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	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	15	0	15
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

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 1

Haskell Harr

• Haskell Harr → Percussive Arts Society  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Haskell Harr is a Percussive Arts Society Hall of Fame member, but that is as far as his connection goes. He is currently not listed on the page. I would prefer this to be a redlink to encourage the creation of a proper article. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Azaroth

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

This is an ambiguous misspelling (and see @VeryRarelyStable:'s edit at [1]). It may be better to delete than to guess which misspelling the user wanted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Morgan Smith (rapper)

• Morgan Smith (rapper) → List of Interscope Records artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed on target page Blethering Scot 07:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Benji Floros

• Benji Floros → List of Queensland first-class cricketers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not listed on target page. Blethering Scot 07:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Shattered Island (Skylanders)

• Shattered Island (Skylanders) → Skylanders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the name of the first chapter of Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure, but it isn't mentioned in either the target article or that game's article. The redirect began life in 2022 as a page about the chapter (see the most developed version before it was permanently redirected here), and then Praxidicae (who might want to weigh in in this discussion) redirected it seventeen hours later for the subject being WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm not sure if we should lead people into thinking we have substantial info about this chapter when we don't have much info if any at all, so I'm bringing it here to discuss. My preference is deletion, but I'm open to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC678 07:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment a list of stages could be added to Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure or a list of locations (and list of characters) to Skylanders, so that this redirect could be supported. Otherwise, it should be deleted. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

October 31

Counter-Strike player models

• Counter-Strike player models → Counter-Strike  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Counter strike player models → Counter-Strike  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Page says nothing about player models (also the redirect already has counter strike in it so it's redundant) TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

White Gangster

• White Gangster → Mad Decent#Associated artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

SpydaT.E.K

• SpydaT.E.K → Mad Decent#Associated artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

GKR (DJ)

• GKR (DJ) → Mad Decent#Associated artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ricardo Drue

• Ricardo Drue → Mad Decent#Associated artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; no longer associated with the record label. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Standard articles

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

The standards for good articles have increased over the years after 2005 and at this point, good articles probably would be considered way above "standard". TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is a rather odd case. If you look into the page's history, it was originally a proposal that was in effect more or less a fork of the GA process. After a discussion on the talk page, it was ultimately redirected to the GA page. Not sure how we should handle this given the history here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  It could possibly be restored with the failed proposal template if the content on there is of any value. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually think that's the best option. It's a historical proposal that failed, mark it as such and leave it be. Fieari (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at Wikipedia talk:Standard articles it seems as though this was really envisaged as a way of marking articles which were at a very basic quality level, below WP:GA. WP:ASSESS was in its infancy at the time, but really it looks as though it was meant to be for articles which were better than start class but not yet at GA level. It seems unlikely that anyone searching for "Standard articles" is looking for the GA process, and there are only a handful of links on the entire project; restoring as {{historical}}/{{failed proposal}} seems like the best option to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WPSECONDARY

• WPSECONDARY → Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Don't think minor errors in discussions justify creating WP:XNRs TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Malformed title that is technically an WP:XNR due to the missing colon. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think this needs a cross namespace redirect, and it's has no apparent usage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Tesonet

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

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

• Keep Someone can just expand the page into a full article, that's allowed, and that's been done on thousands of articles. You could do that now if you feel strongly about the situation, and you would be congratulated for it. Why remove the next best option which is a redirect to the founder? "High traffic redirect" suggests the page is doing something useful, redirecting to the founder of the organisation until a page on the organisation exists. I don't see why that's a reason to delete the page. "Only fact present being the year of establishment" I'm sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where on the page said the year of establishment? A redirect of a company name to a founder could be categorised with a year of establishment, but that's just to aid navigation in categories. This one had no categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Even IPs, so people with no Wikipedia account, can turn a redirect into a full article. On 20 September I created 2023 Taça da Liga final, redirecting to 2022–23 Taça da Liga#Final. Five days later an IP turned it into an 11K article. [2] How is this situation stopping people from making a page, which nobody in the history of the world has wanted to do yet? Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• An IP just removed the discussion link in order to write a description of the company in promotional language. If they can do it now, what's stopping a legitimate user or IP from doing so? Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

WH:HG

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

PKS 0451-28

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

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

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

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

  Why as vandalism? The author [3] converted to a redirect [4] with the comment it was nonnotable. All other edits to the page seem to be by bots or for copyediting. This would seem to be viable as a DB-author implied deletion criterion applicable. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

• Restore article and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. It's an article before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The author [5] of the article BLAR'd [6] it. So it seems the author doesn't think it's notable, per the edit comment on the BLAR. There doesn't seem to be other edits except bots and compyediting. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Nortwest Airways

• Nortwest Airways → Northwest Airlines  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 11 § Nortwest Airways – keep

Delete not a plausable redirect, it only has 12 Google hits after removing duplicate results and 2 of those results are definitely from Wikipedia and some of the others also could be. There is no reason to have a redirect from such an obscure typo per WP:COSTLY and although kept in 2012 there is more of a consensus in 2024 that implausible redirects should be deleted like Georgia (U.S. state and Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Improbable misspelling. Kablammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kablammo (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - previously kept, completely harmless, I'd say that WP:COSTLY#Sending redirects to RFD is costly applies. A7V2 (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per A7V2 and the fact that absolutely nothing has changed since it was last discussed and kept. Nominations like this are very significantly more costly than even the most harmful redirect is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do we need a redirect for every misspelling? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per A7V2 and Thryduulf. This is a different sort of redirect than a trailing period or a missing character from the Wikipedia-specific disambiguator. I don't advocate for creating redirects for "every misspelling" but also don't think, in general, they should be deleted (particularly if there's already been a discussion and there's nothing new that makes it costly). Skynxnex (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This would be R3 eligible if it were new. Highly implausible error, especially given that it uses "Airways" instead of "Airlines", a historical name of the company discontinued almost a century ago. There are over a thousand pages starting with "Northwest" (I stopped counting); should we make this redirect for all of them? Those complaining about the time/effort spent on discussion could remedy that by simply not contesting these sorts of bad redirects. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  What other redirects do, don't or could exist is completely irrelevant. The previous discussion determined that this redirect is plausible and useful, what has changed since then? Your final sentence presupposes that this is a bad redirect, which consensus determined it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

buccal organ(s)

• Buccal organ → Sucker (zoology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Buccal organs → Sucker (zoology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

closed before with consensus that we're not biologists. trying again with the same rationale (that being that mouths have other organs, like teeth and tongues), so i hope y'all studied your chompy boys. still not sure if retargeting to mouth would be the best idea though cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment looking at it from an English language point of view, it should point to mouth, or a generalized orifice topic for the entry point to the digestive tract -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think mouth is the best option for buccal organ – it's the buccal organ, it just contains some other lesser ones. The mouth is, you could say, the mother of all buccal organs. Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be retargeting this to "mouth". No one is typing "buccal organ" into wikipedia and expecting to find "mouth", since we just have the word "mouth" for that. The reason that "buccal organ" exists is to describe different kinds of mouth-like things. Like the thing annelida have. It doesn't describe teeth and tongues. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  by definition, it does. teeth, being bones, are a little iffy (some could say i was... wrong!?), but tongues, as noted in the article, are explicitly organs that are in the mouth (and thus, buccal), and so are lips now that i think about it again. this article i found within 20 minutes of looking around refers to "buccal organs" as just organs in the mouth of humans, and this article does the same for birds (and with less subtlety). if there are species of birds and humans that have suckers, i probably missed them, in which case my bad cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...and of course, the exact moment i decide to click reply, i remember that there's a list of organs of the human body here, and it happens to list teeth as organs that are in the mouth. what are the chances~? yes, i know other species also have mouths that may not have tongues, lips, or teeth, i'm just using humans as an example cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target Mouth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, then, let's just delete it. Any target will be imperfect or at least controversial, so I think deletion is unfortunately the best option here. Cremastra (u — c) 01:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and trout the nominator for wasting time with this nomination. Nothing has changed since the last discussion, so we shouldn't be doing anything different to it now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  trouts don't have suckers. i recommend a leech, octopus, or sucker-footed bat. also, what here or there would suggest keeping? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be a nonstandard term at best, and vague at worst. There is a mention at the target, but it's unsourced, and probably WP:UNDUE even if it were. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  there ain't no mention no more cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump

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

Umm how did this get here TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok it looks like someone created a redirect in the mainspace just to fix some error in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age and health concerns of Joe Biden. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, WP:G6. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as G6 per above. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 06:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, but not as G6. G6 only applies when the redirect was created in error (or automatically created by moving a page created at the wrong title), but this redirect was clearly created deliberately so it does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Strogino CS Portal

• Strogino CS Portal → Counter-Strike  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of the redirect in article. Doing a bit of research, it appears to be a pirating site with nothing closely related to the CS series. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Building a sentry

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

In a game where nearly every quote is iconic, what is special about this quote specifically? TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

line iconic to the engineer, but i'd say delete for now until he gets his own article. not that i have much faith in him getting his right now, since heavy and medic are hotter more iconic cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Day belt

• Day belt → Belt (clothing)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

yes, this is a halloween-themed discussion, have you seen a belt up close? unmentioned, and no definition on wiktionary. results gave me belts with the word "day" written on them for one reason or another, belts (not necessarily of the kind you put on your pants) seemingly made by companies or as part of models that contain the word "day", belts (again, not necessarily for pants) meant to be worn during the day or daily for whatever reason, belts intended to be gifted during specific days, and... supplements. am i missing something? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hat Simulator

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

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

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)

2029 in spaceflight

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

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

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

• 2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup → ICC Women's T20 World Cup  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, anybody searching for this term will unexpectedly find nothing of relevance. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2031 Africa Cup of Nations

• 2031 Africa Cup of Nations → Africa Cup of Nations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Absolutely no relevant information at the target, the redirect is misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2033 SEA Games

• 2033 SEA Games → SEA Games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only relevant information at the target is the host country, the host city hasn't even been determined yet. Anybody searching for this term will not be finding information that they would be expecting. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete to encourage article creation when the time comes. I've removed the link in the navbox, which leaves no other incoming links. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Lists of Telugu films of future years

• List of Telugu films of 2030 → Telugu cinema  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Telugu films of 2029 → Telugu cinema  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Telugu films of 2028 → Telugu cinema  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Telugu films of 2027 → Telugu cinema  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Telugu films of 2026 → Telugu cinema  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirects, no list of films for these years at the target. Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Note that these are redirects with history, though those histories only contain an empty article skeleton with headings and a navbox. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IRAS 13349+1428

