous per previous discussion. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Not mentioned at target, plain and simple; there is no basis for this redirect to exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• What about the sources provided in the first RFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

One was IMDb and the other was animenewsnetwork.com which is crowd sourced (This encyclopedia is collaboratively edited by the users of this site. Jay 💬 07:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbeitsamt

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Arbeitsamt

S-compact space

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#S-compact space

Usurper King

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Usurper King

N3rd

• N3rd → N3RD Street  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Nerd (disambiguation) and itemize there. The street and the performer can be listed a stylizations of "nerd" (the street is pronounced that way, even though it originates as North Third ) ; it is also '1337'-5p33k spelling of nerd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per IP. Hatnote may be added once we have enough info about White N3rd at LuvBug. Currently it does not. We already have a hatnote to the dab page at the target since 2018. Jay 💬 08:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Isometry (mathematics)

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

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Does Isometry cover all of the topics on the disambiguation page? If so, I would agree that there is no need for the latter. I am not fluent enough in mathematics to say whether it is. BD2412 T 00:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics as I agree with BD2412 and also lack the mathematical knowledge to answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to isometry. This is disambiguation page abuse. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete looking at WhatLinksHere there are no pages that link to it, page views are typical 0 and never above 2, so I don't really see the page serves any purpose other than cause confusion. --Salix alba (talk): 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect Isometry (mathematics) to Isometry and change the title Isometry (disambiguation) into a redirect to Isometric. Content currently at Isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to Isometry and put into a section about examples, including some explanatory context (i.e. this should not just be a plain list of article titles); if that's too much work for someone right away, these could conceivably be added to Isometry § See also. Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation) is a completely absurd title and should be deleted –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Given the current state of the isometry article i think the contents of the disambiguation page should be selectively merged into the lede to this article (in particular it is baffling that there is no mention of Euclidean isometries in the lede there). jraimbau (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural close since there is some groundwork to be done. Merge Isometry (disambiguation) into Isometry first, and make Isometry (disambiguation) a redirect. Jay 💬 10:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Quran Afghanistan

• Quran Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Quran in Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)

I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as primary topic. Which other Afghani Qurans are discussed on Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Searches for "Quran in Afghanistan" return mostly the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, followed by some assorted social media slosh. My leaning is delete because this ambiguous, but I'm willing to try drafting a DAB page. Cremastra (u — c) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Done at Quran in Afghanistan. Cremastra (u — c) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig per Cremastra's draft. Jay 💬 07:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambig?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Cremastra's draft, with deletion as a second choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The current target of these redirects, World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan, has been nominated for WP:AFD (AfD discussion): If the current target gets deleted, a disambiguation page would be a WP:TWODAB situation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. After giving this some thought, none of the current articles listed at the proposed disambiguation page are truly plausible as targets readers may be searching for when looking up these phrases. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Snapseed 2.22.412829873

Spacelike vector

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Spacelike vector

Tick tock tick tock tick tock

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Farage riots

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Texvc

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

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Mainspace -> Project namespace -> MediaWiki page = at least one WP:XNR too many. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why? In what way is this harming anybody or anything? Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's too many redirections initially starting in a namespace not related to its final target. Such a title being in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (the redirect's target) makes sense, but not from the article namespace. That, and the acronym seems like it may be a subject which has either WP:REDYES potential as either a standalone article or a subtopic to add into TeX or AMS-LaTeX per the very text on the target of Wikipedia:Texvc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Even with the proposals to retarget below (before this timestamp), I still believe that deletion is more helpful in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• There seems to be no consensus to delete, but this double redirect is messy. Soft retarget to mediawikiwiki:texvc. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, target interferes with searching for mainspace targets such as Texvalley. Not an encyclopedic article, and distracts real searches for real articles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Also bundle TeXvc with this. Jay 💬 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect per TechnoSquirrel69, which would resolve the double redirect issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all over the place - any more support for TechnoSquirrel69's compromise suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Asilvering: bundle with TeXvc if we're here? Granted, it's been a while for this discussion so adding a new title might be dubious this late in the process, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the two redirects should have the same outcome. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're probably right, but since we can't even decide on an outcome, I hesitate to make it even the tiniest bit more complicated... -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Valid! No worries, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Also on a different note, I disagree with soft redirecting to mediawikiwiki space and still prefer deletion. The mainspace search term continues to interfere with mainspace searching, which should be our highest priority to keep clean. We do not have any encyclopedic information regarding "texvc" in mainspace, and there's no need to keep a mainspace soft-cross-project-redirect for obsolete legacy cruft, when it's one character off of "texva" and likely mainspace material. We already have WP:Texvc. We don't need another, and we don't need it in mainspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete to avoid confusing cross-namespace double redirects. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Symbolism (arts)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cancellated

