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	28	28
TfD	0	0	0	10	10
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	2	52	54
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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 22

Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation

• Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation → Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_"fix"_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:ASSIMILATION → Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_"fix"_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete No obvious connection with "assimilation"; no nontrivial incoming links. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete I actually saw this request at WP:AfC/R and saw that it was either pointless or the requester was confused. Oh well, it was accepted already. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Confusing Pokémon Redirects

• Pokémon attack → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Pokemon attack → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Evolution Of Pokemon → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

All three redirects can potentially be confused, and thus serve as unhelpful search terms. "Pokémon attack" can refer to both the attacking moves of the Pokémon and the in-game stat (While both are covered at the same article, a redirect this broad does not help with finding one or the other), while "Evolution of Pokémon" could be misinterpreted as being the real-world evolution of the franchise when it is instead covering the in-game terminology. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't pokemon attack also refer to getting attacked by a pokemon in-universe. Anyways, delete all per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep the 'attack' redirects. Both things it refers to would have the same target. I'm neutral on the 'evolution' redirect, as you'd only think about the "real-world" evolution if you (over)think about it too much. Web-julio (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

delete. "attack" could refer to moves, stat, or any other form of attack related to the franchise or the species. evolution could refer to the franchise or the species. so on and so forth. was admittedly a little iffy on nominating those before, but they're here now, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

National Italian American Foundation

• National Italian American Foundation → it:National Italian American Foundation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(NPP action) An article at this title was deleted at AfD in 2020. Per WP:SOFTSP, interwiki redirects should not be made to other-language Wikipedias. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

November 21

Hent

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

Reopening Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_19#Henț/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_19#Hent as the sockpuppet's involvement was largely procedural - I was the first to point it out at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_5#Henț_River that these redirects suffer the same problem as those. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just one more thing

• Just one more thing → Columbo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

mentioned in both columbo and columbo's articles as his catchphrase, and in columbo and peter falk's articles as the name of a memoir (and of an autobiography). opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Columbo (character), per redirects like Don't have a cow, man to Bart Simpson. As for the memoir, the capitalized version, Just One More Thing, should redirect to Peter Falk. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that Just One More Thing is a disambiguation page, I vote to retarget to that. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Columbo (character) per precedent, listed above. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment a hatnote should be added for One More Thing and Just One Thing and Just One More -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A disambiguation page has been prepared to use in the hatnote for wherever this ends up pointing to -- Just One More Thing (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AINTBROKE. The same origin story is given for the catchphrase in both articles, with basically the same amount of detail. Neither is preferable to the other, and in absence of a reason to retarget, we shouldn't. Agree that the capitalized title of the memoir should go to the actor's bio, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

a do or two has been did, resulting in just one more thing (capitalized) being a dab. assuming said do is not undid, i'll vote to retarget to that dab cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Cogsan: your comment above seems to have gotten mangled. Do you want to try restating? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Clock/calendar

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

xy? while a lot of clocks are also calendars these days, they're not inherently the same thing, and their relation or lack thereof isn't discussed in the target cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. Calendars aren't clocks. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:XY --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Time#Measurement per WP:XY: it may be possible, however, for such redirects to point to a location in which both topics are discussed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  yeah, but their specific relation also isn't really discussed there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  What‽ It's absolutely discussed there! One example: In day-to-day life, the clock is consulted for periods less than a day, whereas the calendar is consulted for periods longer than a day. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HEAVY

• Wikipedia:HEAVY → Wikipedia:Why Heavy Bombers Are Not Useful Anymore  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Heavy.com – see WP:HEAVY.COM. Current target is a little-used essay, redirect has no incoming links. The perennial sources index would be a much more useful target. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom; the RSN entry seems a lot more useful, and not only is the shortcut unused, but there don't even seem to be any incoming links to the essay itself in the wild (other than just lists of essays and stuff). If someone really wants a shortcut to the essay badly enough, BOMBER still works I guess. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Much more useful target to editors --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Black Mesa Golem Ape

• Black Mesa Golem Ape → Half-Life VR but the AI Is Self-Aware  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Crumbles (illness)

• The Crumbles (illness) → Half-Life VR but the AI Is Self-Aware  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned. some could say ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ'ꜱ ɴᴏᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete It was a one off joke made by Holly and seems about as useful to keep as Gordon's death in All Dogs Go To Heaven 2

LaffyTaffer (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wario 4

• Wario 4 → Wario Land 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

wouldn't it be competing with warioware: touched! for that title? admittedly a weak nom because wl4 is the only one with a 4 plastered on its name cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I created this redirect but I have no memory of it. I think Wario Land 4 sounds more plausible as an expected page than Warioware, but I don't have a strong opinion. Popcornfud (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

i guess if you want to be pedantic at the cost of common sense, virtual boy wario land would be the 4rd wario game, and wario land 3 would be the 4st wario land game cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Chimneybot hat

• Chimneybot hat → Top hat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not entirely sure it's a plausible misspelling of "chimney pot hat" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Zubon

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

from ズボン (zubon), japanese for... trousers. no particular affinity with japanese. it's a chain of like 4 borrowed words, wow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Richard Doty

• Richard Doty → Mirage Men  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target page is a documentary film in which Doty is interviewed extensively, but the article says nothing substantive about Doty other than this fact, so the connection seems tenuous. Possible new target is Paul Bennewitz, as Doty is mostly known for his involvement in an alleged clandestine disinformation campaign targeted at Bennewitz. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this redirect; I think that Doty is wikinotable, albeit in association with a WP:FRINGE topic, but creating an article about him is not on my priority list, and I'm not sure whether Mirage Men is an appropriate redirect target in the interim. Carguychris (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Furry Shadaya

• Furry Shadaya → Farai Chideya  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonsensical redirect, why would anyone search for this? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:B493:3381:6FAD:82D8 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like an attempt at a phonetic spelling but can't find evidence this is in use even as a misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Furry Happy Monsters

• Furry Happy Monsters → Shiny Happy People  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Seems to be a WP:BLAR from 2006. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:B493:3381:6FAD:82D8 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Forkknife

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

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The creator, Sandstein, explained the reasoning on the redirect page: The use of the name "fork knife" has been reported [1]. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is also a plausible mondegreen. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Fork Knife

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

Likely originated as a joke redirect, but unclear target as is (fork or knife?). Recommending deletion, as it does not benefit Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep "Fork Knife" is a Fortnite meme from around 2018 [2] and while not in use anymore, still was recognized in game and makes it a viable search term, redirected to Fortnite. Masem (t) 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Dvandva, where it's a literal translation of an example term. The reference to fortnite is unmentioned, and I expect anyone who wants information about that will be left at a loss, since the article has none, making the redirect inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Knife and Fork (disambiguation), where the Greek term mentioned by 35.139.154.158 can be added -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Henry the Hermit

• Henry the Hermit → Quest for Glory#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 'Enry the 'Ermit → Quest for Glory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alex Shrub

• Alex Shrub → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

• Alen (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Apple (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Barbarossa Rugner → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Camille (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Clive (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gadget (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gaspar (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Georg Prime → Suikoden V  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Grenseal → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hix (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Humphrey Mintz → Suikoden Tierkreis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

re-nominating those after this discussion closed as "if only we knew the suffering that would befall us next", but only by a small chunk at a time. same rationale applies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

should note that between then and now, mentions for some characters have been added. from an extremely cursory glance, georg is now mentioned in his target, and... that's it for this list, really. still not entirely sure that would warrant a redirect cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Humphrey Mintz too has mention. Jay 💬 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

nice-a cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Moseley tea service

• Moseley tea service → Earl Grey tea#Alcoholic preparations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

unmentioned. the section it targets to mentioned it as a type of cocktail named after moseley, but it's currently gone, so... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: We could change the target to just Earl Grey tea. I'm finding a smattering of recipes and travel guide references to this drink that confirm that it exists and uses Earl Grey as a primary ingredient. It's a plausible search term that doesn't warrant an article. It could conceivably receive a mention in the Earl Grey tea article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  nice, got anything reliable for a quick mention? google was being a bit of a meanie so it only gave me reddit cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Cogsan: Not the most ideal source, but page 56 of this trade magazine looks suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Kattie

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

misspelling of "kettie". while plausible enough on its own, results gave me a bunch of other stuff, like sandals and a potentially sort of kind of notable musician cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. When I created the redirect, the target attested the spelling as "kattie" instead of "kettie". It's still attested that way at Madam & Eve. Other entries would include Kattie B. Screws, Katharine Susannah Prichard, a character in The Bookshop (film), and a ship used by Albert Gallatin. See also entries include Katty (disambiguation) and Catty (disambiguation). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Musha-gaeshi

• Musha-gaeshi → Castle#Construction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

curved walls, built to be "a little hard to climb". unmentioned in the target and wiktionary, though it does have some mentions in articles related to japanese castles cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Foot taboo

• Foot taboo → Foot#In culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not properly discussed in the target. also a little vague, but that's not much of an issue here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete If a proper discussion of taboos involving feet was added to the culture section, this can be recreated. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Ellen feiss

• Ellen feiss → Switch (ad campaign)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Irrelevant alternate capitalization not used in any other articles. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Paul Feiss

• Paul Feiss → Paul M. Fleiss  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Irrelevant typo redirect that does not deserve its own article. Paul Fleiss already exists for this purpose. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as misleading. Unlikely misspelling, and the reader might be looking for someone actually named "Paul Feiss". Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Adult contemporary progressive death metal

• Adult contemporary progressive death metal → Colors (Between the Buried and Me album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this term is unambiguously affiliated with this album. For instance, the first result on Google (for me) was for a band different than that of this album's. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I got that, too (I'm assuming from last.fm), but, Between the Buried and Me literally coined the term. Therefore, it makes better sense to redirect to their album. If, and only if, more bands start to identify with this term, and major outlets such as Rolling Stone pick up on it and define it, could we then start an article for this term. Moline1 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

FC8671

• FC8671 → DJI Mavic#Neo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect is for an alternative name for the DJI Neo. The section on the Neo was removed from the DJI Mavic article as the two drones are almost entirely unrelated. Since no article on the Neo currently exists, this redirect should be deleted or retargeted. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to DJI. --Tim Wu (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

2.4-dihydroxybenzoic acid

• 2.4-dihydroxybenzoic acid → 2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling of the correct 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (period instead of a comma). This is confusing as it suggests the numbers relate to some sort of amount, rather than being locants. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be confusing if it were in the article, but it's not. It is actually a redirect, so it does the opposite: anyone who thought it was a period would be corrected and brought to the right article with a comma. Deletion is not beneficial - keep BugGhost🦗👻 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sontochin

• Sontochin → 2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the common name of a completely different compound (a methylated derivative of chloroquine) that is not described at the target and for which enwiki does not appear to have any content. Delete to avoid confusion and encourage article creation. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

SN-7619

• SN-7619 → 2,4-Dihydroxybenzoic acid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on English Wikipedia, Google search turns up nothing related to the the target. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Use Myanmar English

• Template:Use Myanmar English → Myanmar English  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cross-namespace redirect, apparently created in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment since Myanmar English exists, we could just make a template similar to other {{Use X English}} templates that exist such as {{Use Singaporean English}} or {{Use Australian English}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Donald Trump

• Criticism of Donald Trump → Public image of Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Cat:Criticism of Donald Trump as {{R to category namespace}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - we already have a mainspace article on the topic, we shouldn't retarget to a category - users won't expect this. As an aside, looking at other {{R to category namespace}} usages it seems to be full questionable redirects, like Political book BugGhost🦗👻 09:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with BugGhost that an XNR isn't useful here. But the target article doesn't really discuss criticism of Trump expect in passing. This seems like something we could plausibly create a broad concept article for, so I think a red link is preferable here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Baby gaetz

• Baby gaetz → Matt Gaetz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nickname not mentioned in the article. Xeroctic (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No idea why this was created in the first place. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is a pun, relating to the baby-gate accusations against Gaetz, concerning underage prostitution -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, it's a nickname for Gaetz because his father was also a state politician. This isn't a vote, this is just me chiming in with an explanation. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that's something I've forgotten with all the hubbub he's generated over the years. In that case, the redirect should be Baby Gaetz and tagged as {{R from nickname}}. It could be added to the infobox or early career, with several sold RSes, like SCMP[3], BBC[4], etc -- with this one being a {{R from avoided double redirect|Baby Gaetz}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I added a mention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, as this is now mentioned in the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Zhuhui Stadium

• Zhuhui Stadium → Zhuhai Stadium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelled Zhuhai. No usage exept for mirror sites, IP detect sites, and map data sites that probably grabbed data from Wikipedia. WhatLinksHere cleaned.

Zhuhui is another place in China. The first version said it's in Zhuhui, Hengyang, Hunan, China, while coordinates pointed to Zhuhai. It said it opened in 1998 which matches Zhuhai stadium ("建成于1998年10月", built in October 1998). I searched for Zhuhui stadium (google:朱晖体育馆) with no results.

   — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was at this title for 13+ years. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

November 20

4 (album) by matisse

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

L̃

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

Akari Date

• Akari Date → Heaven Burns Red#31D  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

xxps

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

Delete target is a TV station, and does not mention "xxps". The redirect was requested with out a proper rationale [5] and accepted [6] ; it was requested with a bunch of plural-form redirect requests, so the acceptor might have missed that. Thus this redirect is useless as the target does not use the term "Xxps" and it is unrelated to the target article -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: If Draft:XXP (disambiguation) was accepted, then redirect to it. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing on that disambiguation takes a plural -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of object-oriented programming

• Criticism of object-oriented programming → Object-oriented programming#Criticism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target section Object-oriented programming#Criticism does not exist in that form anymore, see this change. There are currently no incoming internal links. There is no relevant edit history at Criticism of object-oriented programming that would need to be preserved. Tea2min (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It could link to Object-oriented programming#Popularity and reception, or just be deleted. My vote is delete. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mathnerd314159: I already fixed the broken section anchor. Why is it better to delete it? Jarble (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I just don't find it useful. It is not in use on-wiki and I don't think it is useful off-wiki either. I have plans to further restructure the OOP article and I don't think the effort to keep the anchor updated is worth it. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Surely I've read a lot of published criticisms of OOP programming in my comp-sci classes back in the day. Shouldn't we have a section on it? Fieari (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's really a topic for the article talk. But my original change (linked above) was removing the criticism section and integrating the criticisms into the article. It has been 9 months and nobody minded the section's absence. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Refine to the Popularity and reception section per Mathnerd. Jay 💬 09:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To decide between deletion or retargeting to Object-oriented programming#Popularity_and_reception
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Helstinki

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

Unlikely search term or typo. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlikely...and yet, read it and weep. Still though, unless there's any information about this gaffe specifically, the redirect shouldn't exist. I thought it was just a silly pejorative nickname at first, but if I were going to search for this, I'd expect information about the gaffe, not the city. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  And on a second glance, I don't see anything else about it, which kind of makes me question the accuracy of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, I have read it and I have wept, it was my understanding that it's a somewhat common mistake, and curious individuals might go searching for whatever a "Hestinki" is, so I figured it was better off existing that not. Caucasianhamburger (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I also believe that it is one of the more common pejorative names in English for Helsinki, though admittedly most English speakers don't have a bone to pick with Helsinki, so it doesn't see much common use.Caucasianhamburger (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

one letter short of being a recreation of helstinky. so close!!

delete. it's really not gonna help people unless they specifically only know about other parts of the world from donald trump (or someone else who might have made this mistake), and at this point, it's easier to just call it a skill issue, as the incident isn't mentioned in either article (or anywhere for that matter) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we find consensus to disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

James J. Finn

• James J. Finn → Lindbergh kidnapping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Add a mention and keep (I will try to do this). Searching his name in books he seems to have been a figure involved in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a mention to Hauptmann's page. He appears to be notable on his own, given it was the crime of the century and he played a large role (a lot more could be added), but this is OK for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention needs to be added for the keep vote to have weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Finn was the FBI agent who arrested Richard Hauptmann, so that article might be a better target for any information on Finn. Tevildo (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of George Bush

• Criticism of George Bush → Public image of George W. Bush  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This could refer to both presidents. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - we don't have a separate article on public image for the senior Bush; Public image of George H. W. Bush is a subsection redirect to his bio. We could add a hatnote to the target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete easily could refer to "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise being broken by H.W., or him being Mr. Invisible. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Too ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fisking

• Fisking → Robert Fisk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no evidence that this redirect is plausible. Kolano123 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The term is explained in the lead, and this is an {{R with history}}. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget to Glossary of blogging#Fisking per anon. This looks like a better place where the term is explained, although I still think the mention in the article is worth keeping. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The current mention is one line of unsourced material with no context, stuck into the lead simply because the redirect existed. That should probably be removed as-is, rendering the redirect worthy of deletion (at least at AFD if someone is nervous about the history). I can find the occasional source devoting a sentence or two to the origin of the term, but nothing that goes beyond a dictionary-level treatment. If someone can do better and work this into an actual section of Fisk's article, then a redirect can always be recreated, but there doesn't seem to be much in the history of use here; it wades very heavily into WP:OR territory, and any mention in the biography is probably undue. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Fisk, which links to Wiktionary defining it as a verb and mentioning this word specifically. Web-julio (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are no matches on the dab page, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. (edit: but we do have some glossaries, which I just found). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Glossary of blogging#Fisking (to which I've just added an anchor), as a pretty reasonable spot that it can live. I still support the removal at Fisk's bio unless it can be done so properly though. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've added a reference to the mention in his article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Glossary of blogging#Fisking, as the best target for a direct search, but I note that target also wikilinks fisking, so that should be piped to Robert Fisk to avoid a self targeting link. Fieari (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Black Myth: Waking

• Black Myth: Waking → Black Myth: Wukong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not appear to be a likely misspelling. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Highly implausible. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Plausible mondegreen and autocorrect error: see store page, YouTube description, Official tweet by The Game Awards Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Plannet terror