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

• Liberal Democratic Hotline Team → Liberal Democrats (UK)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target page/ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, but ideally add a mention. This is an alternative designation that was used in some council elections in 1990 by some party members, along with Liberal Democratic Focus Team and Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team (Focus Team at least is/was used in more elections and is mentioned in the article) and so appears in election results tables. Those candidates represented the Liberal Democrats so should take readers to the article about that party, but yes a mention would be ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Basically per Thryduulf. Plausible search term, and plausibly something that might be in a results table on Wiki somewhere. I guess this is similar to the Conservatives running as "Local Conservatives". FOARP (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, no mention of a Hotline Team and thereby being a misleading redirect. Recreate the redirect when a mention is added. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete There is good reason to mention this in the article, and then to recreate this redirect. While we're at it, also delete Liberal Democratic Spotlight Team for the exact same reason, and proceed with it in the same manner. Renerpho (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per accordance of Utopes and Renerpho. WP:COSTLY applies. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

• Keep. Has incoming links. Readers are better served by blue links redirecting them to the relevant party (even without an explicit mention) than red links leaving them none the wiser. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 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)

Cackala

• Cackala → Kamala Harris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

@Hyphenation Expert: nominated this for R3 because WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". I have declined this. The term is indeed attested on the internet (c.f. e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/the-biden-we-were-told-about-never-existed/ and https://moonbattery.com/biden-harris-regime-authorizes-military-to-kill-us/ ), which I think makes it a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to type in the search bar, even if they're not expecting a full article on this word. Duckmather (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - this is contentious information about a living person; if it is not notable enough to be described on Wikipedia with an inline citation to a reliable source, the redirect is WP:G10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete silly childish nickname that I doubt very much will ever really be a search term. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: not "in multiple mainstream RS". The National Review article doesn't say "Cackala"; it's a comment in the comment section (WP:NATIONALREVIEW is "no consensus" reliable anyway). Moonbattery is a WordPress blog. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Keep Very widely used to the extent it's plausible someone will see it out of context and look for information on who it refers to. "Childish" nicknames are definitely not G10 material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:G10. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Thryduulf, your declining of the speedy deletion nom and then also !voting here is an improper WP:INVOLVED action. Please revert one of them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that this was inappropriate and neither action was in my capacity as an admin. Anybody can contest a speedy deletion nomination (other than the creator, in some circumstances) and it was already being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  100% not WP:INVOLVED. All speedy deletion requests (other than office actions and copyright violations) are negated if any user objects, and as there is already a non-unanimous deletion discussion underway (this discussion), the article is not eligible for G10 and any admin acting responsibly should have declined the request. The accountability policy deals specifically with admin actions, not all things an admin might do; some take the view that declining a speedy deletion request is an admin action regardless of the fact that any user can decline, but !voting in a straw poll is definitely not an admin action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep because I don't imagine Kamala Harris would be particularly worried about a redirect to the Wikipedia article on her, and so BLP worries aren't major. I'm amazed that WP:RNEUTRAL is being used as a rationale for deletion (and even speedy deletion!) when it says nothing other than "treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect" with only an implication of applying slightly more caution. The point is – it's a plausible search term as it's a nickname so divorced from Harris' actual name that readers would be liable to not immediately understand to whom it refers, and seek this site for an explanation. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  "it says nothing other than 'treat non-neutral redirects like any other redirect'"

  In fact, it says redirects that are not established terms – used in multiple mainstream reliable sources – may be nominated for deletion. And even: G10 and G3 may apply. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Sufficiently in-use in the wild that someone may legitimately be confused by it and want to know who is being referred to. Redirects are generally non-user facing, so this should not introduce any WP:BLP issues. I might have suggested it be added to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, except to my astonishment he actually hasn't used it personally that I can tell, it's just in wide wide WIDESPREAD use by his fans. MAGAs are weird. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete : A nonsensical derogatory name used a few times by Magas on social media and once by a partisan magazine should not be sufficient criterion for it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Nohorizonss (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - This is textbook WP:RCOM, without there being any prominent use of it as a reference to Harris. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf et al. Silly nickname, widely-used in social media (which makes it plausible enough for keeping). Reasons for deletion seem a bit over the top IMO, considering that this isn't a grave insult in any way. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:RNEUTRAL's stated exception: not established terms [that] are unlikely to be useful may be deleted, in this case under reason for deletion #3: The redirect is offensive or abusive. A non-neutral term is established if it is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. This particular term is not, apparently appearing in zero mainstream reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Being used in multiple-mainstream reliable sources is just an example of how a term might be established. The widespread use on social media seen here is another example. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Our gauge for "widespread use on social media" normally is the published opinion of reliable sources, not editors' assertions that it is so, nor editors' claims to have seen this or that on Twitter. Have we lowered this standard for BLPs when the subject is a political figure? Or does WP:BLP still say things like "never use [...] social network posts [...] as sources of material about a living person" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a huge difference between things that appear in articles, that is, are "user facing", and things meant to act as navigation aides. The former needs proper sourcing, the latter just needs to be helpful and not misleading. Redirects absolutely do not need to be held to the same standard as article text. Fieari (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Non-neutral terms widely used on social media and similar but not regularly reported in mainstream media are exactly the sort of things people will search for, either because they want to find neutral information about the subject and don't realise the term is non-neutral or not mainstream or because they don't know or don't remember who/what is being referred to. Wikipedia redirects help both these groups find the information they are looking for (which is after all the primary goal of Wikipedia). They don't need to be neutral (indeed per WP:RNEUTRAL explicitly so), they just need to be accurate and useful. All that needs verifying is "is this term used to refer to the subject of/information found at the target?" and social media is reliable for that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Enix150 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  As noted above, this redirect is compatible with RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Lego racers

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

Firstly

• Firstly → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Secondly → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Thirdly → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Don't think a redirect relating to the adverb to a page that is specifically about the number is a good idea. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Not a term that should be wikilinked. If readers wanted an article about 1, they would search up one, not a derivation of it. It has low pageviews therefore I do not support a soft redirect, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neutral on redirecting to DAB per 65.92 These are related terms, but none of the usages(I am not familiar with all of the listed items) can be called "firstly", "secondly", "thirdly". Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Bundled Secondly, Thirdly. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to First (disambiguation) / Second (disambiguation) / Third (disambiguation) -- respectively ; as {{R from adverb}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (all). The dab page is inappropriate, as there are no particular matches there. And otherwise way too vague to retarget anywhere else. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Unlikely search term, rarely (if ever) would assist in navigation the site. Drdr150 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to wikt:firstly, wikt:secondly, wikt:thirdly. These redirects are decades old, and they've seen thousands of pageviews each – we shouldn't delete them as long as they've got reasonable targets. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget either to wikt per jlwoowa or to dabs per IP. The advantage of the target being a DAB is trigger tags and they will be unlinked as unnecessary WP:OVERLINK.

  Web-julio (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per jlwoodwa. C F A 💬 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at First, Second (disambiguation) and Third.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer to delete; soft redirect to Wiktionary as an second option. If an article is ever created on ordinal adverbs, or mentions of the adverb forms added to English numerals#Ordinal numbers, that would be an obvious retarget. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ape Escape Racer

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

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

Jamison Wesley Crowder

• Jamison Wesley Crowder → Jamison Crowder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I cannot find a source anywhere showing Wesley as his middle name. Red Director (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

We're Barack

• We're Barack → Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election#Debate aftermath  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on the target page. We should not be surprising readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

used to be mentioned on Joever article. Got redirected, and no longer mentions it. I agree with deletion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Young FC

• Young FC → Punjab State Super League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned in target page -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bhuna FC

• Bhuna FC → Haryana Football Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bright (Suikoden)

• Bright (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gadget Z → Suikoden (video game)#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Unmentioned Suikoden characters – keep because of a trainwreck

There is no information about these characters at the target or anywhere else on enwiki. The previous RfD closed as a trainwreck, hence renominating for deletion. Jay 💬 08:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete these and the other Suikoden characters from the previous bundle, if I get around to !voting on them. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:46, 31 October 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)

Byron Cemetery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 listed for 'List of Super Heavies", its the 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)

Stone Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha myrcene

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Srishti

• Srishti → Hindu units of time  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target (not now, and not when a hatnote was added). Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Srishti, there's a name (Srishti Kaur, Srishti Rana, Srishti Jain), Srishti (film), Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, and the partial title matches of Srishti Madurai and Srishtidnyan. Looking at the pageviews, I'm unsure whether the name is the primary topic, or if there's no primary topic; I think it might depend on whether the other uses are all derived from the name. It would also help if I had any idea why it was redirected to Hindu units of time; I'll ping Vinay Jha in case they remember. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The Sanskrit term means "creation".[8] Hindu units of time doesn't really talk about creation the way Hindu cosmology might, but rather units of time that can be associated to personalities (Brahma) involved in creation. Jroberson108 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig or Retarget to Sristi (given name), depending on whether the name constitutes a primary topic (I have no opinion on that, but the other uses probably aren't derived directly from the name - as mentioned above, "Srishti" is the Sanskrit word for creation). If retargeting, also create Srishti (disambiguation) for the other uses. The target doesn't mention "Srishti" at all so is clearly not a good target. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus that the current target is inappropriate, but is there a PTOPIC? I'll try to draft a DAB in any case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Cremastra (u — c) 21:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

John Atoms

• John Atoms → John Adams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a common or likely misspelling, virtually no incoming targets. If for some reason it is kept, I would say retarget to the John Adams dab page. Otherwise, my vote is Delete. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• he's the inventor of atoms, how can you not know him? delete per nom. implausible misspelling, mishearing, and pun cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for the sake of recognizing current education as lacking in definitive broad-based knowledge. It may be an unlikely spelling but not impossible, and doesn't harm the encyclopedia to leave it for those who wander through the weeds (sounds like an alternate-universe name for a comic book about America's founding). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: per Randy. Would also note that incoming targets is a poor test _pbp 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• REtarget the ersatz pronunciation spelling to the disambiguation page and tag as {{R from misspelling}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an implausible error. A quick google search finds no results of people making such an error, but it does find this in use as at least a couple stage names/aliases, and possibly a real name or two. Also note that our search feature is good enough to suggest "John Adams" as possibly meant instead, making this redirect even more unneeded. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the search feature suggesting "John Adams" is likely because this redirect exists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Struck, just in case, but that doesn't change my overall assessment. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per cogsan and IP user 35.139.154.158. Why does "Atoms" as also misspelled name from "Adams"? IMO, only WP:COSTLY supposed to be delete. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 13:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak don't delete (either keep, or retarget per nom), as utterly pointless but also utterly harmless. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 09:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 01:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