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Cancellated

India women's national futsal team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#India women's national futsal team

Zelda 2016

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Zelda 2016

Japanese opera

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2007-06-17 (June 17, 2007)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of Yoshi series bosses

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mrinal Chauhan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of deputy speakers of the Goa Legislative Assembly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hoppy the Frog

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2028 World Athletics Indoor Championships

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Future Formula One World Championships

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Future Indian Premier League seasons

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep 2026, Delete the rest

CSSHQ

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Ceddin Deden

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Ceddin Deden

Eirik Suhrke

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 1#Eirik Suhrke

April 4, 1974

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Will (sociology)

• Will (sociology) → Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ferdinand Tönnies#Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, where it is explained. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Tönnies was all about voluntarism; that explains it. Cf. Also: Voluntarism (philosophy), though I think this is not, in fact, the ideal target. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be noted that every mention of sociology at that section is tagged with a {{citation needed}}. Jay 💬 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Will (disambiguation page) since the disambiguator makes me believe this redirect refers to Will and testament, but the discussion above hints that there are multiple possibilities. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per User:Steel1943. Multiple potential meanings, let's go for the highest level. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see how this can be retargeted to the disambig page where "Will (sociology)" is an entry. And if we were to remove that entry, I don't see what would resonate with sociology. "Will and testament" is a legal construct and we already have Will (legal) redirecting to it. We have Will (Tönnies) redirecting to Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. "Will (sociology)" (the earlier name of Will (Tönnies)) is probably an inappropriate disambiguator and we can have it deleted. Jay 💬 08:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Will (philosophy), which has some overlap with sociology. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Just keep it, per Biohistorian15. Renerpho (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 AFC U-20 Asian Cup squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 Africa Cup of Nations squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3, 2007

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 20

Crapulinksy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Invest 90L

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Decco Bishop

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Decco Bishop

Vaca Dam

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mollejon Dam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Mollejon Dam

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Launch into a new adventure!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3.1415926535…

• 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Amending vote: I'd like to note that the idea brought up later to salt is a good one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  And no argument on here has convinced me that this is useful as a redirect. This RfD is useful because we need to have discussions on extreme fun redirect titles such as this which test mediawiki title lengths, and have nothing to do with regards to usefulness as a redirect title. Jay 💬 06:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.

If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.

(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.

Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Delete that's too implausible redirect and numbers are too long for the 255 digits so far per Utopes and other supporters. So, these would be applied as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt too long implausible and which may confusing an infinite number of 255 digits so far per Utopes mentioned earlier? IMO, this would be applied for deletion as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the double vote thing I'd also like to point out that WP:PANDORA should not be used, as per WP:GETBACKINTHERE. This redirect has plenty of plausibility issues without Pandora, trust me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote. However, please don't tell people not to invoke PANDORA. I, and many others, find it a quite cogent and valuable essay. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling other people not to use it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a marked difference between simply telling people that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and giving someone (what I believe to be) a well-written, detailed description of what PANDORA does wrong and why it should be avoided in RfD discussions. I do recommend reading WP:GETBACKINTHERE for said detailed explanation, I've put quite a bit of work into it ^^ 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have read it, and it's frankly quite terrible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...Well, I can't improve it if you won't tell me what you don't like about it, lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lunamann: Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized discussion about this (on the essay's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion), rather than bringing it up on every RfD that mentions WP:PANDORA?[81] Renerpho (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean. If you're referring to talking about WP:GETBACKINTHERE and ways to improve it, I'm perfectly fine with someone going to Wikipedia_talk:Please,_put_Pandora_back_in_the_box and striking up a conversation. I think the last time someone did so was an extensive convo I had there back in March, and that was enough to get me to strike an entire section 'cause I couldn't figure out how else to please the people in that discussion lol

  If you're saying that I should stop mentioning WP:GETBACKINTHERE when people mention WP:PANDORA... I mean, the entire reason I wrote WP:GETBACKINTHERE was to compile and condense down the arguments against Pandora, because... well, before I wrote the article, people would go on paragraphs-long arguments about it and it got tiring and repetitive.