• Plannet terror → Grindhouse (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a misspelling of "planet," but for some reason, when it was created in 2007, it was redirected to the current target rather than Planet Terror (to be fair, Planet Terror is one of the two films shown in Grindhouse, but it still doesn't fully make sense to redirect it to the page about the latter film as opposed to that about the former). The misspelling is also questionably plausible—a Google search for that exact misspelling shows stuff related to Grindhouse and Terror Planet, but the posters and stuff still show the correctly spelled Planet Terror. As such a situation, I'm proposing we either delete this redirect or retarget it to Planet Terror, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 20:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Planet Terror didn't get its own article until 2009, so that explains why the redirect was made to Grindhouse (film) instead. However, I see no good reason to keep this. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Delete per 162 TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

Retarget I think it is a possible mistake. Not the most likely, but I've seen the typo before. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - I feel that doubling a consonant in this way is a plausible error, but if it was then the pageviews should show use. They don't: 9 total hits in the year before the nomination date. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Web interfaces

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Cute number

• Cute number → Squaring the square#No more than two different sizes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cute Number → Squaring the square#No more than two different sizes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This has to be some form of cruft. It appears to be some term that appears in some math textbook that isn't even notable enough to mention in the main article. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

my mind tells me "owo", my body tells me "uwu", and my reading of wp:cruft tells me "delete per nom". probably still an inside joke in some class cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I found a mention of this here: [7] on page 99, where it says a Cute Number was defined in a problem by the "Australian Mathematics Trust" in 2001, in the book "Mathematics Challenge for Young Australians: Teacher's reference book for primary, junior & intermediate maths challenge stages" from the University of Canberra. This means that the term "cute number" does appear in two published works. It is defined ad hoc as part of a particular math problem and that definition is in fact adequately described and defined at the current target, exactly as it appears there, and so as a direct synonym, you could say keep. But then I come back to the fact that this is an ad hoc definition for a puzzle, and I'm not sure it was intended to be an enduring name for this type of number, even by the puzzle creators. But then I go back to the fact that it appears in at least two published works. And students who were given this problem might remember it distantly and want to look it up again from what they remember. While I was writing this reply, I was originally waffling too much between keep and delete, unable to decide, but I think I've now talked myself into thinking it's best to just keep it. Fieari (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - digging into the former article's history, our definition of a cute number was cited to David J. Darling's Encyclopedia of Science website; the page it appeared on is now gone but is archived here; a definition also can be found in a glossary on Darling's website here. The initial revision also provided links to [8] [9] [10], of which the second two are now offline but the first is up (and also cites Darling's website). I don't know if Darling can be considered an expert source per WP:SELFPUB, but since there don't seem to be any other sources for this definition (other than the one Fieari found, which also traces back to Darling), I think probably not. A deletion discussion from 2012 merged the content into the current article, but David Eppstein also noted in that discussion that this number sequence is not in OEIS, and its absence is a strong indicator of non-notability. Anyway, "cute number" seems to be a non-notable neologism and should be deleted. I'm not even sure we should keep the definition at the target: it makes no effort to provide context or explain why such a number is important, and as another comment in the article history notes: by definition, every integer greater than 5 is a cute number, so it's not exactly useful. That statement was cited to the same site as the two offline links above so I can't verify, and a comment from the AFD notes that that website was a webforum and not RS anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also the original page is a copyvio: the entire history will need to be purged if the page is not deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Delete. This doesn't appear to be any sort of standard term, and the result, even if true and worth stating, is worth stating without attaching a name to it, since there's no interest in this as a sequence of numbers, but merely as a result about square subdivision (being true for every number at least 5). And I'm dubious that any proper sourcing could be found either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Name not mentioned at target (and doesn't deserve to be mentioned) so we should not have a redirect that will only mystify people who follow it. This is the sort of nonce name people posing problem sets give so that the things in their problems will have names; we need more evidence than that of the name's continued usage to justify mentioning it and using it ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 20 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.”[11], 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." [12]

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)

:Weak Delete. Somewhat implausible, doesn't really show up on general search, and is not mentioned at target. Also, there probably is a similar phase in the Bible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Some interesting bits of discussion but we need some more opinions about outcomes as I think we might have an unbolded Keep in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and add mention, as cited above. Fieari (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RSURPRISE as unmentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, should a mention be added or is deletion preferred?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:16, 20 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. [13][14][15][16].
  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: [17] 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Too vague. Disambiguation pages are useful when a term is ambiguous between a set of specific meanings. These phrases are different – they are so general that their meaning simply depends on the context; they typically refer to whatever group of countries are northern or southern relative to the region being discussed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we decide between disambiguation and deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Mx Granger. It's hard to anticipate that the target is more intended than "northern/southern hemisphere", or something else equally vague. And it's still way too vague even for a dab page. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• keep or retarget to Hemispheres of Earth#Geographical hemispheres or to Northern_Hemisphere#List_of_continents,_countries_or_territories,_and_oceans_in_the_Northern_Hemisphere and Southern_Hemisphere#Mainland_countries_or_territories, respectively. Global South doesn't include every country in the Southern hemisphere. Web-julio (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas in the United States, for children of the baby boom era

• Christmas in the United States, for children of the baby boom era → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Christmas in the United States, post-War → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Christmas in the post-War United States → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Christmas in the post-war United States → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Christmas in the United States (1946-1964) → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Christmas in the United States (1946–1964) → Christmas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a cluster of redirects, mostly resulting from successive moves, that all once linked to the article Christmas in the United States (1946–1964). That article was wiped and replaced with a redirect to the generic Christmas article in 2023- but the Christmas article doesn't have text specifically about mid-20th-century American celebrations of Christmas, and, as these terms are all much more specific than just "Christmas," they're exceedingly implausible as search terms for "Christmas" in the broadest sense. They should either be deleted or redirected to Observance of Christmas by country#United States, which is, I think, the closest match, though it also doesn't (currently) have anything specifically about "baby boom"-era Christmas customs. Only the last of these (with the en-dash) has substantive history. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No suitable target here as we don't have any information on Christmas specifically in this period. It also seems like an unlikely search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

delete the "post-war" ones as vague and unnecessary (which war, there's like 20 going on right now), and the rest as just unnecessary. and per nom, it should be noted the very last one actually has history... as a gar that failed so bad it got blar'd. really, it wasn't even so much about christmas itself, so much as it was a random collection of things and stuff cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As a former article with extensive history, Christmas in the United States (1946–1964) should not be deleted at RfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's how Bernie can still win

• Here's how Bernie can still win → Timeline of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#March 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Supposedly from a meme, but it isn't mentioned in the target page. We should not be surprising readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Neurospicy

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

@Andrewa: retarget to wikt:neurospicy. Or keep if eventually it gets mentioned, it would be here or related (besides Ronya footnotes). Web-julio (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to the wikitionary term since the term isn't actually used in the neurodiversity article and the wikit gives a defintion. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 13:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need Wikt redirects for every possible word that we don't have an article about. Such soft redirects inhibit searching within Wikipedia, while such a search will already display a prominent link to the Wiktionary entry at the top. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Section retarget to Neurodiversity#Neurodivergent, which is the target of neurodivergent. They are synonyms. Wiktionary is not useful here: the page just defines the word as a synonym of neurodivergent and then links to that definition. Wikipedia readers are looking for information on a topic, not dictionary definitions. If readers want a dictionary definition they can go to Wiktionary and look one up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Section retarget to Neurodiversity#neurospicy anchor. Added details to the section now with a new sub-section Neurodiversity#Alternative terms used for neurodiversity with sourcing to address the original nominators point, so now it's moot per WP:HEY standard and can just be section targeted in the article. Raladic (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support this retarget to anchor. The article now has relevant referenced material on the topic. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Neurospicy → Neurodiversity It is a common synonym in the community. It is attested well enough in sources. There are people who prefer to identify in this way with the social term rather than the medicalized term, and if we wanted to do so, we could hyperlink "neurospicy" in biographies to redirect to the article by its medical name. There is no need to direct to anchors or wiktionary because it is common enough and the same concept. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Neurospicy → Neurodiversity It's very much a common synonym, especially now that there's targeted anchor.^SMason_Garrison 22:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
• Delete both I'd prefer not to rely on wishful hope. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:Keep. May not get a mention, but simply searching jackask on google would pull up with Jacksfilms TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

September 2017 bridge incident

• September 2017 bridge incident → PewDiePie#2017–2018: media controversies, streaming, and formatted shows  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No clue what this is supposed to mean in context to the target. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• This refers to the PUBG Battlegrounds racial slur incident described in the fourth paragraph, which became known in internet lore as "the bridge incident" ([18]). However it's fairly obscure (when we take into account WP:SYSTEMICBIAS) and an even more obscure search term for it. Retarget to 2017 Mumbai stampede, a disaster that occurred in September 2017 on an overcrowded footbridge, with multiple fatalities. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Unietd States

• Unietd States → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very implausible typo. That's like two errors. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• 'Comment that is a likely typo and only one error. It is a transposition error, where two adjacent characters are swapped. This particular redirect was created in 2012. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do typos suddenly become plausible when it's dealing with western superpowers? Not like I really care much since I do live in America myself. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

  Typos certainly do become more plausible where they are typos of an article title that receives 45,000 pageviews a day. J947 ‡ ^edits 07:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  it's only actually one error. those are pretty plausible if small enough and located early enough into a title. something like unietd statse would be a little more problematic though, as it's two errors cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Not an implausible typo; this past year it got 18 hits, demonstrating plausibility. It is, as has been noted, a single error. Per WP:CHEAP, there's no reason to delete this. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. There is also a lot of typographic error while it typing redirect to United States. I suggest that other typographic errors will delete per WP:COSTLY or speedily delete under CSD: G6. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 04:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone can mistype in their keyboard. Not this typo would actually mean anything else. Web-julio (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Unambiguous, not entirely implausible, and has some degree of use. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Canadaa

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

Typo with extra "a" added. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Keep: this redirect is more used than many articles. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Canadas (disambiguation) which contains both "Canadas" and "Canada", and is the error form for both of these (the [S] key is next to the [A] key on QWERTY keyboard) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we are talking about plausible typos, then Canada would still be valid since accidentally mashing the "a" button twice is a fairly common mistake on some devices. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Has some use. Doesn't seem ambiguous with Canadas (disambiguation) to me; "a" and "s" are pressed by adjacent fingers on the same hand, so it seems unlikely to me that if your aim was to press one then the other that you would end up with two "a"s, unless both fingers are somehow placed over the "a" key. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - possibly phonetic for "Canada, eh?" The page saw 47 total views in the full year prior to the nomination, so it's not particularly well-used, but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. And as pointed out, this one is ambiguous with Canadas. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Keep maybe they were trying to spell Canadá, Canadà or another variation. Web-julio (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it target Canada (disambiguation) ? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

美利坚合众国

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Crown grant

• Crown grant → Crown Estate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Whilst grant is mentioned at the topic, Crown grant is not and it is not the type of grant referenced here. I'm not aware of a more appropriate target (although one may exist) and in light of that I suggest the redirect be deleted in accordance with WP:REDLINK. I am open to changing my vote if a suitable target (that mentions and explains what a Crown grant is), please ping me if one is mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Crown land, as in grants from Crown land. It differs by state/area but linking to the general concept should give readers enough background. czar 14:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Comprehensive strategic partnership

• Comprehensive strategic partnership → Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (Vietnam)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created by bold move by CambridgeBayWeather, which I have reverted. "Comprehensive strategic partnership" is a general diplomatic term that is not limited in usage to Vietnam. Paul_012 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note. The page has been moved again, now at Comprehensive strategic partnerships of Vietnam. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It does appear to be generic, with it getting mentions for plenty of other nations. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

⚭/equaric unicodes

• ⚣ → Gay men  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ⚢ → LGBTQ symbols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

anon IP changed status quo of the Achillean/gay symbol. But the gay men and lesbian pages don't mention the unicodess specifically, only the image. Also that also means sapphism in general. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Perplexing Pool

• Perplexing Pool → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ernest McGillicuddy

• Ernest McGillicuddy → Reg McGillicuddy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of an "Ernest" on the target page. I assume that this redirect was created in error. Gjs238 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Further research appears to have uncovered/corrected his real given name. Jevansen (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

BO⅂ICE

• BO⅂ICE → Police  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No affinity for whatever language this is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. Not even a language I think. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to bodice Delete, and maybe a WP:TBAN for the creator from creating redirects, who should know better. Fun fact, apparently this is a "turned sans-serif capital L", and I have no idea what that even really is for. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• delete per "we're not waluigi". no idea what the b is doing there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Le4and6

• Le4and6 → LeBron James  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Possible Wikipedia:NEO. Doesn't appear to be a common nickname either. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

delete per nom. all the results i got point to this discussion... or a stray hashtag on facebook, i guess cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Shak.

• Shak. → William Shakespeare  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Yeah, Shakespeare is well known, but just four letters of his last name is still very ambiguous. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete I have no idea why anyone could possibly think this redirect is a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per wikt:Shak and dictionary.com. Alternatively retarget to Shak. J947 ‡ ^edits 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The Dictionary.com entry shows example sentences, none of which are actually relevant or assist with the assertion that "Shak." is an abbreviation for Shakespeare. I'm not convinced by the Wiktionary entry either. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Common abbr. see page iii, Book titled Prefaces to Shak, Collins Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SMALLDETAILS apply as well. While "shak" is very ambiguous, adding a period shows it is a abbreviation. There is no other subjects with shak as an abbreviation in the disambiguation page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Ca. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - From memory in Universtiy, this appears in the footnote/endnote citations of many older books and textbooks without explanation, just expecting you to know what they mean. This could easily lead a confused reader to want to look up what it means. The period is important in this redirect, as it always appears in these abbreviated citations. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Bill Shakespeare

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A Night

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

A Child's Garden of Poetry

• A Child's Garden of Poetry → HBO  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete: Not mentioned at the target and I'm not finding it as an entry in any relevant list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Amy Schatz, where the film is mentioned. Probably with a hatnote pointing to A Child's Garden of Verses. Tevildo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Amy Schatz, per Tevildo above. Hatnoting A Child's Garden of Verses makes sense to me as well. Fieari (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Genoicide

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

Not really plausible typo. There is an extra "i" that could be argued that it's misplaced, but there is also another "i" that is in the right place. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Comment it is a plausible fat-fingered typo, [i] is next to [o] on a QWERTY keyboard, and if you mistype, you can hit two keys at once -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin (swim coach)

• Benjamin Franklin (swim coach) → Benjamin Franklin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

HUH??? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• It's true Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Add a mention to "Interests and Activities" section and redirect there. There are surprising amount of literature on this. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if true, and even if mentioned, having a disambiguator like that is needlessly silly and pointless, since that's not what he's known for, and makes it sound like the disambiguator is there to distinguish someone else of the same name, notable for a different reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  cf. Benjamin Franklin (clergyman) (which is someone else), vs. Benjamin Franklin (statesman) (which is not, so there's no such link) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Readers might be looking for content about Franklin as a swim coach. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Refine to Benjamin Franklin#Interests and activities and add a mention there per Ca's findings and some of my own. People might be interested in finding out his endeavors as a swim coach in addition to his other ones, and there's a lot of literature to back this up. Regards, SONIC678 06:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misuse of a disambguator; see WP:DAB, which explains the purpose is to differentiate articles. If someone wants to know about a particular aspect of BF's life, they'll just look up the article on BF; no one's going to type in a random disambiguator on the off chance it'll save them a ctrl-F or a few spins of the scroll wheel. And again, the existence of this is misleading, as it seems to imply that it's for a different person of the same name, rather than the extremely well known PTOPIC. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unmentioned Pikmin 2 caves

• Hole of Heroes → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Glutton's Kitchen → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Submerged Castle → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These caves aren't mentioned in the target article (and weren't at the time the Hole of Heroes one, which was always a redirect, was created). As for the other two, they began as articles on their respective caves (see here and here for what the articles looked like before they were turned into redirects) until Combination redirected them to the main article in November 2006 (when they actually were mentioned before Abryn removed them with this edit in October 2008 to trim down the page) because, in their summary for the Submerged Castle one, there [was] absolutely no reason for this to be kept separate from the Pikmin 2 article. Unlike Dream Den, which is worth keeping because that cave actually is mentioned in the article and has plot relevance, I'm not sure we need to keep these redirects when their respective caves aren't mentioned in the target article. Regards, SONIC678 01:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

A little temporary security

• A little temporary security → United States Department of Homeland Security  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This came from a portion of a Benjamin Franklin quote that's out of context and frankly, having this redirect to Benjamin Franklin would probably be even stupider. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete, unmentioned. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cilla Single

• Cilla Single → Benjamin Franklin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Can't find where Ben Frank ever used this as a pseudonym. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Unsure at the moment. A Google search for this term doesn't bring up anything showing how it's related Benjamin Franklin (neither does one for both this term and "Benjamin Franklin"), and mostly talks about stuff relating to Cilla Black or Cilla The Musical. I'm not sure of the connection either, but Rich Farmbrough, who created this redirect, might know. Regards, SONIC678 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find a shred of evidence that this name has any association to the target whatsoever. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I've added a reference to the redirect. Ben Franklin had a lot of pen names, as did Daniel Defoe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC).
  

  Which I've reverted, since you removed the RFD tag, and it should be either here or on the talk page of the redirect, or both. I did check it, and there's no mention on the page you gave, but there is a few pages later. It's a single bare listing, with no context or corroboration. Given that no one else has been able to able to verify this, I'm dubious of the reliability of the source, and if nothing else, the usefulness. Furthermore, given how many other entries from this book you've created, it would seem to be a mass creation in violation of your current editing restrictions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, this is not a mass creation contrary to Rich's editing restrictions. @35.139.154.158: your repeated references to Rich's restrictions where they definitely don't apply is bordering on harassment at this point. Knock it off.