BlueChew

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

This should be deleted because "BlueChew" (or even "blue chew") are not mentioned in the target article at all, so how do we know that that refers to the same thing? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Less than a minute on Google tells me this is a very notable brand of Sildenafil tablets so the target is correct. I'm not familiar with the consensus about when brand names should be listed on medical articles though so I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk)
• Comment Actually, BlueChew is a brand of several chewable erectile disfunction drugs. As well as sildenafil, they also offer tadalafil and vardenafil under the Blue Chew brand name. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Gxarha

• Gxarha → Morgan Bay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect title appears to be a musician that happens to come from this area? Not mentioned at target article, possible promotion LR.127 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete I can't otherwise guess what this is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The town of Morgan Bay was renamed Gxarha in 2022 [9]. I'll add a mention to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Now that a mention has been added, as bold text in the opening line, should probably WP:SNOW close this one. Fieari (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and the article should presumably be moved to the new town name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to new title per above. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• I haven't done a full in-depth source, but the impression I got was that Morgan Bay (or Morgan's Bay) is still the common name. A quick scan of articles about other South African settlements renamed about the same time shows a very roughly even split between old and new names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#South Africa is silent on the matter, as are most subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa although Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa/Name changes implies the common name should be used. Accordingly I suggest not moving without first firmly establishing that Gxarha is the common name (an RM may be worthwhile). Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Il giustiziere

• Il giustiziere → The "Human" Factor (1975 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As per WP:RFOREIGN, this is a translation of the film title with no significance LR.127 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as an English-language film produced in the UK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RFOR. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RFOR. This is an English language Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

October 30

Tin Building

• Tin Building → Student Competition Center  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think there is a primary topic for this term as there are many "Tin buildings": [10] Awesome Aasim 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't know how many buildings named the Tin Building there are, but the primary topic for this seems more likely to be the historic Tin Building where New York City's Fulton Fish Market used to be either located, or the food hall located in a reconstruction of the old building's facade:
  • "Crackdown on Mob Seen as Mixed Blessing at Fish Market", The New York Times, March 31, 1996
  • "Son of the Tin Building", The New York Times, March 1, 2020
  • "Jean-Georges' Tin Building Set to Open in New York City's Pier 17 in Spring 2022", Restaurant Hospitality, December 17, 2021
  • "I Ate My Way Through the Tin Building’s Restaurants. Here’s Where to Go", The New York Times, November 22, 2022

In any case, the primary topic is probably not Student Competition Center, whose association with a Tin Building is not as strongly attested in secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Koal

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

so... it was originially created as the "latin root for the atomic symbol", but that'd be kali, itself from the surprisingly not latin word alkali. not exactly a plausible mishearing. general results are mostly giving me koalas, and refined results are giving me contexts in which "koal" stands for literally anything else (and also mentions of this redirect i guess). i'm confused and lost and haven't even found anything supporting it as a plausible misspelling of coal. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see any connection either. Wiktionary tells me it's West Frisian for "cabbage" (from the same Latin root as English "coleslaw", which came via Dutch). We have KOAL about a radio station and it is an acronym for the Korean Open Access License but they have no obvious to potassium either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to KOAL in the meantime as an alternate capitalization. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alternatively, disambiguate with KOAL, Korean Open Access License; is also the stick that goes with a Chenda, the name of the sheriff in Auntie Lee's Meat Pies, a character in Advance Wars: Dual Strike, and also mentioned at Markedness#Local markedness and markedness reversals as being a Frisian term. For a "See also" section in the disambig, this is otherwise a close term to Coal, Kaul, and Koala and might possibly be interchangeable with the word "coal", depending. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  drafted. admittedly a little iffy on including the advance wars and markedness examples, as it's mentioned in passing and i don't think that's the target people would be looking for respectively. like retargeting silva (no, not siiva) to lula because it's mentioned there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  on that note, some other results i'm "a little iffy" on including

  • thmor koal: seemingly an alternative spelling of thma koul. not mentioned or sourced, results didn't give me a lot, but they gave me something. added to the draft, but i'm not entirely convinced it's worth keeping
  • cabbage: ironic, ain't it? mentioned in passing in a citation, and not in the article's body

  plus some miscellaneous results seemingly using koal as a measuring unit (i should have brought my measurement container to measure measurements) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Utopes. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 12:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambuigate as per above. My first instinct was also Coal, I'll admit 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate per the above. BD2412 T 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate and update the hatnote on KOAL to point to the new disambig page at Koal. Skynxnex (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Never been seen

• Never been seen → Unseen character  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

of all the terms that exist, this is definitely one of them. unmentioned in the target (as a term, that is), not primarily associated with unseen characters, no definition on wiktionary, results gave me tiger shirts cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Unsee. No particular affinity towards characters, and I can't think of a good actual target beyond a crosslink to Wiktionary, which I don't think is helpful here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

DQw4w9WgXcQ

• DQw4w9WgXcQ → Rickrolling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13 § DQw4w9WgXcQ – delete
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18 § JNQXAC9IVRw – delete
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17 § 9jeJbdVl2jI – delete

This redirect was deleted via discussion in 2019. However, comments from a recent RfD seemed to insinuate the redirect dQw4w9WgXcQ should exist; this ID is also now mentioned in the body of the article. Given that this redirect may be repeatedly CSD'ed for G4 when created, I wanted to bring it back to RfD to either confirm that it should not exist or provide community consensus that it should exist. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep particularly with the new content (which even if ends up being cut down some definitely seems due to be mentioned). (My guess is it'd be possible to do so for the zoo video as well, so that's a support for keep there if any sort of visible usage of the ID is added to the article.) Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Maybe I'm just a nerd, but I immediately recognized this as the rickroll URL the moment I saw this on my watchlist. With the URL now explicitly mentioned in the article, I think it is worth keeping this time. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. While I don't think this should be standard practice for all articles about YouTube videos, which aren't usually recognizable by their URLs, the particular history of Rickrolling has led to this string of characters from the bare URL being recognized enough by at least some potential readers to justify it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Most youtube IDs are extremely unlikely to be notable, nor even noteworthy (a wikipedia term of art distinction), and should not be kept even as redirects. This one is a very notable exception to the general rule... the ID itself has garnered attention and notability, and we even have a WP:DUE mention of it now in the article. It might even be appropriate to redirect DQw and XcQ as well, as I've seen a lot of people say they memorize just those portions, but we don't have a reference for that at the moment so I won't push it. Fieari (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm in the camp that specifically memorized XcQ, hah 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Wanted to comment because there seems to be a misunderstanding about what "WP:G4" applies to. Notably, G4 does not apply to redirects where the reasons for deletion no longer apply. As it happened in 2019, Rosguill commented that "[the ID] no usage history here on Wikipedia", a sentiment which was largely shared in that discussion. That was the case in 2019, and was STILL the case as of October 25th, 2024; no history of usage.

As of October 27th though, there WAS suddenly a history of usage on Wikipedia, i.e. history being implemented that very moment by User:Hydrangeans a couple days ago, which drastically changed the context and structure of Rickrolling and its usage of "dQw4w9WgXcQ" in prose. This nullified many of the original deletion rationales of 2019, as it was now talked about on Wikipedia which was the concern 2019 dissenters brought to light. Now the circumstances have changed, and the ID is able to exist as a redirect, pointed at entirely newly-written material at the target which did not exist in 2019. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if there was a problem with the course of the original 2019 RfD decision though, this should have been sent to WP:DRV, not totally reinstated out of process and sent back to RfD again. The circumstances for deletion at RfD and multiple G4s WERE valid when those deletions occurred. The original deletion was at a publicized community discussion, in a deletion venue. If the reasons for deletion no longer apply (from the new content added in 2024), this should have been created from scratch, not have every deleted revision reinstated from the last 6 years. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A new redirect was created from scratch, by Fieari, as a result of the 2024 discussion. I raise no objection to anything in the 2019 discussion, but when Significa liberdade deleted the redirect despite the reasons offered in the 2024 RfD, I didn't know what else to do but ask her about it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification about the intricacies of G4, but I hope that in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO this isn't a reason to somehow delete the redirect all over again and start from square one. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. I was explaining the intricacies because significa liberdade did not follow the deletion policy (and in doing so, brought back my G4 tag placement into the page's history) and I wanted to clarify that. There are worse things to do of course, but all of the past edits should still be deleted because all of those deletions were valid and now it seems that this redirect WASN'T deleted 3+ times already.

Fieari's creation was also out of line and contrary to the 2019 consensus because nothing was changed in the article and the status quo was entirely the same as it was during 2019's discussion, as it was in October 25th 2024. It was ONLY after you made the changes that directly addressed the 2019 deletion rationale, when G4 would no longer apply and the page could be recreated, from scratch. This means that the revisions deleted from community consensus should stay deleted. This is not WP:NOTBURO, this is honoring discussion consensus. I for one do not want my previously deleted (& correct at the time) CSD tag to come back into the history and I hope that is a reasonable stance. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Utopes (and Wikipedia, in general)! I'm still learning the ropes as a new admin, and I should have received a bit more input about how to handle this situation before undeleting all revisions. I'm seeking assistance in rectifying this error so the rightfully deleted versions remain rightfully deleted. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My apologies as well, mea culpa. I was not really familiar with the WP:DRV process, and figured that the discussion here was enough, given that the previous discussion had been fairly old. Please forgive my good faith effort, and feel free to WP:TROUT me. Fieari (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes You are indeed being very bureaucratic here. "I for one do not want my previously deleted (& correct at the time) CSD tag to come back into the history" is not at all "a reasonable stance". A reasonable stance would be related to improving the encyclopedia, and this is about as far as possible from that. I generally have a high opinion of you as an editor, but this is silly, and @Significa liberdade owes no one an apology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tamzin:, I just left a response on Significa's talk page moments ago haha. I did not mean any illwill by it at all, and I apologize if this came across as overly bureaucratic in writing. I was hoping with my post to illustrate the difference and the bounds in which G4 applied, and why this redirect should have been deleted prior, but should be kept now. I still don't believe policy was applied to the letter. But, you are correct that we are not a bureaucracy, so this will be my last comment on the matter and I won't pursue this any further. Significa is one of the admins that I have the most respect and confidence in, so I did not mean to press for an apology in any form, but instead use this as a learning experience for everyone involved (me included!) about the bounds of G4 speedy deletion and undeletion. If this did not communicate well, that's on me, and I did not mean to come in strongheaded about it.

I should also mention, as a slightly related point, that I recently had a creation of mine get G4'd, i.e. Super Bowl LXIII, correctly so by User:Jay on Oct 23rd. The reason I created that redirect was because I viewed "the circumstances behind its creation to be different from its deletion last year", but I was in the wrong as that entry is no more discussed at the target in October '24 as it was in February '24, when last deleted. When I saw THIS redirect, I viewed this to be similar situation to what I was just tagged on a few days ago, which is why I thought CSD applied, and this deletion was enacted.