  If you're saying that we should talk about perhaps making some changes to WP:PANDORA in order to have the arguments in WP:GETBACKINTHERE no longer apply? Yes! Please! I'd LOVE to have that conversation! I'd like to point out that a section on Pandora already exists on Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, but the last time anyone replied to that section was... last March, when I posted to it, before writing WP:GETBACKINTHERE. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Should stop mentioning" sounds a lot like "shut up". That's not what I mean. You argue that WP:PANDORA contradicts some core principles. Maybe that's true. Has there ever been a poll about whether either of the two essays is compatible with established policy? I feel like that discussion could be more fruitful than to keep shouting into the void. Renerpho (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean. I don't think there has been? I wouldn't know where to hold one, though.

  Unless you count Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box, which... over the FIVE YEARS that that discussion has been allowed to stand without proper closure, has amassed four keeps to six delete !votes. Would that be considered enough to take action...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would count that, yes! But I see no consensus in that discussion, even though it has been ongoing since 2019 (if anything, there's a consensus to rewrite WP:PANDORA, but no agreement how exactly). That's the kind of discussion that goes on and on and on, but nothing ever happens.

  I already suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, for that very reason. Maybe this is a case where a formal RfC is necessary? Your essay may well serve as a baseline for what has to be addressed. (Make sure you read the examples for good questions/bad questions at WP:RFCBRIEF.) Renerpho (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Icarus58 you have already !voted. Please make one of your !votes a comment, or strike it. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 22:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Icarus58: Just to be clear, could you clarify if you !vote salt or not? Renerpho (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I will note that Icarus wasn't the one who struck that vote-- it was the IP editor, 35.139.154.158 (I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote.) Given Icarus's two votes were "Delete" and "Delete and salt", I'd assume that unless Icarus comes forth and says otherwise, he'd want his vote counted as "Delete and salt".

  Unless Icarus and the IP are one and the same. I'd hope not... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like they may have forgotten to log in? Renerpho (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think the IP just made a bold action. Cremastra (u — c) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lunamann, you have no evidence for the suspicious IP user 35.139.154.158 as related for my account. It seems, you'll violated as WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I just stayed for login, but after all spend throughout my days — my account was logging out immediately before it immediate reload automatically. Sorry for my patience. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm deeply sorry, to both you AND the IP user. My "evidence" amounted pretty much only to that one incident where said IP user struck one of your votes; Cremastra was right in that it almost certainly was just that the IP user was trying to be bold. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to apologize as well, for jumping to the same conclusion. Renerpho (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Who the fuck is going to type 255 digits of pi? I don't see how the hell is the redirect plausible at all. To discourage people from testing the limits of character limit the extra salt may also be needed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• As nominator, I'd like to amend my initial delete !vote, and say that salt is probably a good idea. Renerpho (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment– I want to reiterate my support for deletion and for salting. My !vote is above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a plausible search term and already ruled out by previous discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, harmless and accurate ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hamster717, most editors are requested to delete for long digit number in terms of approximation equals to pi. But can you clarify your proof? It seems that WP:CHEAP is not advisable as harmless. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - I swayed back and forth on this one but ultimately it’s just not plausible that someone’s going to search exactly this many digits of pi. And yes, this is a pretty straight-forward example of WP:Pandora. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: harmless and unambiguous. Deleting for the sake of deleting. C F A 💬 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt: Aside from the inanity of it, unnecessary redirects are not entirely harmless (and we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale):
  1. I periodically have to search for all uses of redirects to an article to do some associated cleanup maintenance, and having a multitude of such redirects makes this painfully tedious work.
  2. When redirects for misspellings or other deprecated versions of a term exist, this hides inadvertent spelling errors by editors that they (or others) would ordinarily be alerted to by a redlink.
  3. WP search suggestion already works suggesting article through similarity of spelling, so we do not even need the search benefit of minor variants being redirects. —Quondum 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator If more input is needed, I'm sure this would get more participation if it was relisted again. I'm leaving that decision to someone else. Renerpho (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Alpha Omega Mu

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Oman women's national under-17 football team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Harshveer Sekhon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot.

I'm easy to find

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

A Novo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Murder of Bouba and Kiki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

Α-Methylmescaline

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

IRAS 13349+1428

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#IRAS 13349+1428