  Rich, adding references to redirects is odd, readers typically don't see the content of redirects. Is there a way to add this information to the article instead? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, fine. My points about the redirect itself though still stand. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A Sam

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

Fabian'’s lizard

• Fabian'’s lizard → Liolaemus fabiani  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Contains an extra invisible control character after the apostrophe. The correct Fabian's lizard already exists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dr A

• Dr A → Isaac Asimov  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Famous scientist but "Dr A" is still very ambiguous. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Comment: Was originally created as a redirect to Marty Friedman. Dr. A appears to be a pseudonym Friedman used under the band Red Dye #2 around 2000–2001. Was retargeted by Rich Farmbrough to Asimov in 2014. There's also Dr. A, which was kept at RfD in 2020. As Thryduulf mentioned then, Dr. A was the pen name Asimov used for The Sensuous Dirty Old Man (1971). Both should be unified, and probably converted to a disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Setindexify at Dr. A per findings of Paul_012; both are Americans, so they use the fullstop -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful; A song from Wicked

• Wonderful; A song from Wicked → Wicked (musical)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looks a bit unnatural. Maybe the creator don't know about parentheses. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Comment: Is an R with history, though the article existed less than a single day. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, as an RDAB, and the page history is inconsequential; one paragraph of unsourced material that wouldn't survive at AFD anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank Goodness

• Thank Goodness → Wicked (musical)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Isn't that a bit too vague to be specific too a play? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to wikt:thank goodness. Web-julio (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep since it's capitalized and actually a title mentioned at the target. I'd be surprised if this weren't the title of anything else, in which case a dab might be appropriate, but I didn't find anything after a quick search. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Eytp

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

Misspelling of a misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete GSearch turns out a bunch of "unscramble this word" website. Vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lenticel. Unlike the other two misspellings of "Egypt" listed below, this one doesn't seem to be used much, possibly because in part of the scrambled word missing one letter. I think it's best to do without it. Regards, SONIC678 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per the essentially non-existent pageviews. I also don't think it's necessarily obvious that "Eytp" would be referring to Egypt at all. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not only a typo, but an extremely implausible one. Would be an R3 if it were new. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Google doesn't appear to return anything for Egypt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Eypt

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

Is it really that common to miss the "g"? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete Implausible misspelling. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weakish keep per pageviews. It seems to be getting a decent number of pageviews, like 177 last year, though I'm not sure why.
• Weak delete. I am normally in favour of keeping these sorts of typos, and this one does have some use, but a google search suggests that people searching this could also be looking for Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: EYPT). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's a few options. We could retarget to pSivida per Michael Aurel, which is the article for Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals under a previous name. The article could use some work, and I do also think that "eypt" is a somewhat plausible typo for Egypt, so it's not the greatest idea. We could disambiguate between the two, but I also don't think a disambig page for a typo, a stock ticker, and nothing else is advisable. Are there redirect-specific headers? Maybe we keep the current target but add a header that mentions Eyepoint? This is a big reach but I'm full of ideas I want to mention. Deleting is a clean solution if nothing else but it feels like we could be more helpful than that. I'm leaning delete just because the other answers I have are pretty borderline, but they might be worth exploring.

Tessaract2^Hi! 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Google returns Eyepoint Pharmaceuticals Inc which we don't appear to cover but shows its ambiguous and probably not plausable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Egpyt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A .R . EGYPT

• A .R . EGYPT → Egypt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• A .R . Egypt → Egypt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Wildly inconsistent punctuation spacing TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — TeapotsOfDoom (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Okmrman (talk · contribs).

• Delete both, per nom. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

DuPage 3

• DuPage 3 → DuPage County, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Du Page 3 → DuPage County, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Group of neighborhoods previously BLARd no longer mentioned in target article. Delete unless it is mentioned somewhere else. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November 19

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:58, 19 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, is the retarget acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lepaging the field

• Lepaging the field → 2008 Aaron's 312  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term used due to an incident in the race. Not mentioned in target article. Blethering Scot 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect creator here: I've added the incident's nickname to the page now. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has the inclusion of the term in the target article solved the issue?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

019

• 019 → 19  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

019 is not 19. I can't find any 019s other than Tyrrell 019 and any years ending with 019, e.g. 1019, 2019, etc. Should we disambiguate or retarget to Tyrrell 019? 88.235.214.122 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: there are a fair few 019s but most are PTMs that can't really be disambiguated. Search results leave most of the 019s still accessible to the reader. Retargeting to Tyrrell 019 is a decent option too, as it's more likely to be referred to simply as "019" than the other options. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the numeric value of 019 is 19. So this is WP:CHEAP, it targets a disambiguation page anyways. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per J947. Let our search results do the work. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cnada

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

Typo with random "a" missing. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: pageviews show that this is a highly used redirect. Alternatively retarget with hatnote to New Animal Drug Application#Types, where a CNADA is discussed, but given that that article receives less than half as many pageviews as this redirect such a retarget is probably unwarranted. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of pageviews, and I expect that the vast majority of people using this are looking for Canada, rather than the drug, as this seems a plausible typo to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary typo, no more deserving of a redirect than any other typo; let Mediawiki suggest possible matches rather than trying to make billions of redirects ourselves. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Publicvoice24.com

• Publicvoice24.com → List of newspapers in Bangladesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

(NPP action) Not mentioned at target. There was previously an article at this title, which was speedily deleted as WP:A7 and WP:G11 in 2020. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete as unmentioned. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Henț

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

Hent

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

Peugeot 008

• Peugeot 008 → Mitsubishi i  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedural nom for CzxxxxzC (talk · contribs), since you cannot use PROD on redirects. Reason given: The Peugeot 008 does not exist. From what I could see, it is based on a render from the time that speculated the rebadge to be named the Peugeot 008 (Rendered speculation: Peugeot 008, French iMiEV). This actually ended up just being the Peugeot iOn. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Bryan Ramos

• Bryan Ramos → Bryan Ramos (footballer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of this redirect should be changed to Bryan Ramos (baseball) or, alternatively, this title should be given to the aforementioned article. As it stands, this redirects to Bryan Ramos (footballer), a one-sentence stub BLP. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Move Bryan Ramos (baseball) to Bryan Ramos as the primary topic. Per WP:MISPLACED, "Title" should not redirect to "Title (disambiguator)". I'd also accept converting the redirect to a disambiguation page. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

MHelpDesk

• MHelpDesk → Angi Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This apparently is a product of predecessor companies of this target, per very passing mentions at IAC Inc. and HomeAdvisor, but it is not mentioned in the current target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Leslie Zemeckis (Q23767052)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: cut and paste move repaired

Fruits Basket.

• Fruits Basket. → Fruits Basket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not really sure this redirect is plausible because of the period at the end, which doesn't appear on any official rendering of the title from what I've searched on Google. Per all these other discussions of similar redirects that have taken place over the years, I'd say we should delete this unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 04:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. per previous discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Segmented Crawbster

• Segmented Crawbster → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the boss of the Cavern of Chaos, who used to have an article (see here for the article) for about eight minutes on December 29, 2009 before it was retargeted to the article for breaching WP:NOTHOWTO. The enemy isn't mentioned in the target article, and it wasn't at the time its article was turned into a redirect, potentially making this also fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'm open to other outcomes. Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Karens

• Karens → Karen people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Between Karen people and Karen (slang), is the existing target the WP:PTOPIC for "Karens"? feminist🩸 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep with hatnote, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Adding the "s" at the end shows that it is referring to a group of people, not a name or a slang. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "Karens" is actually used quite often irt the slang term. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Karen as an {{R from ambiguous term}}. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  agreed with this, Karen (slang) can also a used by the user in the plural to mean a group of people EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite bioRxiv

• Cite bioRxiv → Template:Cite bioRxiv  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think all of these cite redirects should be bundled Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete only 2 Google results seem to be for Wikipedia thus clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Not readership content material -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite CiteSeerX

• Cite CiteSeerX → Template:Cite CiteSeerX  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete only 2 Google results seem to be for Wikipedia thus clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Not readership content material -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite document

• Cite document → Template:Cite document  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

More cite template redirects TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete no Google results seem to be for Wikipedia thus clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Not readership content material -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite medRxiv

• Cite medRxiv → Template:Cite medRxiv  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mainspace redirect to non-readership content created by the same person who made Cite AV media. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete only 2 Google results seem to be for Wikipedia thus clearly not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Not readership content material -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Τορεπεροχίλ

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

Tagged as Russian but it's actually Greek. Either way, it's still a questionable WP:FORRED. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The town doesn't seem to have any special affinity to Greek, according to a cursory search on Google. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't fall under any of the exceptions at WP:FORRED from what I can tell. The town is Spanish, and a bit of searching doesn't indicate any links to Greek or Greek culture, so unless there's a historical association I'm missing, this seems arbitrary. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Halo Grunts

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Stock Pot Inn

• Stock Pot Inn → The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. In-game location. It is mentioned in wikibooks, though it is nowhere near enclycopedic. wikibooks:The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/Locations/Stock Pot Inn Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Latte Milk Bar

• Latte Milk Bar → The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In Majora's Mask, there is a location referred to in-game alternatively as "the Milk Bar" or as "Latte". Fans online do put the two together as "Latte Milk Bar". That said, the location is not discussed in the article at all (although I suspect if I dug through the history I'd find an old version where it was). Fieari (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

November 18

Sigma Freud

• Sigma Freud → Sigmund Freud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, likely vandalism cruft. —𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete WP:G3. No hits on Google. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete Per Ca. Kolano123 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment/Delete (not speedy) - I think it's likely that this was made just as an example of the gen z/gen alpha "sigma" meme, but it could plausibly be seen as a good faith effort to help someone more familiar with said meme than the name Sigmund, or just a mishearing/misspelling sort of thing. As such, I don't think it qualifies for G3 exactly as a hoax or blatant vandalism/disinformation, but... I also think it should be deleted as implausible. Fieari (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Snowfake Fluttertail

• Snowfake Fluttertail → Pikmin 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, and contrary to what the page says, I did a check and there are no possibilities here. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete as implausible tpyo, and also i guess per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Volatile dweevil

• Volatile dweevil → Pikmin 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom. not on the notable side of pikmin 2 enemies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, cosgan, and WP:GAMECRUFT. This redirect used to be an article about the enemy for less than a month in 2005 before Just zis Guy, you know? redirected it to the article (where the enemy wasn't mentioned at the time). I don't think it's worth mentioning, much less creating a redirect for, the Volatile Dweevil (unlike the Titan Dweevil, whose redirect is worth keeping because it's relevant to the plot), and I'm not sure we still need this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic678 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Apple Popularity

• Apple Popularity → Apple#Popular uses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

popularity and popular uses aren't the same thing, or really all that comparable. as is, i don't think wikipedia does or can quantify the "popularity" of a fruit (whatever that would even mean). see the history if you're feeling feisty, as it was created as an essay/test before being blar'd cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, this was never even slightly encyclopedic, and the redirect makes no sense either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete If at some point in the future there is reliable information on the relative popularity of fruits or relative popularity of apple cultivars it might be needed, but it is not needed now. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Could refer to the popularity of apples, certain cultivars, the company, perhaps even the record label. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

GS ball

• GS ball → Gameplay of Pokémon#Poké Ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Pokémon: Adventures in the Orange Islands. The GS Ball is mentioned frequently in the episode list, and seems to be a plot point there. It's mentioned in a few other articles but I feel like that would be the most appropriate one. @QuicoleJR, thoughts? Fathoms Below (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a retarget to that page. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wario Colosseum

• Wario Colosseum → Mario Kart: Double Dash#Grand Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Wario Stadium → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Choco Mountain → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Mario Raceway → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Koopa Troopa Beach → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Luigi Raceway → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Block Fort → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Banshee Boardwalk → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Frappe Snowland → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom, and maybe clump those race track noms together. they're really all the same case (except maybe jungle parkway). if that's not feasible for whatever reason, the same vote applies to the rest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan:  Done except for Jungle Parkway. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all - Not mentioned in article, and WP:GAMECRUFT generally prevents them from being listed out/name dropped in the article. They can always be recreated if someone finds a valid reason to mention them in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: Just to be clear, does this !vote also apply to the Jungle Parkway nomination below? QuicoleJR (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm torn on that one. On one hand, there is a mention at the target. On the other hand, it doesn't really give the reader any meaningful insight...and it was virtually unused prior to this nonination too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

D.K.'s Jungle Parkway

• D.K.'s Jungle Parkway → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Only mentioned in passing as the course the screenshot happened to be taken on. No real information on this track is included in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mario I

• Mario I → Super Mario Bros.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think Mario 1 using Roman numerals is a very plausible redirect to Super Mario Bros. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Also problematic considering it could equally allude to Mario Bros.. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete as extremely vague. could refer to smb, mb, the first installment of literally any mario series, the first installment of any bloodline of marios, and probably at least 3 other things i'm missing
• interestingly, though, there doesn't seem to be a mario game with a subtitle that could be shortened to just "i". and i'm not willing to argue that it's a plausible misspelling for nsmbu, since you'd have to type at least 4 letters before getting to the shortest possible redirects, and there's a fine line between plausible misspelling and skill issue cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: doesn't seem plausible. Retro (talk | contribs) 22:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to County of Santa Fiora, where the ruling count "Mario I" is listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  disagree per my vote, as things would get pretty embarrassing if there was another bloodline with multiple marios, that article isn't about the marios, and i don't think a reader would expect to land there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete There is already a 40-minute YouTube video showing how ambiguous this is. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Paw, Paw

• Paw, Paw → Martha Stewart#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "paw" doesn't appear anywhere in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:434F:7EAA:14AD:DD9B (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Paw Paw (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently Paw Paw was one of her dogs, which (surprise surprise) aren't important enough to mention by name in her bio article. There's no reason why it should have had the comma in there in the first place, nor is there any particular reason to keep this around for any of the various other uses, none of which make any sense with a comma inserted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The comma makes this very implausible to target anywhere. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not sure if there's any good target in the dab page. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Paw Paw (disambiguation). It got 7 hits this year, might as well send those hits to something plausible. I disagree that a comma is implausible for all of the targets at that dab. I mean, sure, a comma is not ACCURATE for any of the targets, but accurate is not the same thing as plausible. People make mistakes, after all. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  7 hits in a year is background noise. Arguing for a retarget is the same as arguing for a delete, and then for the creation of a new redirect....a creation that no one would ever reasonably make, because it'd be useless. We don't need to bend over backwards to try to find a home for wayward, useless redirects. Nothing of value is lost from deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Music In Africa Foundation

• Music In Africa Foundation → Internet in South Africa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not clear at all why this organisation should redirect to Internet in South Africa, and I don't know of any other appropriate destination. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, unmentioned, and no apparent reason why it would be anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom and as very vague, as there's at least one other thing that can be done on the internet, one other place in africa, one other area in which music can happen, and one other area that foundation might deal with. maybe even more! cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AITA

• Wikipedia:AITA → Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

deletion it is weird redirect The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action. 172.99.146.47 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

what does it even mean 172.99.146.47 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume its a reference to the subreddit r/AmItheAsshole, where behaviour is also discussed BugGhost🦗👻 08:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, probably just a joke, and unused. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - likely a joke comparing the two venues, but not a particularly common or helpful one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, if this is supposed to be a joke it's certainly not a funny one. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:C6F:DB40:DDF0:BA55 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete. wrong site, created by a now blocked user, could also refer to arbcom, the teahouse, gardevoir, any other admin's noticeboard... cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete good joke but still unlikely synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Unused anywhere, so no link rot worries. I do get the joke, but it's not being used by anyone in the community, even including the creator of the redirect, and so it doesn't really seem useful. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Indianapolis Super Bowl

• Indianapolis Super Bowl → Super Bowl XLVI  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague redirect, could also refer to the Super Bowl XLI and XLIV which featured the Indianapolis Colts, although they did not host it in Indianapolis. Not plausable enough for a disambg. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We don't seem to have similar redirects like New Orleans Super Bowl. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

MLB: american and national divisions

• MLB: american and national divisions → 2009 Major League Baseball season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

nonsense that has nothing to do with 2009. DELETE. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as another misuse of WP:BLAR. Article content in history would not be kept at WP:AFD. Not useful as a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete clearly this cannot redirect there. MLB did nott exist only for one season -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

2008 season

• 2008 season → 2008 Major League Baseball season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are other sports seasons besides Major League Baseball. DELETE OFF OF THE PLANET. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this ambiguous redirect. This term could refer to anything—sports, TV shows, politics, just about anything else. No need to point this term to one specific season. Regards, SONIC678 02:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hopelessly vague. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete this is not the MLBpedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above BugGhost🦗👻 08:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Incredibly ambiguous both between different sports seasons and other uses of "season" (e.g. the election season, the four seasons of the year, etc). JJP_Master (she/they) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

clearly the primary topic for this is the 2008 sportsball trophy cup championship smh

delete, with... really, no prejudice against dafting or salting cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Sonic678, JJPMaster, et al. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Billy Mandy Aur Life Mein Haddi

• Billy Mandy Aur Life Mein Haddi → The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the title of the Hindi version of the show, but it isn't mentioned in the article, presumably since this show doesn't have an affinity with Hindi. I'm not 100% sure this is a useful redirect for those reasons, so I thought I'd bring it over to RfD to discuss the best course of action. What are your thoughts about this? Regards, SONIC678 00:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I remember coming across this link somewhere on enwiki which lead me to create it. I have come across quite a few translated interlingual redirects (even interscript ones) and this is only in line with those (e.g. Baby Galileo). WP:TVINT exists but not think it applies to redirects (also a reason why redirected TV titles for may not be contained within their targets). Gotitbro (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:RFOREIGN non-English title to an English-languge topic -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Clear case of an inappropriate non-English redirect; the series is American and the original title is in English. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 17

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 [19] 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 [20] or [21]. 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)