As for my concern with the undeletion, there often can be a lot of stigma behind "faulty speedy deletion tags left in a page's history", which sometimes reflect poorly on the tagger. But the page was deleted, so it's a bit weird here and it'll always be in my "live edits". This might not matter to anyone else though, so I'll drop the issue. Thank you all for holding me accountable; this was a useful lesson. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes: Given this and other past issues in the applicability of G4 to redirects, maybe there should be a discussion at WT:CSD about adding a sentence to WP:G4 specifically about redirects. I would suggest something like This only applies to redirects if the redirect's title is the same or only has minor orthographic differences, the target covers the same subject as the previous target, and the rationale for the previous redirect's deletion still applies, which I would argue is already best practice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd be happy to discuss this further at WT:CSD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. It's mentioned, it's well-sourced, it's notable. Passes with flying colors. Perhaps there's just one issue I need to bring up... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe I fell for that... I blame being too tired to think XD Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Erie Von Detten

• Erie Von Detten → Eerie Von  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Simply not an alternative name. This was created in the early 2000s, but was redirected to Eriee Von. It hasn’t received an edit since 2005, and averages 0 views a day. Roasted (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Erik von Detten as a misspelling. Cremastra (u — c) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and the above retarget probably shouldn't be made either (Erie is not a misspelling of Erik), especially in light of the 0 pageviews. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• I just tagged the redirect as a {{R from merge}}. 67.119.58.107 who had appeared to have BLARd Erie Von Detten, actually did a copy-paste merge as the new article Eerie Von. Merge the history of Erie Von Detten (which is from 2002) into Eerie Von. Jay 💬 17:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget, delete, or histmerge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Histmerge - BLAR and manual copy/paste move needs history attributed, for copyright reasons if nothing else. This redirect can be deleted afterwards. Fieari (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Colorado College Tigers footbaall, 1882–1899

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - obviously created in error

Lists of concert tours

• Lists of concert tours → Category:Lists of concerts and performances  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It was deleted because the category was renamed. The redirect is still used in two pages, that's how I found it. But is it right? Web-julio (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• For context, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of concert tours closed with consensus to redirect to Category:Lists of concert tours in July 2019. That category was merged with Category:Lists of concerts and performances following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Lists of concert tours. The redirect was deleted per G8 on 25 October by a bot after the category merge was completed. It was recreated today by the nominator here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and undelete history. The redirect should have been retargetted rather than deleted, but the status quo is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and undelete history per Thryduulf. This is a bit of a weird corner-case mix of several processes, which is probably why the deletion didn't get noticed during CfD cleanup. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Neverwinter Nights characters

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Neverwinter Nights characters

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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 [11] 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)

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

List of molecules by year of discovery

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

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

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

List of Interlingue periodicals

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

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

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

List of Greek words with English derivatives

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

List of Familiar spirits in popular culture

• List of Familiar spirits in popular culture → Familiar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list of "familiar spirits" exists at the target article. Furthermore, there is no list of familiar spirits in popular culture. Further more, there is no "popular culture" section, and the phrase "popular culture" does not appear at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. It is an old redirect with no current relevancy. The popular culture section (a list) was removed from the article by an editor in 2022. 5Q5|^✉ 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

List of exits on Interstate 5

• List of exits on Interstate 5 → Interstate 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target page does not contain a list of exits. People looking for such exits would not be able to find it at the target article, so this search term gives a false promise of information that we cannot provide. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate between Interstate 5 in Washington, Interstate 5 in Oregon, and Interstate 5 in California, where the relevant exit lists are located. This is a plausible search term so worth keeping in some form, and we do have relevant content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig per Presidentman. We have the relevant content so we should make it easy for people to find it, deletion does not support that aim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Early Netherlandish painters

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

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

• I suppose the article had a list once. This is a case where the most useful thing would be a redirect to Category:Early Netherlandish painters, but there may be a prejudice against that. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep There is a list in the article lead, and this would not be a surprising target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

List of Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

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

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

October 29

Worm that turned

• Worm that turned → Inversion (evolutionary biology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Worm" is not mentioned in the prose. Neither is "turned". While the redirect may indeed be novel for Wikipedian usages, especially User:Worm That Turned, this does not seem like a reasonable (or grammatical) way of searching for the subject of "Inversion" (specifically pertaining to evolutionary biology). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Two Ronnies#The Worm That Turned (1980) to match The Worm That Turned. Alternatively disambig between that and Even a worm will turn and wikt:worm will turn. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete It is not specific to Inversion; it is used to refer to many things: Ancient worms that burrowed, but unrelated to Inversion New Zealand political "Worm" debates, Man with a parasite worm infection Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am neutral about disambiguation, the suggested entries look pretty distant from this redirect's title. Also, wikt:worm will turn doesn't seem to exist? @Thryduulf Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry the wiktionary entry is wikt:even a worm will turn. What is your objection to The Two Ronnies#The Worm That Turned (1980) as a target? Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is missing the "the" and it is in lowercase. I don't think it is sufficiently close enough to the destination for a non-notable subject that is just a paragraph in an article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nom note: I support retargeting to The Two Ronnies#The Worm That Turned (1980) to match The Worm That Turned. I am against disambiguating because none of these subjects have the same name as it seems, and WP:SMALLDETAILS. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Killer Mountain (logo)

• Killer Mountain (logo) → Paramount Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § Redirects to Paramount Television Studios – keep

Neither the words "killer", nor "mountain" are mentioned at the target. The article is not about a logo. People who type all of this in, and then specify that they are looking for information about a "logo", will not find it at the target general article for Paramount Television. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a made-up name. My search for the Paramount logo shows it has no name, and search for "killer mountains" showed literal deadly mountains. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, and because it is highly unlikely that even if the term was in some way legitimate, someone would be searching it in Wikipedia to find, of all things, Paramount Television. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 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)

I Like My Cheese Drippy, Bruh

• I Like My Cheese Drippy, Bruh → Lunchly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• I like my cheese drippy bruh → Lunchly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "drippy" or "bruh" at the target article. Wikipedia is not a collection of unmentioned memes, and people looking for information on this meme quotation would be disappointed to find no mention of this meme at the target article. Delete to encourage the creation of content about this phrase, if that is something that is desired for this case. If no mention is added, still delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Vanity redirect that is not helpful. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This quote does come up in at least one definitely reliable source (albeit just a brief mention) and a maybe reliable source, but I'm not sure whether that should be included in the article at all. Currently leaning no unless there's more coverage (in which case delete). Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

fair enough SandSerpentHiss (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Trash this redirect along with Lunchly (the product, not the page). TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

lmao SandSerpentHiss (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Delete per previous comments. Also, the sentence I Like My Cheese Drippy Bruh may be the most disturbed thing I've read on this website, which is saying something. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 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)

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)

Good Article nominations

• Good Article nominations → English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Good article nominations → Wikipedia:Good article nominations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

  I don't have any examples, but I never intended to. The phrase seems like a plausible search term for something else less Wikipedia-

Good Article nominations and Good article nominations somehow have different targets. It should be noted that the FA equivalent, Featured article candidates, doesn't redirect to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget the lowercase to the mainspace target, keep the uppercase pointed there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete both. Titles potentially not exclusive to Wikipedia. Such a phrase could also be used for Pulitzer Prize or Scripps Howard Awards, awards for journalism. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Steel1943 do you have any evidence that the phrase is used for those things? I wasn't able to find anything, indeed my results were exclusively about Wikipedia or similar processes on much smaller wikis (Wookieepedia being the only one notable in Wikipedia terms, and it's good article process is not mentioned in its article). In practice there seems to be exactly one encyclopaedic use of the term, which is described in the mainspace at English Wikipedia#WikiProjects and assessment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't, but that's intentional. The problem with these redirects is that they are meta to Wikipedia; there's no evidence that these are the specific topics readers could be looking for when searching these phrases. These terms would be something a reader might be attempting to look up if they were intending to find one of the aforementioned subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Communism:Overview

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

That is one very implausible redirect. It isn't even a proper subpage back when subpages in the mainspace were allowed. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not how we do article or redirect titles on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Started out as a duplicate article. Our article on "communism" is not an specific overview article, its just an article about communism. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Space In Stereo

• Space In Stereo → NASA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of the redirect on the NASA article and google doesn't show anything related to NASA either. Looking at its history, it appears to be some sort of failed article on a non-notable subject that doesn't even focus on NASA specifically as it has ESA and Soviet space program too. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Change Redirect May be referring to the STEREO program, which was on it's own significant to recieve it's own Wikipedia article (STEREO). It is a reasonable redirect for that, so I would say the redirect should be changed from NASA to STEREO. Foxtrot620 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that there is no mention, nor offers no context. This used to be an article about a non-notable music album that doesn't even mention STEREO at all, not to mention the fact that the redirect would still be implausible at the proposed target. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Starlow

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

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

Grooving

• Grooving → wiktionary:grooving  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wiktionary is probably not the best target and it used to redirect to Groovin'. That being said, searching up grooving on google would simply take you to the definition of groove, so I don't think the old target is a good option either. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Groovin', the best and closest thing we have for this target. Also hatnote the Groove (disambiguation) page (in addition to the Groovin' (disambiguation) page) at Groovin'. Something like, "Grooving redirects here. For other uses, see Groove and Groovin' disambigs", maybe. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Site-specific Comedy Opera

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

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

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

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

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

Tapestries Muck

• Tapestries MUCK → Furry fandom#Role-playing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tapestries (MUCK) → Furry fandom#Role-playing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target page making this unhelpful for users. Seems to be a random furry videogame(?). Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Decided to do a history dive.
-This is a remnant of a 2015-era article on the game, that was linked to from both Furry fandom#Role-playing (circa September 2015) and TinyMUCK
-On October 6, 2015, this article was listed for deletion at AfD. The result, on October 11, was Redirect to what was, at the time, its mention in Furry fandom#Role-playing (see above). However, I'd like to point out that while the nominator, did advocate for redirection, the !votes were instead a vote for redirect/merge and a vote for merge, so I'm not entirely certain why the closer did a simple redirect instead.
-ONE DAY after the AfD closed, user:Chaos5023-- who I'd like to point out, participated in the discussion-- saw that the link to Tapestries MUCK on the Furry fandom page was now a circular redirect, and that the statement itself was unsourced, and decided the best course of action was to remove the entire statement. On its own, I'd agree with Chaos5023, but it does kinda render the AfD discussion moot...
-...because now we're here, 9 years later

I'm actually uncertain what to do here. My first instinct is to retarget to TinyMUCK, but that has the same issue that Furry fandom#Role-playing had-- remove the now-circular redirect, and there's no reason left to mention Tapestries MUCK, the existing mention is completely unsourced. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried looking for sources that mentioned Tapestries, as I felt that might be the easiest way to unravel this knot, but had no joy in my (admittedly somewhat cursory) efforts. Short of redirecting to TinyMUCK, perhaps it's time to delete this redirect. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: could someone bundle Tapestries (MUCK) with this? Thanks --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 03:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling Tapestries (MUCK) as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, AfD result was to redirect, & not mentioned at the furry fandom article, and should not be mentioned at Tiny MUCK either in its unsourced statement. It's generally not a good idea to have a redirectto a location to "just be an example" and do nothing else; people looking for this particular topic would be disappointed by the content (i.e. lack thereof) at the TinyMUCK general article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

康米

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

From what I can see online, this WP:RLOTE appears to be a niche term for Communism, though it isn't mentioned at the target and might meet WP:RFD#DELETE 8 as an obscure term, or it might be a redirect from a common word or concept that might be inappropriate as per the essay WP:RLOTE#Examples. Fathoms Below (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RLOTE. Apparently this is a slang term, possibly originating as a transliteration of the English word "commie". Might be worth a redirect at zh.wikipedia, but not here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per LOTE. My research agrees with Mx. Granger's that this is Chinese slang. It failed English Wiktionary's request for verification process in 2021 so there is no entry there, but comments elsewhere suggest that it would pass today. Regardless it doesn't seem to be used in English, nor is usage restricted to something like Communism in China, Communism with Chinese characteristics or Chinese Communist Party which have affinity with the Chinese language. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Dimethylxanthine

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

This is not the only dimethylated xanthine. Retarget to Xanthine#Pharmacology, which has a list of some sort? 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Chemindexify. Drafted below the redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Chemistry set index as drafted. ― Synpath 23:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies

• Steve Lambert - Emma Goldman Institute For Anarchist Studies → Steve Lambert  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a form of tagline (like "Einstein, Princeton University"). I don't believe it is useful. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Dirhodium tetrakis(trifluoroacetate

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

Murgh cholay

• Murgh cholay → Chana masala  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target dish is detailed as vegetarian, and has no information about murgh, murg or chicken. Delete, as I see no other article on enwiki with this specific murgh dish. Jay 💬 08:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Was going to get to this one, probably tomorrow or in the next couple days (whenever I got back around to the Murgh topic). No mention of "murgh cholay" at the target article, thereby making this a misleading redirect as we do not discuss this subject or any mentioned variations of murgh there. Retarget to Pakistani cuisine#Punjab where the dish is discussed with the most depth I've found. Readers can then scroll down two sections as it is also discussed in the #Saraiki section. It is also mentioned at Lahori cuisine, but with little depth. As long as it doesn't stay pointed at a page where it is never mentioned on. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I did not do a good job of searching. I have struck off that part from the nomination. Added a citation needed at Pakistani cuisine#Punjab since that section seems to be a summary of Punjabi cuisine which does not have mention. Jay 💬 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Jokestress

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

Neither of the words "joke", nor "stress" are listed at the target article. As it happens, this is the subject's username at Wikipedia (i.e. User:Jokestress). While it may be an "alternate name for Wikipedians", currently this exists without any context in its current form, and does not explain to uninformed readers why this combination of real word "joke" and real word "stress" go to the location of Andrea James. We don't generally created redirects for unmentioned online aliases that people might have on their social medias, so I don't see why we would have a Wikipedia redirect for a Wikipedia user name in this case, especially so if such username is never mentioned or alluded to in this article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless mentioned. I don't have an opinion about whether it should be mentioned, but unless it is the redirect is confusing and hinders people searching for the username. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It's mentioned and apparently notable that she edits wikipedia. Inclusion may be warranted in that case, which would imply keeping the redirect. I'd add it myself, except... quite frankly, I'm not sure how to word it, as adding it to the end of the sentence would imply that she contributes to the entire list of various places under the name Jokestress, when it might only be here that she uses that name. Fieari (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  We'd need, I think, a reliable independent source that considers her username to be worthy of mention to justify adding to the article I think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  As another note, it is possible to discuss her Wikipedia editing activities, without needing to redirect her own Wikipedia username there. It is currently mentioned in the prose that she contributes to Wikipedia, which seems to be enough at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've just left a note about this discussion at user talk:Jokestress. While her views on the matter (if she has any) should not necessarily be decisive they should certainly be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Rather surprising that Jokester contains the article that it does. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Joe Hill (journalist)

• Joe Hill (journalist) → ADS (TV station)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Joe" or "Hill" at the target article. Was previously tagged for WP:BLPPROD in 2012 because it did not have any sources. In fact, it has been 4,494 days that this page has not received a source. (Even if the page happens to be a redirect at this time, BUT I digress on that front). In any case, the BLP PROD timer was cut short by then-admin User:Selket, with the edit summary "this is better and won't get deleted". However, this solution was NOT "better", and "won't get deleted" is a bold claim for a BLPPROD, even back then in 2012. In any case, this has been a misleading redirect over the last 12 years, which all-the-while promised incoming searchers that "this is the location where you can read about Joe Hill the journalist", but no such information has ever existed here, as it seems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete No mention. My very cusrsory search on DDG did not find anything mentioning a journalist by the name of Joe Hill. If sources are found, it is trivial to recreate. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Joaquin Salamanca

• Joaquin Salamanca → List of characters in the Breaking Bad franchise  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are multiple uses of "Joaquin Salamanca" on Wikipedia. However, "Joaquin" does not appear at the target article, so any person navigating to this redirect would be misled by the promise of content that we aren't able to deliver on. Especially with Joaquin's existence within the text of other pages, this is currently misleading, and should be deleted (or retargeted, if appropriate) per WP:REDYES to encourage the creation of content about this character, as such content does not exist here at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Jank fraction

• Jank fraction → Frank Cameron Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has always been a redirect since 2009. No mention of "jank" or "fraction" at the target article. No mention of "jank fraction" anywhere on Wikipedia. No relation to the subject upon searching for this phrase in external search engines.

As much as it pains me to say it, but after 15 years, it seems to me the only reason this redirect exists is because it is the backward pronunciation of swapping the "fr" and the "j" from Frank Jackson, i.e., you get Jank Frac(ti)on. Unless I'm missing something. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

delete as an implausible... nickname? joke? pun!? naturally, results gave me nothing cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closest I got is some random GitHub page. Delete as implausible. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - agree with the above. Seems like a spoonerism, but that doesnt mean its helpful for anyone and there doesn't seem to be any external references to it. BugGhost🦗👻 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Spoonerisms are not really plausible searches. Fieari (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Jacob Condra-Bogan

• Jacob Condra-Bogan → Washington Nationals minor league players  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page has always been a redirect. No mention of "Condra" or "Bogan" at the target article for Washington Nationals minor league players. At the time in 2018, this redirect was created to a dedication section, presumably discussing this presumable player. However, such a section is long gone. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:32, 29 October 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)

Hydrocal

• Hydrocal → Plaster#Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "hydrocal" at the target article. There is a dedicated section at Glossary of sculpting#Hydrocal which seems like a great alternative. In this case, I intended to WP:Boldly go through with this, forgoing an RfD (a speedy retarget may be suitable imo). However, it seems that there is also HydroCal at Hydroponics#Software, which caused me to doubt the idea of targeting this to a glossary, when perhaps it can be incorporated back on Plaster or disambiguated (although with only two options, disambiguation seems unlikely to be necessary). Nevertheless, wanted to ask here just in case. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Glossary of sculpting#Hydrocal. If the other use merited a redirect, it would be HydroCal, and WP:DIFFCAPS would seem to apply, especially for two niche uses without separate articles. Section hatnotes could be used in that case. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hot Chips

• Hot Chips → List of IEEE conferences  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Hot Chips" or implication of a Hot Chips conference at the target article. Unclear why such a hatnote is needed. This should be pointed to the same target as Hot chips, in the absence of a need to specify WP:DIFFCAPS at this title, as it currently seems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Could potentially be pointed at IEEE Micro as well (and I think that would be a better target for Hot Interconnects), but to be honest I'm not sure there will be many people looking for the conference even if they specify the caps. So support as proposed, I guess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget per nom. मल्ल (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Google tells me that IEEE does run a conference named "Hot Chips", and in fact, has been doing so long enough that google is giving me 35th anniversary pages for the thing, but we currently have no information on said conference anywhere on wikipedia that I can find, and as such this redirect is not helpful. To the closer: make certain to remove the hatnote when changing the target. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Herd morality

• Herd morality → Friedrich Nietzsche#Critique of mass culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of the phrase "herd morality" at the target article. However, the term IS mentioned and discussed on Herd behavior, accredited to Friedrich Nietzche. However, someone looking for this term I feel would prefer to end up at a location that gives evidence and merit to this exact phrase, and Herd behavior wikilinks to Friedrich Nietzche. Herd mentality is also a similar redirect that exists and may be able to be employed in some manner, possibly, if hatnotes are considered in this case. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Herd behavior#Early research as it's the specific section where herd morality is mentioned. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Herd behavior#Early research as this is where the information is found. Fieari (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Liongate Home Entertainment

• Liongate Home Entertainment → Liongate Capital Management  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Liongate Capital Management was an investment management company, and therefore was never involved in the entertainment industry, let alone home media. This is likely a misspelling of Lionsgate Home Entertainment. AKK700 07:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy retarget, no other possibilities. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget, and Support speedy retarget - Agreed. Probably could have just been WP:BOLD and simply fixed it without discussion in this case. Fieari (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget - Agreed a retarget to Lionsgate Home Entertainment make much more sense. Sargdub (talk) 05:19, 31 October 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 [12][13][14] seems to show this 'Pippa Middleton' is the primary topic of "Her Royal Hotness" [15][16][17][18][19][20], even calling the actress who portrays her on The Crown as being cast as such. [21][22] -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Henț River

• Henț 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)

Hahn Mahlay

• Hahn Mahlay → Phantasy Star IV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Hahn" or "Mahlay" at the target article. There is no mention of "Hahn Mahlay" anywhere on Wikipedia. This page has always been a redirect, and previously targeted a list of characters, which has been long since removed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Gomberg radical reaction

• Gomberg radical reaction → Triphenylmethyl radical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Gomberg radical" or "radical reaction" at the target article. However, there are mentions of "Gomberg", "radical", and "reaction", intermittently, but never that close to each other (Gomberg is mentioned twice in the prose, for the Gomberg dimer and use of his full name.)