@Cogsan: Thanks. WP:RETURNTORED starts with "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article". It might, but though it pains me to say, the last AfD dedided that it did not have the potential to be expandied into its own article then. So do you still not like the redirect even though to my knowledge there is no other article which would cover even the four/five characters we have at the target now? Or to look at it from the other direction, what would be the number for characters you would see as the minimum for an embedded list to not want to delete our redirect? Daranios (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem here? Red link or redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD by finding sources that allow a new list article to be written, then you can just do that! Retaining this redirect doesn't help. The redirect does not have the old article history, so that argument for keeping it is moot. The old article history is available and userfied, so you have that. You are arguing like this is AfD but the only consideration is whether this is a useful redirect. On that score, it clearly isn't. There are at least nine articles that show up in search if you look for Neverwinter Nights [22]. Now if someone is looking for a list of Neverwinter nights characters, the redirect chooses to send them to one of these pages and ignore the others. The reader is taken to a page that does not list the characters, and does not meet their information requirement. If anyone were actually interested in all of the characters, they are better off seeing all nine articles listed, which will give them a fuller picture, rather than being taken to a page that does not answer their information requirement but pretends to. I just do not see what the benefit is of retaining a redirect that has no history and no utility. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

wouldn't the fact that it was deemed that there weren't enough sources for an article then, and that that's still the case now, be more reason to delete?

i have some level of hope that it might be possible to create that list someday, i just know that that's not today cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not sure if I could disprove the AfD in the form of establishing this as a notable topic, and I don't currently have the time (or rather priority based on many other open to-do ideas) to make sure one way or another. And that is not the issue. (I'd be for restoring the userfied history as I said. But the history I was originally referring to was the link to the deletion discussion in the talk page.) I am pretty sure that I could create an embedded list, and for that it would be useful to know opinions how (big) such a list should look to make sense. Just as one project utilizing secondary sources on this topic which have not been (fully) used yet. On the other hand, the AfD did establish this redirect, so redirect, if you can disprove the old AfD does not make sense to me. Rather, deleting the redirect would mean overturning the AfD result. But I guess that's within the prerogative of RfD. Looking at the other hits again I am no longer completely sure if it is best to guide the reader to Neverwinter Nights at this point. We do have five characters there currently, and overall commentary, and it fits better to the redirect title. But other hits do have several characters embedded, too. So withdrawing my keep !vote for the time being, but I am still interested in cogsan's answer to my question above. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

this is on a case-by-case basis, so the best way to put it is

• general franchises: at least most of the major cast being notable, with some wiggle room for a handful of more important/popular yet not very notable ones
• general franchises that are really long: if they're not known for more than one character, just go for articles for the few notable ones. otherwise, same criteria seem to apply
• novels and other such character-heavy franchises (which nn seems to be): there's usually no plan b for if not enough of them are notable for a list, so to quote a wise scorpion, "lol. lmao."
• pokémon: the best way to describe the situation with pokémon and its (human) characters, and how rules related to notability are treated in its context, is doing multiple backflips in a row to distract people from the question while professor elm keeps his entry

it's a complicated case, but it seems neverwinter nights just plain doesn't have enough notable characters in the first place, "major" or not

and granted, this is for if such a list exists in the first place, and since the answer to that in this case is "not anymore lol", it's really just a matter of deleting and hoping the case changes sometime before the sun goes boom cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, pinging Mark viking, who had suggested the redirect back at the AfD. Daranios (talk) 19:40, 9 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 18 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable political party and really not much room for a mention. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 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 [23] (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)

  @Brigade Piron although I agree with you regarding the 'Greater Region of Luxembourg', I still think that when a reader searches for 'Greater Luxembourg', they are more likely looking for information on Luxembourg annexation plans after the Second World War. РоманЖ (talk) 15:14, 14 November 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate at least the first one. Two redirect targets are discussed above. I am not convinced it's a common term for SaarLorLux, most examples given here do not actually use the full term (they just call it the "Greater region"). The annexation target has some plausibility. However, not mentioned above, the natural target that comes to my mind is the historical Duchy of Luxembourg, which through the Partitions of Luxembourg created the current smaller borders. The term might even refer to Luxembourg (Belgium), which is greater (bigger). The latter two may more specifically refer to SaarLorLux, but that is because they are more specific than the more general term. CMD (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support disambiguate proposal. @Brigade Piron@MPGuy2824@Викидим: what do you think? I created Draft:Greater Luxembourg. РоманЖ (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support both the disambiguation proposal (for all three variants) and the draft itself. We should not encourage editors to use link to Greater Luxembourg without a clarification: multiple context-dependent meanings are quite clear by now, and he DAB is a standard way to resolve the issue. Викидим (talk) 02:01, 22 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)
• Well, it definitely shouldn't go to Graphology, that's for sure. I think Forensic handwriting examination is probably the best retarget, since that will also aim readers at palaeography and diplomatics, two other kinds of handwriting expertise. Disclosure: I have no idea if this counts as a COI, lol. -- asilvering (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Questioned document examination per the above comments. 5Q5|^✉ 10:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• When I looked at Questioned document examination, I saw it as a poor but better target than the current. Then when I looked at Forensic handwriting examination, not only did it have Questioned document examination as an entry, but two other terms that could explore the reader's horizons. It is an oddly crafted disambig page, but in the absence of an article about the "Handwriting expert", let's give the reader the maximum. I understand "examination" here does not have the meaning of "test", but of "examining" which is what an expert would do. Jay 💬 12:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  With nom's new dab below, the Forensic handwriting examination dab gets duplicated. The Palaeography or Diplomatics articles do not appear to be related to forensics. Forensic handwriting examination can be made a redirect to Questioned document examination instead. Jay 💬 15:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I have created a disambiguation page at Handwriting expertise, which captures some additional senses. However, I am coming around to the idea that Questioned document examination is likely the primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:01, 17 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)
• Nom converted the target dab to a stub just before making this nomination. IP wanted it to go back to dab, and there was an edit war. Both were reverted and we now have the status quo, before the nom's conversion. Keep as {{R from incomplete dab}} unless we see more action. Jay 💬 12:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence that "Dana Fuller" on its own is commonly used to refer to either person listed on the DAB page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:20, 18 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)

• I've added back the section mentioned by Recoil16, but retained only the sourced content. I have retained the present tense phrasing although the status of the hospital is unclear after the takeover by Taliban in 2021. But we'll be consistent with the lede which mentions in the present tense: There is also a hospital with 50 beds, three operating theatres and a modern dental clinic. That line cites a July 2021 source whereas the Taliban took over the following month, hence it is the target article that is in need of repair Jay 💬 13:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep it is now in the article. The only two key words are "Craig" and "Hospital", looking for Theatre wouldn't necessarily turn up the facility, since it means "area"/"region"/"theater of military command". Joint is the same, just meaning multiple branches of the U.S. military share use of it. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 14:44, 18 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion isn't really getting any comments, I might as well throw my two cents in and say weak delete. Raad already exists as a disambiguation and there really isn't any suitable target for the exact title. Alternatively, retarget to Raad since that's the actual disambiguation. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. WP's username policy is already displayed prominently when creating a new account, so saying that new users need this so badly as to justify an XNR is nonsense. And the retarget proposal immediately above is equally bad, since it doesn't talk about any sort of policies, just a couple specific examples for Windows only, not the general concept, which is wayyyy more general than even any operating system. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

The removal diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_squeeze&diff=prev&oldid=1075503817 looks difficult to distinguish from vandalism. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Cannot say, but I would not put the removed content back as it was unsourced and hard (for me) to understand. The stock market is complex, but that first paragraph was incredibly hard. The sourced content about Gamma squeeze also didn't seem to be related to the source, so ultimately it is the maintainers of the target article who have to decide. As the redirect has history and an AfD that favoured merge, restore and tag for merge. Jay 💬 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Stars War

• Stars War → Star Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pretty implausible misspelling/typo TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think we should necessarily assume that this could only be a typo or misspelling. In the literal sense, a "stars war" is just a war in the stars, and I think that Star Wars would probably be the most notable example of this. Even as a misspelling or misremembering of the franchise name, it doesn't seem especially implausible, either. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Drop a proton torpedo into its thermal exhaust port. Utterly useless for probably the most well known sci-fi franchise ever, while an external search finds other things actually named this. Give people a little credit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - "Stars War" is a Warcraft tournament that has been running since 2005, so this redirect is incorrect. While it also could reasonably be a mistaken name for Star Wars, I don't think targetting it is correct as anyone looking for the tournament would be wp:astonished BugGhost🦗👻 07:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Michael Aurel. I've never thought about that, but "Stars War" (multiple stars, one war) does fit better thematically than Star Wars (one star, multiple wars). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as there are actual uses of this, and anyone correctly entering it does not want star wars, which they probably already know how to type correctly. Correct uses (except in extreme cases) take precedence over incorrect uses. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I really don't see how this is implausible, and I know it isn't, because it has 20 page views in the past thirty days. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to expand on this. The other people here are saying about there being "other things named that", they aren't anything notable, and I don't expect anyone to search for them here. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Radio-Canada

• Radio-Canada → Canadian Broadcasting Corporation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Radio-Canada – keep

Make disambiguation page instead. While the CBC is known in French as "Radio-Canada", the term in English most commonly refers to Ici Radio-Canada Télé or Ici Radio-Canada Première, its two main broadcast services. A look at the incoming links to Radio-Canada shows that almost all are actually intended for one of these two articles. 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• For the same arguments at the previous RfD, the current target was deemed the primary topic. [Disclosure: previous RfD closer] Jay 💬 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary. No English-language reliable sources refer to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as "Radio-Canada". However, they do use "Radio-Canada" to refer to the TV or radio networks.[24][25] 162 etc. (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per prior RfD, this is the best target to cover the options, including the international radio broadcaster. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per my previous arguments. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Lean disambiguate. I previously !voted to keep the redirect, but 162 is right to bring this up again as the state of how editors are using the redirect wasn't discussed in the previous RfD. I went through a small sample of article links and there is clearly a misalignment between what editors think Radio-Canada points to and what it actually does. I wouldn't say that 'almost all' editors intend to link to French-language media services rather than the company entity, though, it's clearly a common intention. I still believe that landing at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is unsurprising for Radio-Canada, but a DAB page may useful in constructing better and consistent inter-article links. Disambiguating Radio-Canada would be a net positive if creating hundreds of article links to a DAB page is in itself OK, I know it is discouraged. Also note that Radio-Canada shows up as a link in References sections, and I am unsure if that is automatically generated. This would need to be addressed as well. ― Synpath 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite web

• Cite web → Template:Cite web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

So apparently, this redirect existed way before User:PK2 decided to create a bunch of redirects to other cite templates, which is probably what inspired him to do so. Anyways, the last discussion was over a decade ago so maybe things could go differently this time. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete although most Google results are for Wikipedia or other Wikis at least 2 aren't so even if potentially useful its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking. Definitely not readership content. Same as with #Cite AV media also nominated today. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, I use this all the time (and I have created over 2,300 articles). Previous discussions always conclude that we should WP:Ignore all rules for this one, Cite news, Cite journal, Cite book, and perhaps the others. It had 1000 uses last year. The reasoning is that any shortcut that increases the number and quality of citations on Wikipedia is far more important than consistency, because "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per IP et. al. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There doesn't seem to be anything in mainspace that "cite web" could be referring to, so as a search term this seems relatively unambiguous; this would seem to indicate that the vast majority of the 78 people who search this monthly are looking for Template:cite web. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Göbenä

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

Page does not mention a “Göbenä”. Roasted (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment the article shows "Гөбенә" -- Gobena -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems it already was in the article,[26] I've since explicitly added it to the Tatar portion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Bighead octopus,

• Bighead octopus, → Octopus vitiensis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Comma at the end of the title, appears to be unworthy of a redirect. Bighead octopus (without the comma) already exists so this appears to have been created as a mistake. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

delete, and maybe suggest a csd for misplaced punctuation. really, i'm starting to think x3 needs some reworking to house more than one type of punctuation error cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:X3 might as well be WP:R5 at that point. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

True positive

• True positive → False positives and false negatives#true positive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a section that doesn't even exist. TheWikipede^talk 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Unrefine to target the top of the article, where the term is defined. Would match true negative (which I think has an anchor, but I dont view that as necessary). Mdewman6 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unrefine All combinations of true/false and positive/negative are important terms in statistical classification. The true positive and negative are the correct classifications and are not as interesting in a sense as their false counterparts which are the errors in the system. There is another article Sensitivity and specificity that could also be a redirect target, but it makes sense to redirect all or none of these terms to the same article. BFG (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ap (ghost)

• Ap (ghost) → Krasue  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure this use of "Ap" is legitimate. The article refers to "The word អាប (Ahp/Aap)..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. In use, obvious alternative spelling in a language without a single standardised romanization system. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Atlantoöccipital articulations

• Atlantoöccipital articulations → Atlanto-occipital joint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Anterior atlantoöccipital membrane → Anterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Anterior atlantoöccipital ligament → Anterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Posterior atlantoöccipital membrane → Posterior atlantooccipital membrane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These pages clearly derive from typos as the character ö does not appear in latin and these terms are not used in literature, see also this discussion on one of their talk pages. I believe that if they were recent pages, they would fulfill WP:R3 from the speedy deletion criteria, but as its multiple old pages, I'm listing them here. Since entering a term with the diaresis diacritic does not seem to matter for Wikipedia search unless there is a specific page with it in its name, these redirects do not bear any value and should be deleted. The respective redirect or article pages without diacritics seem to already exist. YuniToumei (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hebed

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

Tucker Turner

• Tucker Turner → Codename: Kids Next Door#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure what this name has to do with Codename: Kids Next Door. Judging by the redirect's history, it was apparently (what someone thought was) an early name for Joey Beetles in the show's production, but other than that, I can't find anything about a "Tucker Turner" in the show (a search on KND Code Module doesn't bring anything up, and a Google search for this exact term brings up a lot of unrelated people). Joseph "Joey", the title this redirect was moved to in 2007 before going to Joseph "Joey" Beetles over a day later, was deleted as the result of an RfD back in 2019, but apparently this one went unnoticed for all these years since then. Delete this unless someone can provide a justification or a suitable alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 07:08, 17 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)

  Your analogy doesn't apply. Per WP:BLP, it would be inappropriate to put into the biographical article on the President of Israel the personal attacks that some other world leader made (although it would be appropriate to say that he has been criticized). Likewise, we do not put into biographical articles all the insulting "nicknames" that Trump has given all his political opponents.

  In the case of this redirect in question, the target article specifically has the term "pogrom" in the article, and there are no WP:BLP concerns.

  It's somewhat bewildering that this is not obvious, and I need to explain it. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's somewhat bewildering that you missed the obvious point: the president of Israel is not a reliable source for such a statement. His irrelevant opinion can be attributed to him, but that's about it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RS does not apply to redirects. The question about redirects is whether it's a plausible search term. The fact that the President of Israel called it a Pogrom, and it's in the article, makes it a plausible search term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Preferably delete, the usage of pogrom seems to be isolated to biased sources and should be avoided for obvious WP:NPOV concerns. I think a retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands would only work if it is retarged to something specific on that page. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong keep. What happened yesterday in Amsterdam was characterized by reliable sources as a pogrom. This is stated in the lede of the target. What happened in the Netherlands during the Holocaust was mass-murder of Jews, but not a pogrom or a sequence of pogroms. In fact, that article does not mention pogroms and never uses the word.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Have any of the WP:RSP described this as a pogrom in their own voice? — hako9 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands or delete.

When I was a fresh-faced disambiguator, I came across an ambiguous link to a place in modern Belarus. I identified it.

The very next problem was identical. I solved that too.

The third one was the same, and I solved it as well.

At that point, I took a break, because for some reason I was unable to focus properly and was swearing uncontrollably. One of those three places, obliterated in the early 1940s, is commemorated by an engraved stone in the ground. The other two are not.

Calling the recent incident in Amsterdam a "pogrom" is an insult to all those who were victims of actual pogroms. FWIW, I have no Jewish heritage. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy and Strong Keep - What happened in Amsterdam was horrific and it needs to be reflected as such. It has been described as a pogram and that's because it was one. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm going to try to say this as charitably as possible, but as someone whose relatives have had to flee actual pogroms during WW2, I feel I do need to say it:

  I find this comparison, made by heads of state or politicians and now defended by you, incredibly insensitive, deeply upsetting, and bordering, itself, on antisemitism, given how profoundly, by association, it minimizes the horrors of anti-Jewish pogroms and relativizes the atrocities of those that carried out pogroms. Especially now that it's become increasingly apparent the Israeli fans engaged in behavior that could itself, at best, be described as monstrous bigotry and cheers for ethnic cleansing.