Per the edit summary, this was created to "sync with other wordings (this one matches de.wp)", which syncing seems to be good. That said, somebody looking for this radical reaction on the ENwiki, would not receive information for this full search term at the target article. It seems that it may be a good idea to have these be synced, but this should only be the case if there is some sort of content that can substantiate this redirect, and provide information for people who use this term, at the target article. Such mainspace context or content does not seem to exist at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I added multiply-cited content identifying this chemical (or its class) as the "Gomberg radical". There is another reaction known as the Gomberg reaction that is not about triarylmethyl radicals. So having this redirect for this type of reaction of his vs that other reaction at an alternative formal name (Gomberg–Bachmann reaction) solves the DAB. There are a bunch of lit hits for "Gomberg reaction" meaning the method he used to generate triarylmethyl radicals, which is part of this article's content. DMacks (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the inclusion! The mention of "Gomberg radical" looks good, and at that point, the notion that this would be a reaction is implied from the surrounding article content. If no other qualms, I'll refine this redirect to point to Triphenylmethyl radical#History where the Gomberg radical is discussed, unless you feel differently? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I could see it being either the history or the chemistry section. I suspect there will never be enough to say about the reaction itself to merit an own section. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Clara Gleeson and etc.

• Clara Gleeson → List of Fair City characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ingrid Gleeson → List of Fair City characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Joey Gleeson → List of Fair City characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Louie Gleeson → List of Fair City characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only characters named "Gleeson" whom have a dedicated entry at the target list for, are Jack Gleeson and Mike Gleeson. I am not convinced that these are useful redirects to this target, as we don't have an entry for any of these four so there is hardly anything to read or learn about, besides a one-off mention of one's first name (but no mention of "Gleeson" attached to it). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Game data

• Game data → Data file  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page in question does not mention "game", and has no affinity for gaming. The data files mentioned at the target article are either text or binary; nothing beyond this. A concept of "game data" seems to be a plausible search term, but the current target is not giving readers any of the information that they're after, lacking the crucial "game" aspect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Game data is just a data file used by a video game. It doesn't need a mention at the target to be useful, literally everything at the target tells you what you would need or want to know about game data, both text and binary. It all applies. As the user is well served by the current target, I have to support keeping the redirect, even without a direct mention. This is very nearly a synonym... not all data files are game data, but all game data consists of nothing but data files. Fieari (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just for completeness, the statement "Game data is just a data file used by a video game." is incorrect on its face -- much game data will exist in system memory dynamically and never be stored as a file. Older consoles didn't even have files, merely a ROM chip (or chips) of contiguous data. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete saved game exist as an article; game data could refer to sprite files, DLC content (not a single file, but a package of many files), etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  hehehehe downloadable content content cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Like PIN number, SIN number, SSN number; its just how English is used -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per the above, way too vague for any particular target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Side note, while we're here, the current target, Data file probably shouldn't even exist (all files are data files, and there's nothing of consequence that isn't covered more generally), and I plan to WP:BLAR that to Computer file once this RFD is over, unless anyone happens to object. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  honestly, i can get behind that. that article doesn't seem too salvageable, and even if it were, its content would still be better off in computer file cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

delete as vague. could refer to just about any type of data cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

インターネット・アーカイブ

• インターネット・アーカイブ → Internet Archive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• インターネットアーカイブ → Internet Archive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Japanese-language redirect for a subject that has nothing to do with Japan. Dominicmgm (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RLOTE मल्ल (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. it has no more affinity with japanese than with any other language cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: bundled with the other. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Tagging TeapotsOfDoom, the nominator of the other. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:Rlote TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Uikipedia

• Uikipedia → Lojban#The Internet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A misspelling or foreign-language spelling of Wikipedia. The hatnote on the Lojban article notes that it's the Japanese name for Wikipedia, but the article for Lojban doesn't mention "Uikipedia" anywhere (and googling "Uikipedia" shows mostly foreign-language Wikipedias, nothing to do with Lojban). Furthermore, the article has no "The Internet" section. I suggest retargeting to either Wikipedia, or the List of Wikipedias (which includes a list of non-English Wikipedias - the Japanese one isn't the only one starting with U). 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 05:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikipedia or to Kazakh Wikipedia (where the term is mentioned) as this Wiktionary entry lists it as a variant of "Wikipedia" in Kazakh language. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delfu as per WP:RLANG; while this is also the Lojban term for Wikipedia, the concept of Wikipedia and the concept of Lojban do not have anything to do with each other (they do not have affinity). If Wikipedia were first written in Lojban-- or for that matter, Kazakh, or Japanese-- I'd support retargeting there. As it stands, my vote is to delete.
  For the record, Lojban DOES have its own Wikipedia located here; however, it doesn't have an article for it on the English Wikipedia, the closest thing being an entry on List of Wikipedias. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• vimcu, per Lunamann. Renerpho (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Mollejon Dam

• Mollejon Dam → Chalillo Dam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is to a separate dam, not an alternate name for the Chalillo Dam itself, hence, I think it should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This would be an acceptable redirect if there were coverage of this dam on the article, but it just gets a passing mention. Thryduulf (talk)
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - @Thryduulf, A7V2, and Tavantius: Mollejon Dam is a tiny secondary dam in a small developing country. It will never meet Wikipedia notability standards. Nevertheless, it is possible that someone on Wikipedia might search for it. In that case, sending them to the article on Chalillo Dam (the larger upstream dam) at least tells them some basic information about Mollejon Dam (what river it is located on, what country, and that it's a small dam downstream from the Chalillo). Isn't that better than offering them nothing? Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  The redirect as it stands is just confusing for someone who doesn't know anything about the dam, they arrive at a page about a different dam to the one they looked for that only has a passing mention of the subject they are interested in that they have to hunt for. If the target were a List of dams in Belize or an article that included a significant mention of the Mollejon Dam this would be different, but the content needs to come before the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Thryduulf. List of dams in Belize is a sensible article to be created (and a good target for both small dams discussed here), so the argument that there will never be a Wikipedia article doesn't really work. Renerpho (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf and Renerpho: There are only 3 dams in Belize: The Chalillo and two secondary dams immediately downstream from it. They are all owned and operated by the same company and effectively treated as one dam system.[23] It would be silly to have a List of dams in Belize article for 3 dams. Nosferattus (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nosferattus: Hmm, I'm not sure... Changing my vote from delete to weak keep (vote changed to "keep", see below. Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)), at least for the moment. I'd like to hear input from someone who has experience with lists! Renerpho (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've added some more information about the Mollejon and Vaca dams to the article. Nosferattus (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit and Liz: The related discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Vaca Dam has resulted in deletion (deleted by Explicit). I didn't bother to discuss the topic there, because it's the exact same discussion for both dams, and there's a link to this discussion in the nomination for Vaca Dam. Would it have made a difference if I and others had repeated the arguments? Deleting one but keeping the other makes no sense. Renerpho (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Changing vote to keep for both Vaca Dam and Mollejon Dam. The article now discusses both, addressing the concerns raised by Thryduulf and A7V2 in their delete votes, and I think it's clear the three dams belong together. Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• I support keeping this redirect. Vaca Dam can be recreated as a redirect pointed to the same place. The previous (now closed) RfD was correct in its consensus to delete at that time, but that doesn't mean consensus can't change, which it seems to now be leaning that way. All three should go here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, sounds fine. Renerpho (talk) 23:16, 31 October 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)

Crapulinsky

• Crapulinsky → Napoleon III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Crapulinksy for the reasoning behind this RFD. I didn't notice that the other redirect was misspelled at first. To keep this short, retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Nickps (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not mentioned at either the current or proposed target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per nominator's rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Crapulinksy. As far as I can make out, this word is used once in the 18th Brumaire and nowhere else. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  But so what? Just because a word is used in an essay doesn't mean we should redirect that word to our article on that essay. There's no mention of it at the target. This would be unhelpful to anyone who knows where it's mentioned, confusing to those who don't, and misleading to everyone looking for information about this, whatever it even is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a mention added. Searching for the word/name, I did find a number of people referring to this written work, specifically about this name. The following academic paper (a reliable source) [24] even discusses, briefly but specifically, what the name means in Marx's writing. I think that merits a mention. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Such a mention would be highly WP:UNDUE -- it's only even a footnote in your source. And the only reason you're talking about adding it is because this RFD is here. Redirects should follow content, not the other way around. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, no mention of this phrase at the target article. Contains no valuable history so no context will be lost on deletion. There IS value in deleting this though, as we will no longer be misleading readers with the promise of "crapulinsky" content that does not exist not only at the target article, but "crapulinsky" does not exist anywhere on all of Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How many of us have them

• How many of us have them → Friends (Whodini song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The phrase redirects to the Whodini song as a key lyric. The phrase is stated on the article where it indicates that Bone Thugs-n-Harmony sampled the song in their song "Friends", which has apparently been retitled "How Many of Us Have Them" in some release (according to the page. That song is on the album The Art of War (Bone Thugs-n-Harmony album). Additionally, "how many of us have them?" is a poem by Danez Smith. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

i made this after a search delete it if its bad GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Recently made redirect won't cause problems or disruption anywhere with link rot if deleted, but it does appear to be useful to someone (above), and I do not have an objection to redirects from notable lyrics as a search aid, even when those lyrics do not appear in the article. It would be nice to leave the redirect be for a while to see if it starts collecting regular steady hits. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, no good target so it's better to let readers figure out what they want for themselves in this situation, given that the lyric does not receive any coverage at any of the listed pages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I have no objection to redirects from notable lyrics in principle, but – while the lyric in question is probably the most notable individual lyric from this song – I don't find myself convinced that it's recognizable enough for the redirect to be useful. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  As an aside, the "how many of us have them" line is sampled not just in the Bone Thugs song mentioned in the nom, but also in MF Doom's song "Deep Fried Frenz" (on the album Mm..Food). The existence of this sample didn't really affect my own !vote, but I figured it might be helpful to mention as additional context on the usage of the line. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 28

Universe (artwork)

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

(NPP action) Categorized as 1960 in art, Found object, and Fluxus. Someone from the Fluxus art movement might have actually described the universe as a found object in 1960, but there's no mention of this at the target. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § God (artwork), a similar redirect created by the same editor. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Garbage/inapplicable disambiguator referring to its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Universe (disambiguation)#Arts, media and entertainment per the consensus at the linked RfD which found that musical works are plausible targets for an "(artwork)" disambiguator. The found artwork is mentioned there (although the year 1960 isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Matthew sucka

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

Wokot

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

Jealousy definitions

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

This is no more useful than a Facts about [insert topic here] page. The target page already includes a link to the word's Wiktionary entry. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid {{R with history}}. Title is plausible enough for keeping as a redirect. Perhaps it's a bit redundant, but I don't see why it should be deleted. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per CycloneYoris. Someone will find what they are looking for at the target or at the Wiktionary entry linked from the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Jealousy (emotion) without leaving a redirect so that it can make more sense as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Move without redirect to Jealousy (emotion) to keep the edit history, but to get rid of the search term that sounds like a WP:DICDEF issue that I'd be advocating for deletion otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Move without redirect per Steel1943's solution. If not, delete because Wikipedia is not a FAQ and this is not how we do redirects on Wikipedia. We don't add the word "definitions" to the end of any search term, and there is no indication why this one would be special, so keep the history at a title that is inline with Wikipedia redirect practices. This will be evident in the move log. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo Twilight

• Nintendo Twilight → Nintendo DSi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, doesn't appear relevant LR.127 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess existing, a game developed and published by Nintendo. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mormons Losing Money

• Mormons Losing Money → Multi-level marketing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect LR.127 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. While there is scientific research pointing to disproportionate involvement of Mormon women in MLM (cf. Whitehead, Deborah (2023-01-01). "Startup Culture: MLMs, Mormons, and Entrepreneurship". Mormon Studies Review. 10. University of Illinois Press: 31–41. doi:10.5406/21568030.10.04. ISSN 2156-8022.), this redirect appears to be derogatory and carries no benefits for encyclopedia: whoever is interested in Mormons and MLM would not type this phrase into a search engine. Викидим (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: The user who created the redirect (@Someone who's wrong on the internet) has a history of creating inappropriate (sometimes humorous) joke redirects like ⩘⩗, 2b∣¬2b, and Talk:🚁. These fall under the "who would seriously try searching this on Wikipedia?" category. Do note that they have moved on from creating these and make a lot of constructive edits. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep (in the interests of transparency, I probably would not have watched the redirect had it not been mentioned on Discord). I do not believe this meets WP:RDELETE #3 or #8, as such I do not believe there is an argument for deletion rooted in our policies and guidelines. First of all I believe it's arguable that it's derogatory (I'd call it critical myself, but I don't really consider any joke at all derogation), but the threshold for #3, offensive or abusive would need to be more direct than even derogatory to be met. As for plausibility, besides the scholarly article cited above, it is mentioned by a number of NEWSORGs, such as The Nation, Slate, Business Insider, Mother Jones, Fortune, which calls it an old joke, The Salt Lake Tribune, which calls it well-documented and Rolling Stone (most common bastardization) (plus Salon, but there's no consensus for their reliability). Also a 2015 book. I hope the number of RS that have used it is able to convince you that this is a well-attested term, LR.127. I believe this is an WP:RKEEP #3 (it's plausible someone not familiar with the term might hear it, and not know what it refers to), it is neither novel nor particularly obscure, and well within the standards set by WP:RNEUTRAL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unless the person searching already understands the insult, they will not obtain any information about it in the article. So I still fail to see the utility of the redirect (how does it improve the encyclopedia?). Викидим (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  "I don't see the use of it" is not a listed reason to delete a redirect. #8 clearly indicates that both parts (novel or very obscure, not mentioned) need to be met, and the term is neither novel nor obscure. A reader would be informed that the title they tried to go to is an alternate name for the article they were taken to, and (while this is not the forum to discuss article content) the normal way to deal with an {{r without mention}} (other than tagging with a more specific rcat) is to add a mention, to a relevant place, for example, immediately after where the article discusses how common it is in Utah in § United States. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The context you've provided does give some credibility to the redirect's existence. Regardless, I can't decide if it's a worthwhile redirect, so I'm going to change my delete to weak because of that. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as very seriously implausible. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Alpha301 has explained exactly why this is a highly plausible and useful search term. Adding a sentence at Multi-level marketing#United States and refining it to point there would seem to be even more helpful but without the specific mention the top of the article is most useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Noted in RS as a commonly used parody of the acronym, and not insulting enough to delete outright. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not mentioned at the target, plain and simple. Outside use of the term is irrelevant, since we have no encyclopedic content about it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

4-aminopurine

• 4-aminopurine → 4-Aminopyridine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

4-Aminopurine and 4-aminopyridine are different chemical compounds and "4-aminopurine" is not mentioned at 4-Aminopyridine. Marbletan (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• delete See PubChem which shows they are completely different. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. No content on enwiki about 4-aminopurine. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Black Yoshi

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

Anyone looking up "Black Yoshi" is going to want information specifically about Black Yoshi, but the article on Yoshi does not even include the word black. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a vanity redirect. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete, unmentioned at target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Falcoln

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

probably an implausible misspelling TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning keep. I get about a thousand Google Books hits and about 10,000 Newspapers.com hits, which suggests that it's not all that implausible as a misspelling. BD2412 T 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you know if these are actual hits or are these OCR errors? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The first three pages of Google books hits results (that I can see) are approximately equally misspellings of "Falcon" and uses of "Falcoln" that might or might not be errors (e.g. referring to a pub whose name might be either "Falcon" or "Falcoln"). There are some OCR errors but these are less frequent. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Phonetically, it's more like Falcone (Italian for falcon), but misspellings in writing probably mostly refer to the bird itself I would assume. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. There are also web hits (more commonly for Maltese Falcon or Millennium Falcon than the bird) that use this spelling error, so it's highly plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Implausible spelling error. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mabe Village

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

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

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)

• 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)

Horse Grass

• Horse Grass → The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Link's horse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Horse grass → The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess#Link's horse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment both redirects have history as short articles about the item from the Zelda game Special:Permalink/22262945, Special:Permalink/22745977, the latter is implicitly sourced (to the trailer and a screenshot), the former is unsourced but contains nothing not in the latter. According to Google, this is a term in common use for varieties/mixtures of grasses that are good for horses to graze on (we don't seem to have content on that, but our content on types of grass seems to have been organised only with botanists in mind so I may have overlooked something). Additionally it is possibly a synonym for Horsetail, Alfalfa, Horse parsley ans possibly other plants. Horses and Grasses is an album but I don't think that's a good target. I'm honestly not sure what to recommend here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Overly vague, let the search function do its job rather than co-opting it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete clearly these are not horsefeed redirects -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Facecore

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

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete. This redirect originally targeted Andross, before that article was merged into List of Star Fox characters. Andross frequently appears as a giant face, so the redirect could have made sense (a portmanteau of "face" and "hardcore"?). But since I can't find anything about the particular phrase "Facecore" (either in the two articles' history or on Google), I don't see a good reason to keep it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism unless someone can show its use somewhere. Fieari (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ruffian (Star Fox)

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

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete – looking at the original revision (completely unsourced, never merged elsewhere AFAICT) and wikia:starfox:Ruffian, "Ruffian" seems to be a description of a number of unnamed minor characters, rather than a named character. I'm unsure whether this is worth mentioning at List of Star Fox characters, but I'm leaning towards no. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Herbert the Android Pig

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

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

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)

Uppers (video game)

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

I am unsure this game is notable. But redirecting it to Marvelous when there is no information on the game there is not helpful at all to readers. I suggest deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. I had created this redirect because the text in Ai Kakuma was pointing to wrong Uppers. I have no opinion on notability of either Ai Kakuma, or the game (the independent notability of the latter is not necessary for the redirect to be justified), but the redirect is actually used (and the - wrong - wikilink existed prior to creation of this one). Marvelous article actually lists the game in the "PlayStation Vita" section. So WP:CHEAP seems to apply. Викидим (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You could just delete the Wikilink. If the game isn't notable, then there should be no link pointing to it. If the game IS notable, WP:REDLINK applies and links should not just be created for everything simply as a matter of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I have not created a new link in Ai Kakuma, the link existed, but pointed to a wrong target. I had simply fixed the target through a redirect. I was not (and am not) attempting to judge the notability of either the actress or the game. There was a broken link, I have fixed it. I have no objection to anyone re-fixing it in some other way (hopefully, this volunteer will also take a look at Ai Kakuma that is entirely just a list of links). Викидим (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - plausible search term. Sources like this make it easy to add a sourced mention at the redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  If a mention was added, it would be WP:UNDUE for an article about the entire company. The point of the company article is not as a directory of their games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The mention was there all the time. We had made this situation possible long time ago by allowing articles that look like lists. Personally, I do not think this arrangement to be very printed-encyclopedia-like, but if we want to change it, this is not the place. While this situation is accepted, however, nothing prevents non-notable games from being mentioned on our pages dedicated to the creators (cf. MOS:EMBED and MOS:WORKS, The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles.). Thus, even adding an item would be in perfect alignment with our rules. Викидим (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  There already is a mention. And it's pretty standard practice to have a list of games at a game developers/publisher's article. Or even to spin them out to dedicated lists articles when the lists get too large. (Like List of Square games.) This isn't the place to take a stand against this widely accepted practice. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 31 October 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 [25] (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)

Canada bunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loudward

• Loudward → Ai sponge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

august 12th, 2036, heat death of the universe. november 4th, 2024, deletion of this redirect (per nom) cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Rhythm of ALT

• The Rhythm of ALT → WSTR (FM)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The target radio station's slogan is "The Rhythm of ATL," so I presume this is intended to be a misspelling. I do not think it is very plausible, however. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomos Publishing House redirects

• Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice → Nomos Publishing House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Die Unternehmung → Nomos Publishing House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Heather Cerveny

• Heather Cerveny → Guantanamo Bay detention camp#Legal issues  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Cerveny, it was noted by the closer that "if there was nothing worthwhile to keep after a merge, the page could be nominated at RfD". Well, not only was there apparent consensus to not mention this individual at the target, there was no merge that took place at all, as the page history/latest edit summary indicates. In present day, neither "Heather" nor "Cerveny" appear at the target article of Guantanamo Bay detention camp. People looking for information about this individual would be misled when they are taken to an article about a detention camp where she is never mentioned or alluded to. WP:REDYES would seemingly apply... but it has already been tried and tested at AfD that this person is an apparent WP:BLP1E at this time (during the discussion in 2020), so it should just be deleted, only be recreated if this subject becomes notable for some other means in the future. Or maybe retarget to Colby Vokey, where she is mentioned? If deleted, remove from the Červený disambig page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:52, 28 October 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)

New York City Birth Index

• New York City Birth Index → New York City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There does not appear to be a Birth Index located at the page for New York City. Birth Index does not exist, the only thing remotely similar to such a scope that I could find on Wikipedia would be California Birth Index. No mention of "birth index" at the target article, and very few mentions of either "birth" or "index". I tried my best to see if there was anything related within New York City#Demographics, but this just seems unhelpful because I don't think this is what readers would be after if they specified "New York City Birth Index", just to be taken back to the page for "New York City". Demographics of New York City could be slightly better, or Demographic history of New York City, that way it's not just going to the catchall page for "literally all of New York City", if we're able to give a target that is a bit more precise to what readers might be after with this particular search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not mentioned at target article, only one incoming link from article namespace, and even that is in a reference, not the body text. JIP | Talk 08:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Catching internal wiki-links is not remotely the primary purpose of redirects, and even zero internal wiki-links is not a valid reason for deletion. The primary purpose is to aid users to find what they are looking for, often by typing something into the search bar. Internal wiki-links are only a very very small part of that-- after all, we can always edit wiki-links to avoid the redirects in the first place using pipes as necessary. Not being mentioned at the target article is a bigger issue-- sometimes the existence of a redirect is enough to provide the information a user is looking for even without a mention, but not in this case. For the simple reason that we don't have any information on NYC's Birth Index, we should probably delete, but not for lack of links on wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Fund for the City of New York