  Either way, while I wanted to share how offensive I think this comparison actually is, I'm aware my feelings on the subject matter little. The only question that should be considered here is: per RNEUTRAL, is this term one that's been established by reliable sources to have due weight and therefore meets the criteria for NPOV redirects? I don't have an answer to that myself as I haven't looked at the proportion of sources that use the term, but I think that's what should be focused on here. LaughingManiac (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  @LaughingManiac How is calling it a pogrom bordering on antisemitism? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I said what I said and have laid out my reasons for saying it already. Take it or leave it at that. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep A very quick Google search demonstrates that the term “Amsterdam pogrom” and “pogrom in Amsterdam” are being widely used to describe the article topic. This strikes me a reasonable search term; I personally used the redirect to initially find the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) EDIT: under wikipedia:RNEUTRAL we are permitted to use non-neutral redirect titles and are in fact given extra leeway because redirects are less visible to readers. Given that the the term has been frequently used in reliable sources and given that it is a reasonable search term for readers to utilize, I really do not see a justification to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget or just delete - the reliable sources used in the article which I spot-checked do not describe this event as a pogrom; at most they quote Israeli officials doing so. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are not describing this as a pogrom. Netanyahu is not a reliable source for what this article should be called. Parabolist (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete An unfortunate event with poor behavior all around does not meet the definition of a progrom. If someone has called it that that can be reflected in the article text but we shouldn't be saying it was one. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete or redirect as suggested. Not a pogrom, though there was violence against Jews. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 04:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands. This feels like another case of WP:RECENTISM. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget WP:RECENTISM in full swing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose retarget to The Holocaust in the Netherlands per Ymblanter. The segregation and deportation of Jews in the Netherlands was a gradual and meticulous process. The holocaust article also has no redirects or incoming links from articles having "pogrom' in the title. If a president naming a recent incident as a pogrom, is irrelevant opinion, a group of Wikipedia editors characterizing the Holocaust in the Netherlands as comprising of a pogrom, is not any less. But if we have other redirects titled "pogrom" targeting holocaust articles where "pogrom" is not mentioned, or pogroms didn't happen, then I would like to look at those, and possibly reconsider. Jay 💬 08:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Ted, Ned and Ed

• Ted, Ned and Ed → Codename: Kids Next Door#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These minor Codename: Kids Next Door characters (security guards of the Mustache Office Building who appeared in "Operation: S.H.A.V.E.") are not mentioned in the target article, and they weren't mentioned in the now deleted List of allies in Codename: Kids Next Door or List of Codename: Kids Next Door characters (whose extensive edit history is located at List of families in Codename: Kids Next Door) at the times the redirect was pointed at either page. Plus, a Google search for this exact term brings up mostly unrelated results (including one for the category where the redirect is located), and the redirect is also kind of ambiguous (it could refer to any three characters with these names), so I'm not sure if this is really worth keeping. Regards, SONIC678 01:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:XY seems unlikely to refer to this one, and more likely to refer to "Ed" diminutive which has been used to cover possibilities that reduce to Ted and Ned as well; and there are already Ed (disambiguation), NED (disambiguation), Ted (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:27, 17 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)

EDIT: I can also accept to tetarget to wikt:Ultraiectinus, as a second choice. Veverve (talk) 16:07, 19 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 00:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories

• Joseph Stalin's death conspiracy Theories → Joseph Stalin#Suggestions of assassination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I can tell, the target article doesn't discuss or even mention conspiracy theories. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

redirect to Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin § Illness and death or Delete.

The section contains some theories by historians that goes against the mainstream consensus. However it doesn't have much detail, so WP:RETURNTORED may apply. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Aside from the nominator's rationale, the last word is capitalized, which I find very questionable. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite AV media

• Cite AV media → Template:Cite AV media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

One of the many mainspace redirects that link to citation templates created by the same user. He has created many of them and I'm not in the mood for bundling so I might as well nominate one and see how that plays out. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:XNR to the pipeworking, not even close to readership content -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep Is no different than Cite web which was kept several times. I don't think either should exist, but there's no reason for one but not the other. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That was discussed in 2012, time to revisit it and get it deleted -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

NOTE #Cite web was nominated later today -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete while many results are for wikis many aren't so its not a Wikipedia specific term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Goolge book

• Goolge book → Google Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Goolge" by itself is somewhat implausible and there is books without the s. I bit too much off from Google Books TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• If it stays, the rcat needs a look. The capitalization of "book" is incorrect, sure, but that isn't the main difference between that title and the targeted one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Unlikely misspelling. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as unlikely misspelling. Too many errors. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Delete It's implausible, as Goolge is a misspelling of Google and is a search engine and not a book. Kolano123 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Googlw

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

possiblw implauiblw typo TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep this redirect. It's getting a decent number of pageviews (e.g., 475 last year, which is equivalent to a little over nine people a week), and plus, the W key is right next to the E key on a standard QWERTY keyboard layout (the high pageviews might possibly be partially due to that layout). Regards, SONIC678 00:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep plausible as an error, as per Sonic678, the exchange of letters of adjacent keys is a quite common category of typo -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Simple typos shouldn't have redirects since they never have any particular WP:AFFINITY to the particular thing being typoed. The number of possible such redirects (with just a single error of a neighboring key press) gets into the billions ...more if you consider other keyboard layouts and other sorts of errors like letter transpositions. Mediawiki's search feature is good enough to suggest "Google" if you type "Googld" (I was going to use "Googlr", but that one exists too; TeapotsOfDoom, I'd recommend adding that to the nomination). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RTYPO. This is a common fat-fingering of "Google". 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  From RTYPO: "This page summarizes the typical outcomes of past RfD discussions for some commonly nominated types of redirects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change." Indeed, there are countless other fat fingerings, this one being no more potentially likely than any other, and "google" is no more subject to such typos than any other sequence of keypresses for any other article. And as I also mentioned, the Mediawiki search feature will already list "Google" as its top suggested match, making this even more unneeded. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Sonic678. This one clearly gets some use. I don't think WP:AFFINITY applies, if someone types "googlw" it's pretty clear what they're trying to do. You could technically say they might've meant googol, but that's way more implausible. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The point about affinity is that one-letter-off typos have no particular affinity to the word being typoed. There's nothing unique about this particular error for this particular word, and as I mentioned above, the number of such possible redirects (conservatively) numbers in the billions. What makes this one so special? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:AFFINITY says provided this is not a common mistake or typo regarding that specific word or term, and since the redirect gets more than a pageview a day I'd say that it's a somewhat common typo. WP:AFFINITY is also less about letter-to-letter typos and more about other symbols and added adjectives, so I really don't think it applies here. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Kwwp as a kwyboard slip.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The typo is plausible (since on a typical QWERT keyboard the W and E keys are adjacent) and is evidenced (used more than once a day, per Sonic678). The appeal to WP:AFFINITY doesn't persuade because it includes an exception for a common mistake or typo regarding that specific word or term. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Unambiguous, plausible typo, and decent numbers of pageviews. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

GGKEY

• GGKEY → Google Books  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no mention TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment apparently it's Google's internal ID number for a book [27]; as not every book has an ISBN or EAN or UPC, there would be such needed at BGC -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Google Books Key. It's a thing, and should be mentioned in the article. BD2412 T 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  But it's not mentioned, so this redirect shouldn't exist. Moreover, just because "it's a thing" doesn't mean the article on Google Books needs to say anything about it. Our article should be a broad overview of the site -- what it does, its history, etc etc. A random technical detail of how it keeps track of ISBN-less books internally would be inappropriate to add. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, all books have a GGKEY at BGC, not just ones without ISBNs, from what I gather. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at the target, and probably shouldn't be (see above). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per IP. An (incredibly brief) Google search of GGKEY doesn't bring up anything other than guides on how to find a book by ISBN or similar identifiers, so it doesn't really seem to have the notability to warrant a mention at the article. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 16

Acrophobia car club

• Acrophobia car club → Acrophobia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Zero mention, but more importantly, zero context. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete – apparently this is the name of some kind of organization. The fact that there's a non-notable organization named after acrophobia is completely irrelevant to the article, so it shouldn't be mentioned there. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM. This looks like a car club is trying to clandestinely advertise itself by violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Google Currents (2011–present)

• Google Currents (2011–present) → Google Currents (news app)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are like 2 google currents and both of them are discontinued, but this redirect links to the one that got discontinued in 2013 instead of the one that got discontinued in 2023 for some reason. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete or else retarget to Current § Science and technology. The disambiguator doesn't actually disambiguate here, and it never has, so I don't see a good reason to keep the redirect. But if it is kept, it should be an {{r avoided double redirect}} of Google Currents. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Jamie Boo Birse

• Jamie Boo Birse → Linux Mint  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target or anywhere in Wikipedia, miseading. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect is misleading nonsense that doesn't mean anything. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment A Google search found that Jamie 'Boo' Birse was the maintainer of Linux Mint KDE Edition c. 2011. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the 2010 Haiti earthquake

• Conspiracy theories about the 2010 Haiti earthquake → 2010 Haiti earthquake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I can tell, the target article doesn't discuss or even mention conspiracy theories. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete, because Ctrl+Fing "conspiracy" in target article shows no hits. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Only one hit for "misinformation": Dr Evan Lyon of Partners in Health, working at the General Hospital in Port-au-Prince, claimed that misinformation and overblown reports of violence had hampered the delivery of aid and medical services. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

bccs

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

Retarget to BCCS -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy retarget – this doesn't require discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is in response to @Adakiko and 88.235.214.122:, who have already been notified with RFDnote. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why was I notified of this? Adakiko (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You replied to 88.235.214.122 and I, stating these style of redirects (redirects ending in "-s") needed further consideration on whither being plural-form-redirection or something else. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to BCCS since there are plural forms that can be separately disambiguated. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget the entries on the DAB without "S" appear to be mainly acronyms or other things that don't use the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to BCCS per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Zirabagtaria

• Zirabagtaria → Mark McMenamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. Only self published research gate page, and a non notable publication mentions this term. Blethering Scot 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Confusing useless redirect, because it is not mentioned in the target article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Vendamonia

• Vendamonia → Mark McMenamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. A google search combined term and name does not produce notable results. Blethering Scot 21:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone deleted the mentions of taxa, since they are fringe taxa, but they were described by Mark McMenamin (redirect)so they should be mentioned, I’m going to revert those edits Zhenghecaris (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per nomination, it does not need fringe taxa list in his article either. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Californian city redirects

• Los Angeles. → Los Angeles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San Francisco. → San Francisco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, the city doesn't have a full stop after it and isn't an abbreviation, L.A. already exists. See the most recent discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Canada. where I noted that adding the full stop may suggest its an abbreviation or actually called this and that it could cause confusion with things that actually do start with a full stop though unlikely. Similar redirects like Chicago., Houston. and New York. don't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not a useful redirect and agree with above statement.Blethering Scot 21:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Palankiras

• Palankiras → Mark McMenamin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded redirect - "Palankiras" is not mentioned on the target page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So hell

• So hell → Dependency hell  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unneeded redirect. The term "So hell" is not mentioned in the target article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So hell is a dependency hell about .so files, which .so is an executable format used on Linux. NagisaEf (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it should be a {{R from avoided double redirect to|.so hell}} as the extension is ".so", so .so hell. the equivalent of .dll hell ; .so shared object is a dynamically linked library of software functionality; the target already mentions library dependencies. Perhaps a note should be added to show common library extensions (ie. .dll, .so, .lib, etc) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  .dll is used on Windows only; .so is used on Linux, Unix, etc. In Linux, .so format does not provide stable ABI. NagisaEf (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Christian Alliance International School

• Christian Alliance International School → Christian Alliance P.C. Lau Memorial International School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect as Christian Alliance International School ([28]) and Christian Alliance P.C. Lau Memorial International School ([29]) are 2 separate schools in Hong Kong, causing potential confusion when the former is a redirect to the latter. Also there was previously some attempt at making a separate article for Christian Alliance International School but it was of essentially no value so I deleted it. Don't think anyone will attempt to actually make an article for the former anytime soon. HKLionel (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingite

• Kingite → Māori King movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous and not explained at target. (Soft) retarget to wikt:kingite? Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTSP. Information about the mineral is certainly encyclopedic. Whether or not it's notable enough for its own article, I can't really say, but it's probably better to just delete this one. As always, a search will automatically include a link to the Wiktionary entry at the top anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  On second thought, it might be better to dabify this one with entries for the current target, and maybe Phosphate mineral for the other, which has at least a brief mention. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No opposition to a dab. The term Kingite is regularly used in discussing the original forces that supported the movement during the war but the term hasn't been used int he article. I don't think it needs to be explained as 'Kingite' is obvious when given with the context. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• The current problem is the incoming links from other articles – they (five of them) are all for the mineral. Turning it into a dab page seems the most practical solution for now (without prejudging whether it might one day become the title for an article about the mineral). For the NZ topic, perhaps best to make the link from the dab page to Invasion of the Waikato, which uses the term many times, rather than Māori King movement. Nurg (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• DAB seems sensible, but I disagree with linking the dab page to Invasion of the Waikato. Kingite here is definitionally connected to the Kingitanga. — HTGS (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

DYUP-FM (Cebu)

• DYUP-FM (Cebu) → University of the Philippines Cebu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to University of the Philippines Cebu. This is the official campus radio station in Cebu City so there's no reliable sources for the article. KopikoBlanca2014 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@KopikoBlanca2014: If there are no reliable sources describing something, then Wikipedia cannot describe it either. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete DYUP-FM seems to be in UP Visayas in Miagao, Iloilo not Cebu according to my GSearch. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 18 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history in case of support for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

2023–24 X²O Badkamers Trophy Trophy

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

Wikipedia:Whitewashing

• Wikipedia:Whitewash → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wikipedia:Whitewashing → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unconvinced that the current target is definitely the right way for these redirects. Couldn't find "whitewash(ing)" or similar precisely. Possible alternative targets are WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:Neutral point of view... Maybe I'm missing others. Again, still couldn't find the word. If neither the alternative targets nor dab-ifying nor leave as-is is a viable solution, then I guess... delete? George Ho (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Peacock

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to me like WP:SYN from essentially a single source (since the second source given above does not even use the term directly!), and not a term in common use. Many non-managerial workers wear lanyard badges. You might as well create a link for the "suited class", "PPE-wearing class", "tabard class" or "steel-toed boot class". — The Anome (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"Laptop class" is also redirect to PMC due to similar usage.

"Lanyard class" has similar connotations and is in fairly frequent use, unlike the other phrases you mention: https://x.com/search?q=%22lanyard+class%22

Blog post that defines it and also mentions an (unlinked) mention in "academic literature". Used here in an interview on Jacobin. Somewhat difficult to find reliable sources using the exact term, but it's definitely in use and I added two other reliable source citations above. Lots of "lanyards", "lanyard wonks", "lanyard-wearing", etc. in articles. "Lanyard" is a signifier of a class.

Definition also listed on Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:lanyard

PK-WIKI (talk) 05:45, 20 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)
• Keep Bleach video games. As long as it doesn't cause confusion somehow, and as long as there's nothing better to do with it (e.g. overwriting with an article), "X" is pretty much always a good redirect to "List of X". This won't cause confusion (what other meaning would "Bleach video games" have?), so this should remain a redirect. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Bleach video games due to its lack of other possible uses, delete others as unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:39, 18 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) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: The page has a plot summary now with Snoutlet getting mentioned. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:43, 16 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:43, 16 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, [30] 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Added to the list, so now mentioned at the target. Judging by the others listed, he should probably have his own page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Asmodel

• Asmodel → List of DC Comics characters: A#Asmodel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was blanked by Quindraco. When I investigated, I saw why. "Asmodel" was removed from List of DC Comics characters: A, therefore breaking the redirect. It was if Asmodel, who is apparently a ten foot angel/devil, simply blinked out of existence. I would imagine this would be difficult for any ten feet being to do. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 04:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The B

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

Delete. B (disambiguation) contains no topics referred to as "The B." GilaMonster536 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep seems like a bunch of them could be so referred to -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Per Gilamonser; no evidence there is anything notable referred to as "The B." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't you take the B or ride on the B, missed the B... there's a load of transport articles listed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. To me, I would expect adding the "the" would take me to a disambiguation page or a more specific page rather than a generic article about the letter b. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Jerzy Waszyngton

• Jerzy Waszyngton → George Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFOREIGN, George Washington is not Polish. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as pointless - the reader should be looking for the Polish Wikipedia article, if anything, and there's no point in such a redirect here. — The Anome (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - not to mention that the article title for Polish Wikipedia is the same as English. pl:George Washington. JuniperChill (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per JuniperChill. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Opinion: My two cents as original author. I made this redirect becouse honestly, I thought it would be harmless since I doubt there will be an actual article named that, while it could potentially help users from Poland find article about Washington, in case they did not remember his English name, and also maybe help non-Polish speaking people in Poland (like English-speaking expatriats and students) find out that it's a translation for Washington (since I noticed there is quite a few Jerzy Waszyngton Streets in Poland). Idk if that's justifiable or not, and honestly I don't have strong options either way. Just thought I should explain my actions here.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Virtual reality addiction

• Virtual reality addiction → Video game addiction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

With the broader rise of extended reality (or the "XR boom") ever since Apple made their own XR headset, i believe that this article needs to become an independent page because VR/XR addiction is no longer limited to just gaming at this point, especially with the fact that spatial computing addiction is also possible. 67.209.130.80 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. Wikipedia does not currently have any section which discusses the redirect's topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:REDLINK. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. This might be a good candidate for an article in the future. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been living for the weekend but not anymore 'Cause here comes that familiar feeling that Friday's famous for Yeah, I'm looking for some action and it's out there somewhere You can feel the electricity on in the evening air

• I've been living for the weekend but not anymore 'Cause here comes that familiar feeling that Friday's famous for Yeah, I'm looking for some action and it's out there somewhere You can feel the electricity on in the evening air → Bright Lights Bigger City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If this was the first line of the song, I think Template:R from lyric would apply. However, this is almost the entire first verse per AZlyrics. Therefore, I don't think this is useful. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, as too long, and this much of the song in the title could cause copyright issues. Xeroctic (talk) 13:27, 16 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently a one-off gag from an episode, not worth mentioning. Page history was entirely unsourced and was mainly about some random humor blog on an obscure social media site. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Was found

• Was found → Cynthia Ann Parker  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete—Yes, this is a lit. translation of her (Comanche) name, but I think this is too vague to be the WP:PTOPIC primary topic for this title. (NPP action) Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete wrong case, if it is a proper noun, it should be capitalized -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

November 15

Winkepedia

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

Implausible and WP:UNNATURAL (how does "ki" become "nke"?). Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why, but this mistake is surprisingly common: [31][32] Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Ca's findings, a relatively common misspelling -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per @Ca's sources 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Attested error with surprising commonality, and this redirect gets consistent enough use to justify keeping. As for how "ki" becomes "nke"? Linguistics is fascinating! My best guess would be that it probably has to do with the commonality, or lack thereof, of the /ɪki/ phoneme cluster in English. How many English words can you think of with this cluster? Right now, I struggle to come up with any off the top of my head, other than "icky" (not saying there are none, but they aren't at the forefront of my mind). Now how many can you think of with /nki/ or /nkə/? Instantly, I can name binky, winky, thinky, drinky... childish words, perhaps, but they're there ready in my head. Basically, /ɪki/ isn't often natural English... which makes sense since it was borrowed from another language in the first place! /nki/ or /nkə/ might be a bit more easy to find, even if it may be coded as child-directed speech. Note that this is just a guess, and is mostly irrelevant to my !vote-- the fact that it gets used and can be found as an error extensively in the wild is much more to the point. Fieari (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rising And Setting Of The Sun

• Rising And Setting Of The Sun → Sunset  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could refer to a sunrise also. Classic WP:XY. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this might actually be a reference to Psalm 113 (verse 3). Not sure if it's a close enough match to redirect, but this is definitely where my mind first went. Fieari (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Setting" in the context of a sunset is not mentioned on that article. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Sun path, where the rising and setting of the Sun is discussed -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Miencraft

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

Implausible typo. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment as an adjacent character transposition error, this sort of typo is quite plausible. Though this redirect was only created in 2019, so it's relatively new, being just barely pre-pandemic. This shows up quite readily on a basic websearch [33] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per pageviews, which show that it has decent usage. Seems a plausible typo to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible typo. Or rather, just as plausible as every other way one could misspell it. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Quite a plausible typo according to its page views. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Over 110 views per year says that this is a useful redirect, making this a demonstrably plausible typo. I don't understand the crusade against typo redirects. Fieari (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Capitol protest

• Capitol protest → January 6 United States Capitol attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Capitol protests → January 6 United States Capitol attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Impossibly vague redirect. Could easily also refer to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, or the hundreds of other protests that happen around the world at various capitols. Delete.-1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete RECENTISM at work here. There are many capitol protests at many capitols -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Could this be dabified? Do we have other articles on things called Capitol protests? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"capitol" is a generic word in this format, it is "capitol protest(s)" and not "protest(s) at the Capitol", so that would include such as the occupation of the building in Abkhazia right now; the Gunpowder Plot; Stop Line 3 protests; April 30 storming of the Michigan State Capitol; 2021 United States capitol protests; George Floyd protests in Utah; 2024 storming of the Kenyan Parliament; 2023–2024 Georgian protests; etc, etc. I don't think it would make a good disambig page. You could make a list article instead. List of protests near, at, surrounding, around, and, in, capitol, legislature, and, parliamentary, buildings -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I is a useful search term. Should be DAB or List target.Blethering Scot 23:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I would prefer to dabify it. Seems a reasonable search term. Unsure if it passes NLIST but that could also be ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My problem is that there are wayyyy too many things that can be described as a "Capitol protest" that it becomes borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 190+ countries, 50+ US states plus Brazil, Canada, and Germany as federal governments, plus centuries of history including countries that no longer exist. It would be hard to maintain, and I doubt it would pass WP:NLIST. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"SD"

• "SD" → South Dakota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• "ND" → North Dakota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL redirect that if kept, should redirect to ND and SD. "Delete". -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNNATURAL, or retargeted per nom otherwise. Fieari (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Headwaters Country Jam

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

Not mentioned in target article or rest of Wikipedia. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 offseason

• 2007 offseason → 2007 NFL season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Other sports have offseasons besides the NFL. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong delete This is not the NFLpedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete NFL isn't the only sport with an off-season. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nueva Hampshire

• Nueva Hampshire → New Hampshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dakota del Norte → North Dakota  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be a fail of WP:RLANG, but I am not too confident. Weak Delete? -1ctinus📝🗨 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Half of the current U.S., including Dakotas, at some point were part of Spanish colonization of the Americas before Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. And given that USA doesn't have an official language and Spanish is the second most spoken, both redirects are justified. Web-julio (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete NH, keep ND as I don't see any strong ties between NH and Spanish languages. The area now in NH was not part of the Spanish colonization of the Americas so far as I can see, and only around 3% of the people in these states speak Spanish according to NH. However, ND was part of the Spanish colonization, and so has a tie to Spanish language. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Turkish Turkish

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

nonsense redirect Golikom (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep As per this source, this source, and this source, "Turkish Turkish" is not a nonsense statement, but rather one used for categorical purposes.

We must also keep in mind that "English English", "French French", "German German", and "Spanish Spanish" all exist too. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can hardly call these sources. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish (i.e., the Turkish language as spoken in Turkey). In that case the appropriate target might be Turkish dialects#Anatolian dialects. Similar redirects include German German (redirects to German Standard German), Spanish Spanish (redirects to Peninsular Spanish), English English (redirects to English language in England), French French (redirects to French of France), and Portuguese Portuguese (redirects to European Portuguese). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree. Of course, the redirect still shouldn't be deleted. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Shouldn't be deleted because you created it? Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's "Turkish of Turkey" if you look for the proper term. There is nothing like this nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we assumed users only used "the proper term" for everything we wouldn't need any redirects at all. BugGhost🦗👻 23:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete there is no such thing. There is "Turkish of Turkey" (Türkiye Türkçesi). Beshogur (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume "Turkish Turkish" means the Anatolian dialects of Turkish so non Anatolian Turks aren't Turkish? What kind of statement is this? Beshogur (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a non sequitur. By that logic, French French would insult Quebec French speakers and other non-Metropolitan French speakers by calling them not French (which they aren't and neither is Turkish Turkish, that's why there is a second Turkish/French in the terms).

And to answer your previous question, whether I created them or not has no importance on whether or not Turkish Turkish should be kept/deleted. My sources are self-explanatory.

Here's two more sources I found with "Turkish Turkish" used in them. [34][35] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop giving example of other things. There is nothing like Turkish Turkish, and these are the "sources" you have hardly found. Beshogur (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find evidence this phrase is used to refer to the language or any of its dialects. The sources provided by the creator read to me as simply codes for the specific courses. (See, for example, the similar listings for Chinese and French at UC Berkeley). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, however the following 3 sources still use "Turkish Turkish", with the latter 2 sources most definitely not using them as codes. [36][37][38] 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  These "sources" are beyond ridiculous. Beshogur (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  How so? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the government of Sydney, New South Wales uses it per the given [39] -- thus it is a reasonable construct. Turkish is spoken outside of Turkiye with non-Turkiye based dialects, so this is definitely usable. Refine target per Granger. And add {{R from avoided double redirect|Anatolian Turkish}} Turkish of Turkiye could also be created as a redirect with the same target and same Rcat -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  The government of Sydney is very reliable source for sure! Anyways, it uses "Southern Turkish" as a branch, then Turkish. Simply stop writing false information. This isn't even a source by the way. Beshogur (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So you contend that the governments of Tokyo, NYC, London, Paris, Moscow, etc, are *not* reliable? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what reliable are. Beshogur (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about the existence of a term, not about an event. I would assume sources needed would be more lenient than those needed for an event's occurrence? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no such term. Beshogur (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. As a redirect, it makes sense. And since it's in use, it doesn't really matter if it makes sense or not, either conceptually or grammatically (but if it was grammatically incorrect (aka redundant or pleonasm), so all other redirects mentioned above, such as German German, would be pleonastic/redundancies). Web-julio (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

or retarget per anon/Granger. Web-julio (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense what? So no one discovered this until late 2024? Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 20 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete. "Putting wedge" is definitely a term associated with golf clubs but since we don't really know where to mention it or what it really refers to, we might as well put it in the bin until the term has an actual definition. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (blocked sock)

• Refine to #chipper, as an unofficial, possibly erroneous, but commonly/colloquially used synonym. I can find published attestations for the term's use (in novels and such), but it isn't enough for inclusion in the article itself. But that's fine and plenty enough for a redirect, no inclusion is really needed. The redirect itself will inform someone searching for it: "A putting wedge is more correctly called a chipper." Fieari (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Nail You Down

• Nail You Down → Blue Öyster Cult  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a bootleg recording of a show, but isn't mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete...weak only because there's some article history, but it's completely unsourced. If anyone has an issue with that, it can always be PRODed or sent to AFD. Only info about this I found is the occasional blog, bare listing in a niche book, etc, and I doubt this could sustain its own article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Justin Bieber dead

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by Rsjaffe per WP:G3

W i k i p e d i a

• W i k i p e d i a → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I wager nobody would think about typing a space between every letter. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Implausible, plus ｗｅ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ａｎ ｉｎｄｉｓｃｒｉｍｉｎａｔｅ ｃｏｌｌｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｖａｐｏｒｗａｖｅ. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep WP:CHEAP and someone could paste it from some source that does that -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• D e l e t e   a s   U N N A T U R A L. CHEAP isn't a reason to keep unnatural/implausible redirects, and if the best you can come up with is "they might paste 'W i k i p e d i a' from some hypothetical source to search for Wikipedia on Wikipedia", that's about three stretches too far. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• D e l e t e p e r 35.139.154.158. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Now if you would excuse me, I have to update my playlist. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

D e l e t e p e r e v e r y o n e a b o v e . Y e s , t h i s r e d i r e c t i n d e e d f e e l s W P : U N N A T U R A L . 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Pppery, Steel1943 and Utopes. Too much drastically errors and it seems to its implausible words. This would be my final decision to close per WP:COSTLY. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:28, 15 November 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 [40] and [41] other [42] search engines [43] — 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)
• Retarget. I do think someone searching "2001 attacks" is likely to be looking for 9/11, but they'll find it on the new target page. As for "2001 terrorist attacks", this seems to me to be the most normal way to search for the material we have at List of terrorist incidents in 2001, a phrase I would probably not manage to come up with on my own (and I'm someone who is familiar with our title conventions in general). It's probably how I would start out by searching for that information on google. -- asilvering (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last three comments appear to be supportive of retargeting, but still gonna relist as overall discussions still appear to be somewhat mixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. I agree with the nominator, 9/11 is not the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001. 67.209.128.164 (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Sun8908. As far as I can tell, the primary topic is the town in Shandong, which we don't have an article for. I don't think this is a plausible enough search term for Linjiang, Linchen, Lin Jian, or Chen Linjian to be worth a disambiguation page. Best to let the search function do its job until an article about the town in Shandong is created. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ベトナム系オーストラリア人

• ベトナム系オーストラリア人 → Vietnamese Australians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This makes even less sense. It's literally just Australians who are ethnically Vietnamese. Why would someone search this up in Japanese? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:RFOREIGN this is not Japanese Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

サイゴン

• サイゴン → Ho Chi Minh City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Japan and Vietnam have quite an interesting relationship to say the least, but it's probably not enough to warrant a redirect to one of its cities. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Japanese: サイゴン, romanized: Saigon is the old name for Japanese: ホーチミン市, romanized: Hōchimin-ichi, lit. 'Ho Chi Minh City'. So, did the Japanese Occupation Forces during WW2 call it "Saigon", or did they call it something else? It is actually written as Vietnamese: 柴棍, romanized: Sài Gòn, so one would expect that the Japanese would have also written it that way in WW2. Japanese: 柴棍; or did the Japanese rename the city, or pronounce it differently with various Japanese sounds used for these characters? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Rihanna Death

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted by Asilvering per WP:G3

人身売買

• 人身売買 → Human trafficking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED. Human trafficking occurs in every country so by that logic, we might as well make every translation of human trafficking be a redirect. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

アメリカ合衆国国務省

• アメリカ合衆国国務省 → United States Department of State  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:FORRED TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Teletubbies characters)

• Teletubbies characters) → Teletubbies#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Paratheses bracket at the end. Don't know if this can be speedied, but we probably all know the drill. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:UNNATURAL Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nueva York (desambiguación)

• Nueva York (desambiguación) → New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

a WP:FORRED for a disambiguation of all things TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORRED. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Mwwv, WP:RFOREIGN, and my earlier nomination for a similar redirect. We don't need foreign disambiguators for disambiguation pages. Regards, SONIC678 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete people probably want es:Nueva York (desambiguación). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Radiac detector

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

Fishers Island, New York (old edit history)

• Fishers Island, New York (old edit history) → Fishers Island, New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Three years after the target and an essentially duplicate article were merged into one page, this redirect was created from a move by Nyttend (who might want to weigh in on this matter) to rearrange and preserve the edit history of the latter (which is located at Fishers Island). However, since this rearrangement was completed back in 2010 and there's not much history located at this exact "old edit history" title, I'm not sure we still need this redirect. I'm leaning toward deletion here, but I'm open to other outcomes, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. Regards, SONIC678 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a temporary location used for rearranging pages and not cleaned up afterwards as housekeeping, since the edit history clearly was relocated elsewhere. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:46, 16 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. [44], The Morning Call [45],Chicago Tribune [46][47], Star Tribune [48] , among others. Timur9008 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Racial violence

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

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled together with Racial violence and relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• tendency to Oppose. I looked at four of the roughly 30 articles that have the redirect racial violence. The legal formulation of hate crime seems to be fairly modern, from the 1980s - although per our article it's used retrospectively to interpret older events, and the article seems mostly to cover the legal aspects of the topic. Ethnic conflict seems to be a broader article including those hate crimes patterns that evolve into major (often intra-state) armed conflicts. The intended usage of racial violence seems to be somewhere in between and overlapping hate crime and ethnic conflict, in terms of the current state of the articles. I think that the different focus of the two articles is in some sense in singular - hate crime - versus ethnic conflict = plural hate crimes (pattern of many events on scales going up to 100s or millions of victims). Scale is a natural way to divide topics - when a set of hate crimes constitutes a crime against humanity or a genocide is not purely a case of scale, but scale clearly contributes. My feeling is that the relevance of racial violence as a link is to the broader pattern of multiple hate crimes, not so much individual ones. Caveat: I arbitrarily selected only four out of about 30 links - so this may misrepresent the more common usage. There is a see also link from ethnic conflict to hate crime, so a reader looking thoroughly may find that anyway. Boud (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think adding "Racial violence" to this discussion has confused the issue a little. My initial proposal was for "Racially motivated violence" to be retargeted to "Hate crime" because the usage seems more consistent with that definition. The case for "Racial violence" is much less clear. Certainly, scale plays a part. I recently created the redirect "Racially motivated attack". A racially motivated attack is a hate crime and an example of racially motivated violence, but doesn't necessarily imply ethnic conflict in the sense described by our article on that subject. An example is the murder of Stephen Lawrence: in that article, the phrase "racially motivated attack" is piped to "Hate crime". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blind tasting

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Pauletta Brupbakher

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Stephoscope

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mongola

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 21 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)
  • On second thought, this could also just redirect to Mongolia (disambiguation), where appropriate entries could be found for Mongols (subsidiary dab link) and Mongolia -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Mongolia (disambiguation) per IP. Pageviews are decent and typo is plausible, so I don't see a reason for deletion, and the dab page has relevant links for both of the likely intended targets. Also (and maybe this is just for me?), in the search results for "Mongola" both Mongolia and Mongols are absent from the first page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:47, 15 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 is not entirely exclusive to. For example, see the list of incoming redirects 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep No one is suggesting that American history ended in 2024, but 2008-2024 is covered in the target article. Ultimately, this is harmless. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - It is a small issue in that, as noted, it isn't causing any harm, however I agree that nobody is likely to type in that specific string of characters in our search - what will most likely happen in such a case is that somebody will start typing in "History of the United States (2..." and then autocomplete options will present. If you do this now, you'll see both the (2004-present) and the (2004-2024), which in my eyes is confusing, especially if I'm a regular reader who doesn't understand Wikipedia's policy on redirects. What's more, this does fall into crystal ball territory, and is a title that makes implications which readers might take as reinforcement that Wikipedia agrees with a particular viewpoint, something which I think would be more helpful to avoid. Any implications about the period demarcations of American history are best left to our sources. ASUKITE 01:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1

• Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1 → Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• All redirects at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) except Talk: Lost (2004 TV series)

Several redirects were created when I tried to move Lost (2004 TV series) to Lost (TV series) after closing an RM discussion, but did not notice that the talk page was move protected, causing me to attempt a manual round robin and probably botching something in the process. I am hoping this, along with all the redirects listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Lost_(2004_TV_series) can be deleted, as opposed to filling somebody's noticeboard with several dozen CSDs.

If they're kept for some reason, I will go about retargeting them, but from the look of it none of them are actually linked to outside of the other redirects. They should either qualify for WP:G6 or one of the redirect criteria. ASUKITE 01:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there are incoming links to some. Get them straightened out and I don't see why this can't then be speedied. (Or wait a day and a bot should clean up the 2xredirs...) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I can take a look later tonight when I'm back home if the bot hasn't already gotten to them. ASUKITE 16:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

November 14

Kentuchy

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

possible implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:07, 21 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete doesn't seem plausable but does get some Google results. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Confusing Pokémon Redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Confusing Pokémon Redirects

Blaze (Pokemon)

• Blaze (Pokemon) → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon abilities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. Refers to a single, minor example of a topic at the article, and is not significantly important, falling under a trivial detail. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• delete as obscure game ability. It is a decent ability but not something really notable in Pokemon PvP. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

did it get recreated? i'm pretty sure i nominated this one before. delete, possibly again cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This one has been around since 2008 according to the edit history, so it might've been another Blaze redirect that was slightly different. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TOV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Just one more thing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Just one more thing

Durahan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

凧

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

mentioned, but not directly. the article mentions 祝い凧 (iwai tako, or celebration kite) as a funny thing japan does to celebrate stuff, but not 凧 (tako, or kite). opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RFOR, this subject does have some affinity for Japanese given the history of kites. Furthermore, the kanji does appear in the article-- no, not solo, but 祝い just means celebration, and is a very simple grammatical adjective; it does not make the combination 祝い凧 a unique and different word. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

oh right yeah while we're at it, should i create 祝い凧 after this is done? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Paricha

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Deepeeka

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Clock/calendar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

TeXvc

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ballball ball

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Working principle of TV

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Televison actor

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

babble box

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dhol (Kirat)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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" [49][50][51]. 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)
• Delete Not mentioned at target. If you have to do this level of OR to justify a redirect, then just don't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Pppery. It seems other Chinese language name will preferred from Kirsten. Unfortunately, there is no absolutely match why did transliterated in other romanization name. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:43, 22 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

Wikipedia:Request a search

• Wikipedia:Request a search → Wikipedia:Request a query  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't know if there's a reasonable target for this (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Wikipedia:Help desk?), but the current target isn't. Someone typing WP:Request a search into their address bar is overwhelmingly likely to be looking for help with Wikipedia's internal search, or at least with searching wikitext or rendered page text, and WP:RAQ isn't for the former and isn't capable of doing either of the latter. —Cryptic 06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Request_a_query#List_of_articles_likely_to_have_one_or_no_sources indicates that some others seem to feel it is the appropriate place. In order to retarget this, we need to agree for there to be an alternative venue and decide on one. In the absence of that, I don't think we're ready for a change. Sdkb ^talk 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The page would look pretty silly with ":Wikipedia:Request a search redirects here. To request help with a search, see Help:Searching." stuck to the top. It's out of scope. —Cryptic 02:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    • To be clear I don't disagree with the scope of WP:Request a query. I figured it was easier to answer the slightly misplaced request rather than making you go to another venue like VPT where I would likely still be the one answering. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete confusing as I'd expect it to more likely refer to how to search for something like Help:Searching given the help and WP namespace are often treated as the same or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

RS/N

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Interactive (disambiguation) as a plausible misspelling (vowels that reduce to schwa can easily be mistaken for each other). Fieari (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't a schwa though; it's a stressed short i. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  My local dialect/accent definitely reduces it to a schwa sometimes, nearly dropping it altogether. 'nteractive. 'nternet. I don't think this is uncommon. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not totally off the wall as a misspelling, but still pretty unlikely given how common "inter-" is as a prefix. And in this case, having this would be harmful as it would inhibit searching for this actual term, which has quite a few hits in WP already as various company names (none of which are main enough for a redirect themselves). This seems to be what the original target was for, but I'm having trouble finding much about the exact relationship. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. And to add a little, god forbid I say the P-word, but yes WP:PANDORA applies, lest "enter-" redirects are deemed appropriate to make for all the (what I assume are) thousands of articles that begin with "inter-". This one is only even being intertained entertained because this redirect was up here for a different reason. Arguing for a retarget (and why to the dab page? Why not to the same place that "interactive" itself redirects?) is tantamount to saying: yes, we should delete this, but we should also make a brand new redirect, which no one seems to have bothered doing in the many years that the thousands of "inter-" articles have existed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I was curious, and Special:Prefixindex/Inter just goes on and on, so I ran the numbers. "Thousands" is correct. There's currently 10360 mainspace pages with titles starting "Inter", and another 22605 mainspace redirects starting "Inter"; 10407 of those redirects target mainspace pages not starting with "Inter", so would need {{R from avoided double redirect}}s created too if we took this as a mandate.
    For my part, I don't strongly care whether it's kept or deleted, but do not retarget to the disambig unless something with that spelling is mentioned there. (And I doubt it would belong if it were.) Not a plausible misspelling. For context, original target was LJN Toys, which at the time was a separate article that did prominently mention this term. —Cryptic 19:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

comment: a little late to remember to mention and probably inconsequential at this point, but the only evidence i found of enteractive working under ljn was circular. that is, old diffs and incoming links cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

  So now we have two other proposed targets. Any place this can point is guesswork, and a redlink clearly tells the user that there is no September 31. Still support deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the current target already tells this day doesn't exist, especially cause if it existed it would have its own mainspace article. Anyways, does December 32 imply it exists? Web-julio (talk) 02:34, 17 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)
• Retarget to September 30 per @Hyphenation Expert. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• September, which says that it has only 30 days in the first (very short) paragraph, makes more sense than either of the two new proposals, and I'd say to retarget there if there were any internal links. But there aren't, and a redlink is a better result here for all other use cases. Delete. —Cryptic 06:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, if September 31 ever gets talked about in Wikipedia, it would be in the current target (list). However, it's not yet. Though both mentions the words separatedly. Web-julio (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Pppery. There is no information on why did the editor must added in a leap year for September. IMO, there is only 30 days beneath the month of September but not added in one day. See this: [52] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 03:53, 17 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)
• Keep per @Thryduulf. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Looks like the right target to me. And the research above agrees, so my !vote is per that. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 14 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)

• Weak keep. No, there isn't a list at the target, but several of the cultures at the target were able to work copper in their later years, such as the Erligang culture and the Yueshi culture, so it seems reasonable to keep this until such a time that a proper list is split off. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 14 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• There are indeed many, see ceb:Karhusaari. Probably the base name should be a DAB and thus this redirect there. Karhusaari is also an island which has an article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: ... but as you know, a disambiguation page is not a list of things in the world, but an index of articles on English Wikipedia (of which we currently have two). By all means improve the existing Karhusaari (disambiguation), because otherwise it can be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

North Korean tree

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

There's a fire starting in my heart

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

6β-Aminonaltrexol

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rabscuttle

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Gabe Newell syndrome

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

November 13

Zhuhui Stadium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Zhuhui Stadium

Baby gaetz

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Baby gaetz

Draft:British politician sex

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

SI

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Diya Chitale

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mineraft controversies

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Not a squid

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Herobrain

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

Adult contemporary progressive death metal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Adult contemporary progressive death metal

Purple francis

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore and send to AfD

Media coverage of Donald Trump

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump (2026)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Criticism of George Bush

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Criticism of George Bush

Criticism of Donald Trump

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Criticism of Donald Trump

Ryan Girdusky

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

James J. Finn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#James J. Finn

Cricoarytenoid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Cricoarytenoid

Chingisid

• Chingisid → Borjigin#Genghisids  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Which articles should these redirects point to? The current situation is inconsistent and confusing.

1. Chingisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
2. Chingissid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
3. Chinggisid redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
4. Chinggisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
5. Chingissids does not exist yet.
6. Chinggissids does not exist yet.
7. Genghisids redirects to Borjigin#Genghisids (section does not exist anymore)
8. Genghisid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
9. Chingizid redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan
10. Family tree of Genghis Khan redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan.
11. Jochid redirects to Jochi, but Jochids redirects to Descent from Genghis Khan. (Jochid Ulus redirects to Golden Horde, that seems fine).

Personally, I am in favour of redirecting them all to Descent from Genghis Khan, as a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid is, strictly speaking, a descendant from Genghis Khan, not an earlier Borjigin, while Genghis Khan himself was obviously not a Chingis(s)id / Ghenghisid, but a Borjigin only. Redirecting to a section always risks link rot anyway, as section titles often change or they are rearranged, while Descent from Genghis Khan as a whole will presumably always be dedicated to this very subject. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: Not sure if I formatted this RfD correctly; I rarely do these. Do I need to tag all redirects in question? NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Section redirects are useful in taking the reader straight to the relevent part of a large article. A link from Genghisids to Borjigin can confuse the reader, since the Borjigin article does mention Genghisids in the lead. Link rot can be reduced by linking to an anchor rather than a section name, e.g. {{anchor|Genghisids}}. An editor is likely to preserve the anchor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw if you meant to nominate all of them, then no. if you want to nominate multiple redirects at once, you could try this mass xfd tool. then again, it doesn't matter much, since anyone could just do whatever is deemed necessary with them after this is closed (except deleting, that's an admin thing) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• See this version of the Chingisid article. The broadest meaning of the term is "to do with Ghengis Khan", and could mean "descended from Ghengis" but could have various other meanings depending on context. Possibly the solution would be to pick the spelling used in the largest number of articles and make it a disambiguation page pointing to Descent from Genghis Khan, Yassa, Khanate and Golden Horde. Point the other spellings to the disambiguation page. Links can then be cleaned up to point to the page that discusses the intended meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  A disamb page might indeed be the best solution here. What do others think? NLeeuw (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've been intending to create a new article on the Chinggisid dynasty for some time. If others are amenable, I can get started in the next couple of days. The first nine redirects can then target that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Pages that refer to Chinggisid dynasty should link to it directly. But the disambiguation page would also list Descent from Genghis Khan, the Chingisid principle (Yassa golden lineage), Chingisid states (Khanates), Chingisid people (e.g. Golden Horde) and Chingizid (moth). The various forms of Chingisid should redirect to the disambiguation page. A page that included a link to, e.g., Chingizid would be flagged for clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Of course, if the dynasty is the dominant meaning of the term (I don't think it is, may be wrong), the forms of Chingisid would redirect to Chinggisid dynasty, which would have a hatnote {{Otheruses|Chinggisid (disambiguation)}}, and Chinggisid (disambiguation) would list the other meanings. We need a list of all pages that use some variant of the word, with or without a link, showing what they mean by it. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

      I don't think "Chingisid dynasty" as such makes much sense. There are competing definitions of what a "dynasty" even is; a series of hereditary monarchs who each sat on the throne, excluding all their relatives who didn't? The entire family of that series of hereditary monarchs? The "state" or "empire" governed by them? Etc. See the discussions about Rurikid dynasty and category:Rurik dynasty, where we ended up renaming them to just Rurikids and Category:Rurikids. Similarly, see the recent scholarly work of Raffensperger & Ostrowski 2023, The Ruling Families of Rus, where the whole concept of a dynasty is heavily criticised as an outdated and ambigious concept that erases lots of people from history who didn't sit on the throne, despite wielding significant political or otherwise power and influence for sometimes decades. (Note: they also discuss 'house', 'clan' and 'family', and end up choosing 'family', as can be seen in the title.) If there is to be a new article, separate from the existing ones on Borjigin and Descent from Genghis Khan, I strongly recommend that the title be Chingisids, and to omit a word like 'dynasty'. NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

      PS: But really, I think such an article might easily become a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the existing articles, so let's make sure it would have added value separate from what we've already got, or integrate such contents into our existing articles. My question here is just to make consistent redirects. NLeeuw (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

      I strongly disagree. The term "Chinggisids" has strong independent notability as distinct from the Borjigin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

      I may start an Index of articles related to Ghengis Khan, including redirects. I suspect there is a fair amount of forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The Crimean Giray dynasty was referred to as the "Genghisids". Genghisid/Chinggisid literally means Borjigin dynasty. Descent from Genghis Khan is irrelevant in this context, and I don't even know why this article exists. Should be merged. "Chingisid dynasty" doesn't exist. Only two words should be redirected Chinggisids and Genghisids. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but similarly, lots of people were referred to, or referred to themselves, as "Romans", and yet histiographical convention names a great number of them "Byzantines", for example. We could theoretically always merge everything, but we'll soon end up with articles that are WP:TOOLONG (e.g. List of Roman emperors should imo have been split, because it's way too long to navigate comfortably, and we already had List of Byzantine emperors.) Although I made a plea for not splitting off a new articles named Chingisids above if there was no obvious need, I think we shouldn't underestimate the value of splitting up articles either. NLeeuw (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Descent from Genghis Khan is a very odd article that should probably be redirected, but Chinggisid is distinct from the wider Borjigin term primarily because it was descent from Genghis, not general membership of the Borjigin, that legitimised rule in the post-Mongol world. See discussion in e.g. May 2017. While the Borjigin altan urugh (golden family) included the descendants of Genghis's brothers and of his children by concubines such as Kolgen, they were not eligible for rulership because they were not Chinggisid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think I see a solution. I will expand Chinggisids until it is reasonably complete; Borjigin needs also a little bit of expansion and a lot of rewriting to match current scholarship (many of its sources are half a century old and vastly out of date).

Meanwhile, Descent from Genghis Khan should be renamed and refocused onto the matter of genetic descent from Genghis—i.e. the numerous papers that have been released after the "16 million descendants" article from 2003.

All redirects seem fairly self-explanatory then, except for Jochid/Jochids which should probably redirect to Golden Horde, and Family tree of Genghis Khan which would probably work best as a redirect to Chinggisids, if I can figure out how the family tree thing works. Thanks for bringing matter up, NLeeuw. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Yes, I suppose renaming Descent from Genghis Khan to Genetic descent from Genghis Khan or something works better. Chinggisids can then fully focus on the reigning families of the late Middle Ages descended from Genghis or married into that family. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

PS: I would recommend doing a search query in reliable sources to check for the WP:COMMONNAME. We better prevent endless disputes about how to spel "Chingisids" (I don't care which, but we need to pick one). NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The current spelling (Chinggisids) is favoured in most reliable sources that I can see, including all cited so far in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ngrams appears to overwhelmingly agree. I'm a bit surprised; I'm not that familiar with the double g spelling. Halperin 1987, which I use a lot for reference, has single g, single s, and some of his sources are single g, double s, but apparently they are in the minority. Ngrams shows the double g, single s spelling quickly gaining ground from the 1990s onwards. Seems like you've chosen the right title, so I guess that settles it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Temple of Charents

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mugwump (Miscellaneous Uses)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

1-naphthoquinone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

TW/PREFS

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

WPIRS

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2-Aminonaphthalenel

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Deja moo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Snaghai

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

S'hai

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

November 11

Communist Party (Kosovo)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ジュゲム

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep and tag with {{R with possibilities}}; I added PKS 1402-012 to the bulleted list at Parkes Catalogue of Radio Sources pulling a reference from the redirect page history that I thought was the most general (I didn't parse through those 33 references too thoroughly though). This doesn't quite satisfy WP:SELFRED, but there's enough in the page history to benefit another editor if this object becomes more notable. Should GalaxyBeing request deletion, I trust that decision. ― Synpath 20:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Northern countries

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Northern countries

Lepaging the field

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Lepaging the field

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would close as disambiguate, but I don't know where to disambiguate to. Final relisting to address this question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep because as far as I'm aware, there's no article relevant to the "marked with cross lines" second meaning. If anyone can come up with a relevant article, disambiguate. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  yeah, but the problem is that bones are at best not even the only thing the first meaning could refer to. and also that the term isn't mentioned in any possibly fitting target, i guess. really, the only mentions of it here are in some articles about shells, but i'd venture a guess that "cancellated" would refer to something else not mentioned in wiktionary in that context, as i don't think shells would gain much out of being open, spongy, or marked with cross lines cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

PS, User:Cogsan and User:BD2412 and User:Thryduulf, would Check (pattern) be a useful second article for the disambiguation page? Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

i think not, and there doesn't seem to be an article for cross patterns (whatever that would mean, results gave me 8 fucktillion different types of patterns) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to wiktionary. The only entry in a dab page I could come up with would be the partial title match 'cancellated bone' which would link to Bone#Trabeculae. Redirecting Cancellated solely to that is unsatisfactory in that the word is used in the descriptions of gastropod shells and arthropod exoskeletons (see Glossary of gastropod terms, Glossary of arthropod cuticle and search results). The more specific Cancellated bone may be worth creating as a redirect to Bone#Trabeculae as a synonym/misremembering of cancellous bone. ― Synpath 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Överflöd Entity XF

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alliance OS

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Freedows OS

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

Nomos Publishing House redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Work is an honor

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Work is an honor

Arbeitsamt

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ceddin Deden

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Ceddin Deden

Cute number

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Cute number

Paradise Airlines

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: articlified

Step back, doors closing

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Web interfaces

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Web interfaces

chicken/egg

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mlawu ka Rarabe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Mlawu ka Rarabe

Komodo dragon fact sheet

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

miscellaneous earthbound characters

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

miscellaneous earthbound plot things

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rare pokemon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Life Without Hope

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rohit

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Ro (antigen)

• Ro (antigen) → Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Autoantigen Ro → Calreticulin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We need an expert to determine if these are correctly targeted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the first link, as the "Ro antigen" is mentioned there and I think this is the main article discussing it. Is there some controversy we're not aware of? For the second link, the Ro antigen is also a Ro autoantigen, that is, this is an autoimmune response. Hence, also Redirect "Autoantigen Ro" to Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies. Calreticulin was not a terrible target, but Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies is the more relevant target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget both to Anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies#Antigens where the Ro antigens are discussed thoroughly. The Calreticulin article states that it is proven to not be a Ro antigen. ― Synpath 14:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of consensus, redirect to the Antigens section is also a good outcome. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• keep per Mark viking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of object-oriented programming

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Criticism of object-oriented programming

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 09:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Super Heavy. Lists of super heavy tanks, of superheavy elements, etc. are also plausible targets, and assuming SpaceX has to be the primary topic for being in the news right now is clear-cut WP:RECENTISM. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Recentism would apply if this was immediately after IFT-5.

As has been proved above, SpaceX Super Heavy is a significantly more viewed (and higher quality) than any of the proposed alternate destinations.

Additionally, the article is larger than all of the others. Combined. By a factor of 1.9

Changing a redirect from a high quality article to low quality articles or a disambiguation page makes no sense at all. Redacted II (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. Why is this relisted? There is a clear consense to retarget. Apart from a Don Quixote and his knight who oppose clearly out of personal liking without good arguments, and who just want the lack of action to endure = let everything (misleading) as it is. 47.69.66.57 (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus to retarget.

This isn't a vote, after all.

And given that your reasoning for deletion was "This is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term "Heavies", created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground", mentioning "good arguments" is probably unwise.

(Also, this is your final warning. Stop the WP:Pa violations) Redacted II (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

retarget to super heavy. it's likely that the current target would be subject to recentism, and not equally likely that readers would be looking for other super heavies, though i'm not sure if that'd be more or less likely. this isn't a case like america or ledian cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The SpaceX Super Heavy is the more viewed article, even without a direct redirect.

Low between launches is about 600 views. Compare that to Super Heavy, which got 2. I'm honestly not sure why it even exists.

Why redirect from a high quality article to a low quality disambiguation page? Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the last sentence of my vote already included that answer. if it's not the unambiguous primary topic for a term by the same margin that separates glass joe and mr. sandman, it's likely not primary enough for wikipedia's standards, and as is, this discussion convinced me that more people will be looking for the tanks if they want a "list of super heavies"

and also, this is a redirect, the quality or lack thereof of its target is irrelevant, just that it has what a reader might be looking for cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The number disagree.

11/17 Super-heavy tank views: 351

11/17 SpaceX Super Heavy views: 881

Therefore, approximately 70% would be looking for the booster. When factoring in the other articles, this probably drops to maybe 65%, but that is still a significant majority.

Changing the redirect to serve the ~30% of readers looking for the tank makes little sense when it impacts the 65% looking for a list of boosters. Redacted II (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the views those articles get isn't actually that relevant to what someone looking for a title like this should expect. even then, ~65% is more so the margin separating mad clown and mr. sandman cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a much better indicator than who comments in a rather obscure discussion.

Also, you keep on listing margins for characters from a boxing game without providing data. What evidence do you have? Redacted II (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(Oh, and my apologies for not responding earlier) Redacted II (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

to make it a little more understandable, the required margin would be a lot (comparable to the difference in spiciness between milk and a carolina reaper), and this... really isn't it, to be honest

should have also mentioned precedent of the term usually referring to the tanks and elements before, and how it would affect reader expectations, but it's probably a little late for that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any policy that supports such a large margin?

65% of all views in the "super heavy" category is quite a large margin, with this increasing to well over 90% during launches. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

it should be wp:dpt, unless i got some stuff tangled up cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That link was quite helpful. Thank you.

Looking at the requirements, I believe that SpaceX Super Heavy satisifies them.

But going through:

1: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term"

65% of all views is more than all others combined.

"A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

The first stage of a Super heavy-lift launch vehicle (especially the first one that has been recovered, and the first one expected to be reusable) is extremely notable.

Looking at WikiNav, 93% of people arriving at Super Heavy go to SpaceX Super Heavy. This is an extremely large majority, and is sufficient to declare SpaceX Super Heavy the primary topic. Redacted II (talk) 00:03, 22 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. BOZ (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Cute little k

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cute-chan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cute of the Class

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 10

Katherine "Katie" Breann Cooper

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Australian Women's Health Alliace

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

LOTAD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Michael "Seven" Summers

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

2024-25 X²O Badkamers Trophy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedily deleted and recreated

Dialects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nagasaki Buzzard Attack Chopper (attack helicopter) (Grand Theft Auto V)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

VIA Rail Kanada

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Radio-Canada

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Radio-Canada

Plannet terror

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20#Plannet terror

Kikurage

• Kikurage → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kikurage mushroom → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Kikurage mushrooms → Auricularia heimuer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what the path forward here is with these redirects. I recently changed the target of these redirects from Tremella fuciformis to Auricularia heimuer (while creating Kikurage) after finding that most results in English for the term "Kikurage" refer to Auricularia heimuer (specifically its use in Japanese cuisine), which would claim it to essentially be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term due to its common use in English to refer to the Japanese culinary use. However, after reviewing Tremella fuciformis, the term "Kikurage" is mentioned in the article, which is probably why the redirects Kikurage mushroom and Kikurage mushrooms targeted there. At this point, I'm not sure if "keep", "retarget" or "disambiguate" (possibly by retargeting to Wood ear?) is the best course of action here, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Just from reading the articles it seems that the redirects to Auricularia heimuer are correct. Tremella fuciformis is the shiro kikurage (or white kikurage) in Japanese. I don't think this is just a white form of kikurage, as it is a very different fungi (different taxonomic classes). This seems to me more akin to tiger and Tasmanian tiger where the latter are not closely related to cats. The only question is whether "Kikurage mushrooms" could be used for such different mushrooms that are used quite differently in cooking.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Neal.fun

• Neal.fun → Infinite Craft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two Wikipedia articles exist for games on neal.fun, The Password Game and Infinite Craft. No clear primary topic. Sebbog13 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• (was made aware of the redirect, but not the RfD, via the Wikimedia Discord.) SIAfy seems like the best option here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  To help other people who also didn't what what SIAfying means, after looking around I believe leeky is referring to Set index articles BugGhost🦗👻 08:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete An SIA doesn't seem appropriate here, as we aren't trying to distinguish between two games with similar names. Rather, both games are produced by Neal.fun. Since both games are notable, it's reasonable that their manufacturer would be as well. Thus, I prefer deletion to promote article creation. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete redirect for now. If neal.fun meets GNG then perhaps I could create that article (as my very first article!) Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I agree SIA'ing, until neal.fun article gets created. Perhaps I could create it! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Is Neal.fun something that could be its own article? CheeseyHead (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is not an appropraite situation for a set index - that would be effectively creating an article with no assertion of notability via the back door. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

David Szymanski

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

RubRub

• RubRub → Geometry Dash#Pre-Geometry Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is what community members jokingly call the creator of this game so it's possible fancruft. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak where a different topic by this name is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete This is a niche term, so anyone knowing this nickname probably knows the proper name as well. The mention at Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak is so pitiful that it does not warrant a redirect. It would aso WP:ASTONISH readers. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per Ca. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Stars War

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Stars War

Netcasting

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

Palmcasting

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

Punchcasting

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

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 15:23, 10 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)

• Delete. Unless someone adds a mention at the proposed target. I don't see how anyone would benefit from this if it isn't mentioned anywhere. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per CycloneYoris. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 22 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still delete? Or do we want to retarget to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! chapters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

i think it might still be a little vague, to be honest. nyarlathotep forbid someone bring psychonauts in here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep The redirect is pretty harmless, and the argument of being "one letter off" is a bit ridiculous since it's unlikely for a person to miss the letter "R" and hit the letter "L" since theyre pretty far away. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per usual standards for unmentioned fictional elements. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:15, 22 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)

• Weak retarget to Coromandel International which is the target of Coromandel FC. Jay 💬 10:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ayak

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Andra Ghech

• Andra Ghech → Chitral District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this on the current target page or Khot valley, the original target. It might be a village in one of the two places. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Flag of North Yemen

• Flag of North Yemen → Flag of Yemen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ill make it an article just like how Flag of South Yemen is an article Abo Yemen✉ 11:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Normally, I'd say retarget to North Yemen (which is incorrectly marked as a dab page, more on that in a moment), which has a picture of the flag. It's short enough to accommodate information about the flag there, and if a spinout is warranted, that can happen without discussion here. However, I notice that the nominator has recently converted it from a dab page to an article (without removing the dab template or adding any sources). I don't know a thing about the history of the region and have no idea if this was reasonable or not. I'd encourage others that might to take a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you make it an article, I'd say delete. CheeseyHead (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Kenji Tanaka

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis

• Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis → Β-Lactam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lectka Reaction → Β-Lactam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lectka Enantioselective Beta-Lactam Synthesis → Β-Lactam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lectka Asymmetric Beta-Lactam Synthesis → Β-Lactam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The top redirect was previously an article that was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lectka_enantioselective_beta-lactam_synthesis, apparently to preserve the option for a partial merge. But no merge has occurred, nor has any interest in doing so been expressed, nor do I think there is any content worth merging. There is no evidence this is a named reaction that is common enough to merit mention in the article. Delete all. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Jeb Bush on the issues

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

November 9

Walt Disney Productions

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Yosi (Nintendo character)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus

England Lionhearts

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

Featured topic criteria

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Featured and good topic candidates

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rúben Amorim

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

98 degrees\

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Waking the Dragons

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Ultrajectine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Ultrajectine

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Restore and send to AfD. There isn't enough substance at List_of_American_comics_creators to warrant a redirect there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Restore and AfD and oppose a retarget to the list per IP. Jay 💬 06:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Jafar

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) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:02, 21 November 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?[53] 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Though WP:CHEAP, there's really no need for this, no one would search this up on Wikipedia at exactly 255 characters. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 20:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep pi is among a very small set of such numbers someone could plausibly see/know/have conception of this many digits; the only harm in keeping is making the search dropdown look a tiny bit goofy because of this but see first item in my list, but I think because of it's history and consistent coverage makes it a net positive, actually. In terms of it being misleading because we don't have coverage since the exact string isn't included is not true, I don't think. It's obvious from the article on pi which includes a shorter prefix and talks about the nature of pi and its digits. Just like common synonyms do not need to be literally in the text, getting to the article makes it clear what it is. (I'd also support a retarget to Piphilology but that seems unlikely to gain consensus.) Skynxnex (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Myrealnamm. If I go to [54] (this redirect plus one digit) and get MediaWiki:Title-invalid-too-long, I learn that this URL is too long because the maximum is 255 bytes, but the message doesn't tell me how long my current URL is. How am I supposed to know how many characters to remove? I seriously doubt that many people will know pi to exactly 253 decimal places (255 minus "3."), so basically nobody will enter 3.14159...712019091456, whether by typing the digit sequence, or by copy/pasting it into the URL, or by copy/pasting it into the search box. This is different from the cited The Boy Bands Have Won, or When the Pawn... (same situation), because both of them are official titles with a limited number of characters; at worst you just type or paste the whole title and delete letters until you get to the maximum number of characters, but since pi is an irrational number, there's literally no "full title" in this sense, and someone who searches a dizzying quantity of digits is highly unlikely to search a quantity that's small enough to be reduceable to the MediaWiki maximum before the searcher gets tired and gives up. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your example is actually that redirect plus two digits. Which I guess proves your point. Although my first reaction to seeing that comment was to try to customize MediaWiki:Title-invalid-too-long to include the number of bytes the string actually is. My quickhack there didn't work, but I think that's a reasonable feature request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Filed as T379859. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as redirects are cheap anyway and this isn't harmless considering that pi has an undefined number of digits. 256 charcters is the max it can go. JuniperChill (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @JuniperChill no. The length of pi numbers in undefined elipsis would be invalid and harmful usage of redirects. According to Myrealnamm and Quondum, we should stop using harmlessness as a rationale if do you think it is not really helpful in cheaper redirects. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 01:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Renerpho I'm unblocked now, and came across the redirect only by chance while skimming a user's contribs.

Keep per above. Given phab:T379859 has been filed, there's use in having the max number of digits (plus the search prediction thing 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 18:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back, JayCubby.

Comment from nominator To the point: If that phab case results in a change to the search function, I'd be less opposed to this redirect than I had been. It doesn't address all the problems I have with it, but it solves some. In particular, my point that many of the keep !votes are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the search function would no longer be true. On the other hand, I want to be clear, I'd nominate this for deletion again the second I learn that this change is impossible to implement. Renerpho (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly possible to implement. Writing a patch for that is on my queue to do eventually. Whether it will get code-reviewed is always the biggest challenge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Late 00s recession

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Haskell Harr

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Claire Miller

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget

President of Spain

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Asmodel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Asmodel

Template:Please stop move

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ChinaFile

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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)

• Delete. If this were plausible for any utensil, it would be a spoon with long s, i.e. ſpoon. Even then I don't think it useful; we shouldn't go around creating "f" redirects for every word with an initial or medial "s" merely because someone might confuse an old long-s spelling with an f-spelling. fpork wouldn't make sense for the current target even with a long-s, especially since the long s fell out of favour before the spork was invented in 1874. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or soft redirect to wikt:fpoon. Enix150 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Byron Cemetery

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

Manual of Style:

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Bibi the butcher

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Retarget

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Good articles on Wikipedia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

OFM Sykes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#OFM Sykes

Marzipan joyjoys

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Marzipan joyjoys

Great Depression in the Middle East

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Great Depression in the Middle East

Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Snoutlet

Bleach (games)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Bleach (games)

Wikipedia:STAYONTOPIC

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Thailan

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Fortnit

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sputnik (serach engine)

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

Mothra Leo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banorant

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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)

• I didn't understand this RFD because the redirect under discussion here, Jewish pogroms in Amsterdam, pointed to a different article, November 2024 Amsterdam attacks so I reverted that edit. But the target article mentioned here, Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam is another redirect, not an article. So, this discussion needs to be withdrawn or reorganized because right now it doesn't make sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Put on hold. As long as the singular title exists as a redirect, there's no possible reason to treat this separately from it; any retargeting there should be performed here too. If the singular gets deleted, this should be deleted too — no good reason to delete singular and keep plural. And if anything else happens to the singular (e.g. converted to disambiguation page), this should remain a redirect there, since it's 100% related and wouldn't be a double redirect. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Holocaust in the Netherlands. Let's get real here. I don't know the ins and outs of what happened in Amsterdam the other night. What I do know is that it did not kill three quarters of the Jews of the Netherlands. [55] If Greek or Armenian football fans were to be non-fatally attacked in modern Istanbul, that is obviously not the primary idea of anti-Greek/Armenian pogroms in Istanbul Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NJHS

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

2029 in spaceflight

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hat Simulator

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

PKS 0451-28

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus/restore

Tesonet

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

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)
• Drafted a dab at the redirect. Jay 💬 11:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

DQw4w9WgXcQ

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

IRAS 13349+1428

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Putting wedge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Putting wedge

Ape Escape Racer

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Stone Jesus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jimboboii

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Lanyard class

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 16#Lanyard class

November 7

Wikipedia:OPENLETTER

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

History of the United States (2008–2024)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#History of the United States (2008–2024)

Mongola

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Mongola

Waliugi

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Counrty

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kentuchy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Kentuchy

Reccomend

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Gardern

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Stephoscope

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Stephoscope

Monterrey La Raza (current)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Relable sources

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIMRED

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pauletta Brupbakher

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Pauletta Brupbakher

Racially motivated violence

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Racially motivated violence

Blind tasting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Blind tasting

FC Türkiye II

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#FC Türkiye II

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 [56], 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: [57]. 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)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As mentioned by Fieari, pageviews in the last (recorded) decade are close to ~2000. This year itself, the pageviews are close to ~500. I used the backlink checker to see if we have a permanent link somewhere, but found only edwardbetts.com/find_link/Wikipedia_community which lists the current RfD. There was a 4-year old reddit discussion asking for the number of Ds, and there was no conclusion, participants counted 7, and 8 and 9, but I agree 4 is easier to type, but so would 3 or 2, but people have been using 4 too. That discussion was in December 2020, although our pageview spike happened in November 2020. Searching for the term with 4 Ds on Google brings up several videos and articles. Ultimately, we don't have a redirect or mention of the non-stuttered phrase It's time to duel. We also don't know if the possible hundreds of readers reaching the redirect, are using the English phrase to reach the article on the series/franchise. Jay 💬 17:18, 20 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)

It seems the current target page talk wasn't notified. Web-julio (talk) 01:43, 16 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)
• Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_14#September_31 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 17 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)

  Retarget to list of planets (or Solar System if we are going by heliocentric PoVs). Web-julio (talk) 01:51, 16 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 [58][59][60] seems to show this 'Pippa Middleton' is the primary topic of "Her Royal Hotness" [61][62][63][64][65][66], even calling the actress who portrays her on The Crown as being cast as such. [67][68] -- 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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete consensus is the current target is inappropriate, and no better target has been identified

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)

• Retarget to 2023 Dutch general election, the article about the Dutch general election that was originally planned for 2025. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:58, 14 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#The Licensing Letter

Żwaniec

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep

Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#Solidarity, Ecology, Left Alternative

Manush Shah

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

November 5

Barangay 79

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

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 [69]. 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 [70], 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)
• Setindexify "Fox Channel" in most contexts refers to one of the international Fox general-entertainment pay channels. The sheer number of them demands this outcome. And a lot of U.S. channels over the years that Fox started could qualify (from Fox News to Fox Sports 1). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• SIA. It's more reasonable to have a SIA here than to have an ordinary dab page or to point this to any particular entity. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Grooving

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Starlow

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

Purge the page

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Rediretc

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Redirct

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:Requested Articles/Business and economics/Companies

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

Wikipedia:REVERET

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:RSreliable sources

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Chocottone

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep

Olivolja

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

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)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Granatawerfer

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Ray Lavender

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

23th Senate of Puerto Rico

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

MOS:HESD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:MOSSECTIONHEADINGS

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

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)

  Agreed, the WP article also contains info about discomfort. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Touota

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:What WP is not

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Pablo Pivasso

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Unfinished basement

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

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)

• Keep Harmless. And I'm not convinced the band is primary anyway, but assuming it is there's no reason it's not primary for the miscapitalization that's correct for nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete recently created mix of lower and uppercase. If this was an old redirect, I would have agreed to keep. I see no reason for editors to create new redirects with half-and-half cases. Jay 💬 15:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Charlotte Web

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Template:R from opposites

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep

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)

• Delete per nom. Why two lines? Is three fine, or four? When do we stop? Jay 💬 12:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:05, 19 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)

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete'

Enteractive

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Enteractive

Xenusia

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nuh uh

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Refine

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)

  Also Henț and Hent. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nominated separately at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Henț and WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Hent. Jay 💬 07:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  Now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Hent since that was sockstruck and my attempt to reopen was (counterproductively IMO) reverted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, reopening a discussion with the statement that the rationale appears to be valid to me is counterproductive because it does nothing more than endorse the actions of someone who is not welcome to edit. What do you want to happen with these redirects? Your renomination doesn't really answer that... -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly want the ones without "river" to suffer the same fate as those with "river" rather than slipping through the cracks on a technicality, which is why I cared enough to reopen and renominate. Unless somebody else suggests something better, I weakly think that fate should be deletion as not discussed anywhere with sufficient substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Yurasov

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep S. Yurasov, delete Sergey Yurasov.

Hallucishaniids

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

MagneLine

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete

Mileu Cyrus

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Tsylor Swift

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Taylor Sqift

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:BASTARD

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Rage game

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 27

Tata (Persian King)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 15#Tata (Persian King)

Chrysolith

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: No consensus This has been open for two months and relisted four times and we're no closer to a consensus than we started at. There's some movement toward retargeting, but while sometimes late !votes are given more weight because they raise a new argument the earlier participants did not consider that doesn't seem to be the case here, they're just the othet side of a give-take of "this is the primary use" versus "this is ambiguous" with no new fundamental insignt. And so it goes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 19 November 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)

• Disambiguate. No clear primary topic. Nardog (talk) 04:25, 14 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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete one and retarget the others to the dab. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:25, 14 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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus on whether to delete or retarget, hence default to retarget since deletion requires an explicit consensus

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 [71] 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 [72]. 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)

Delete. There isn't even an actual list. Also, some of these redirects have implausible misspellings. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 21 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