• Fund for the City of New York → New York City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Fund for the City of New York" is not mentioned at the target article. People who use this search term are seemingly looking for the non-profit organization that shares this name. This non-profit is not mentioned or ever alluded to at the target article. The target article, being New York City. People who use this search term would almost certainly not be satisfied when they could have typed in NYC and ended up at the same spot. A non-profit target is desired, which we cannot offer at this time, so this should be converted into a red link to encourage article creation for this non-profit, if it is notable and verifiable, per WP:REDYES. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Remove This redirect is functionally nonsense. If Wikipedia lacked a page for the American Red Cross it would be ridiculous to suggest redirecting to the page for the United States of America, as pointed out by Utopes, same principal applies. Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:RSURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:REDYES, and because it violates WP:ASTONISH. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski

• Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski → Katyn massacre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Eugenjusz" or "Andrei" at the target article. The only mention of "Komorowski" is in relation to the President of Poland, Bronislaw Komorowski. People looking for information about this person, would not be able to find any information about this person at the target article. Do they have any relation to Bronislaw? According to the talk page archive, this person is the "only surviving witness". However, this information would not be ascertainable in mainspace, and there is a problem if the only way this can be found is by delving into the talk page archives. It does not seem as if this person was ever mentioned in the text, and this talk page discussion occurred in 2012 a couple months before this redirect was created. In any case, it is currently misleading, as we contain no information about this individual, and there is no mention of "Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski" anywhere in the mainspace of Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not mentioned at target article. The target article offers no clue about who Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski is or how he is related to the massacre. No incoming links from article namespace. JIP | Talk 08:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski is an author of a single book, "Night never ending", the only escapee from the Katyn massacre. No other details of his life are known, AFAIK, and he therefore is often considered a fictitious figure created by his supposed co-author, Joseph L. Gilmore. FWIW, Викидим (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Викидим Is this story, book, or other person notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not know. I did not find much myself, but then I did not try very hard. Викидим (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Erasing rule

• Erasing rule → Formal grammar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "erasing" at the target article, and there is no mention of an "erasing rule" anywhere on Wikipedia, besides a mention on an index for Index of philosophy articles (D–H), which can be removed. People who use this search term will be misled due to a lack of context about their search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This redirect is a {{R with history}}. There was content at this title 2005–2017 (12 years) prior to the content being subject to a WP:BLAR. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• redirect to Formal grammar#The_syntax_of_grammars where I have added relevant text. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 29 October 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)

DXAP-TV

• DXAP-TV → List of ABS-CBN Corporation channels and stations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "DXAP-TV" at the target article. As it happens, "DXAP-TV" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. People looking for this subject will be misled by this redirect, which does not directly address their search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Diana Burnwood

• Diana Burnwood → Hitman (franchise)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created on August 9th. Exactly one hour after creation, was AfD'd as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Burnwood, and nearly exactly 7 days later, it was closed as "redirect to the Hitman franchise". However, neither "Diana" or "Burnwood" is mentioned at the article for Hitman (franchise), and would be misleading to any reader who intended to find information exclusive to Diana Burnwood, but would be disappointed and misled by this redirect. As the AfD's consensus was that "this page should not exist as an article", it should be safe to delete this one. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Dhol (Kirat)

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

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

David Carroll (academic)

• David Carroll (academic) → Cambridge Analytica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Carroll" at the target article, and the only mention of "David" is three people named David who appear in the references. This redirect was created in 2018 towards this page (i.e., no valuable history which could be lost; it has always been a redirect). The edit summary states: "Redirect for now". It has now been 6 years since this redirect about a person has been created, and no material related to this person has been brought about. The existence of this redirect misleads people into thinking that we have material related to David Carroll the academic on Wikipedia, when we do not. Therefore, it should be deleted in the meantime, to encourage the creation of such an article per WP:REDYES. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:56, 28 October 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)

Darts Australia

• Darts Australia → World Darts Federation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the only redirect to this article. The article for World Darts Federation does mention Australia, which is good, but does not really give any context towards this search term which is already quite vague. I suggest deletion unless there is a better target out there for "[activity] [country]". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:REDYES. Darts Australia is the governing/organising body for darts in Australia (c.f. British Darts Organisation, Athletics Australia) but we don't have any content about it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Danut Murariu

• Danut Murariu → Salt Bank  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Danut Maruriu" at the target article. Searching for this subject has led me to uncover... his Facebook profile, confirming this is a undiscussed person, and not a synonym for the target or discussed material. People looking for information about a person would likely not be thrilled to end up at the page about a bank. Even if the two are connected in some way, such a connection is wholly unknown to readers who might not be informed on why they ended up here or who Danut Murariu is. This should be converted into a red link per WP:REDYES to encourage the creation of an article about the subject, or to encourage the creation of a dedicated section in a related article. "Danut Murariu" occurs nowhere on Wikipedia, so there is nowhere else for this to point to at this time that could give insight for readers' specific search term.

I have no opinion or desire relating to the inclusion of material at the target article. Salt Bank is a four line stub. Currently the Danut Murariu redirect is misleading, and based on the current state of the two pages involved, should be deleted. Not all hope is lost, though! The redirect can be recreated whenever it receives content anywhere on Wikipedia, which doesn't have to be this week or even this year. It can be reinstated any point in time. But, for the last 13 years, no dedicated material has been added, so this redirect has been misleading potential readers for 13 years, and tagged as "unmentioned" since 2020. This RfD has been a long time coming. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:49, 28 October 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)

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 [26]. 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 [27], 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)

D'ni Restoration Council

• D'ni Restoration Council → Myst (series)#Story  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "restoration" or "council" at the target article. Tagged as a fictional element. Page history indicates there used to be content here written entirely in an in-universe style, and any mention that may have once existed to the D'ni Restoration Council, has been wiped out entirely from Myst (series). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

October 27

Tata (Persian King)

• Tata (Persian King) → Tata (king of Awan)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There were no Persians at the time of Tata Викидим (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Persians haven't been created as separate ethnicity at that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• This redirect was actually created by Maziargh in 2010 as a redirect to Awan dynasty, then subsequently made into an article by AnnGWik and since moved to the target of the current redirect (none of that is necessarily a reason to keep, though I will also notify those users of this discussion on their talk pages). There is no Tata on List of monarchs of Persia but I don't know enough about the plausibility of someone (incorrectly) believing this Tata to be Persian to say whether this should be deleted or not. A7V2 (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tata is a semi-mythical figure, but the Awan dynasty dates to approximately 2000 B.C.. As far as I know (I am no expert), Persians came to Persis and became "Persians" a millennium later. If I am correct, Awan kings could not have ruled Persian people. Викидим (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was more getting at how likely would it be that someone would search for this person in this way, ie that people would think to search for a Persian king. But given the relative obscurity of this person, that question is probably impossible to answer so ultimately I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other if this is deleted. That said I think adding him to Tata (dab page) would be helpful and I will shortly do so, but perhaps you or someone else would like to revise my wording. A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading per the abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note that almost certainly the only way someone would find this redirect is by using it or following a link (which would likely be piped given the use of a disambiguator) so rather than being misleading, it can be helpful to help someone who is mistaken to find what they are looking for (but see my reply above as to whether that is likely to actually happen). A7V2 (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep The existence of a redirect is not a "factual offering". The argument for deletion is like saying redirects from typos should be deleted because they imply the typo is correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Delete, the target is simply not a Persian king. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• I echo A7V2's thoughts. As a redirect to Awan dynasty, the redirect was getting views from 2010, which stopped in early 2022. The subsequent views were when the article was being written, and this RfD. Ideally we can argue to delete this since we have a factually titled article now. But Tata (king of Awan) doesn't have any redirects to it. What would be a proper redirect title to indicate a king who ruled some thousand years before his kingdom became part of the "Persian region"? What is a more colloquial name better than Persia to refer to the historial Iran region? Jay 💬 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  The place is known as Elam or Susiana. Even (Sumerian king) disambiguation would be less factually incorrect. Викидим (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and tag appropriately as a redirect from a (very plausible) error. A redirect is not an endorsement of accuracy, it is a navigation aide to help those who are looking for something find that thing. If someone doesn't know that a thousand years before Persia that land was known as Awan, this redirect will help them. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Chrysolith

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

Not mentioned at target in this specific spelling; is this as ambiguous as Chrysolite? 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Googling for "Chrysolith" brings up the Olivine article, which states Translucent olivine is sometimes used as a gemstone called peridot (péridot, the French word for olivine). It is also called chrysolite (or chrysolithe, from the Greek words for gold and stone), though this name is now rarely used in the English language.. Mindat.org gives it as German synonym of: Chrysolite", it's entry for the latter is Predominantly used as a synonym for gem-quality olivine (see also peridot) but has also been used for prehnite and other green gem materials. Our Chrysolite article is a disambig linking to Olivine and other "green or yellow-green-coloured gemstones". My first thought was the completely unrelated chrysalis, searching for "Chrysolith" butterfly does bring up a few people making the same mistake, but not as many or as prominently as I expected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Based on Thryduulf's research I would lean "keep", since it seems largely helpful (spelling chrysolite/chrysolithe/chrysolithos). Cremastra (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. 1234qwer1234qwer4, may I ask why you created this section? Did you notice a instance of this, or someone searching for this somewhere, or is this merely a hypothesis that someone might? Checking Google Trends, I see no Google searches for this term for the last five years. We shouldn't create redirects for typos we hypothesize as plausible searches (WP:RSWIKIOPINION?) if nobody actually ever searches for them. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Mathglot I don't understand your comment - 1234qwer1234qwer4 didn't create the redirect, that was El Cazangero in 2015 (they were blocked for copyvios a year later, not relevant to the creation of a redriect) who targetted it to Olivine. It was retargetted in 2020 to it's present target by Opera hat. All 1234... has done is nominate it for discussion. As for utility, the redirect got 80 hits between 1 January and 9 September this year and 64 last year, which is significantly more than nobody (it's also worth noting that your Google Trends search is limited to the United States). Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Also notified of this discussion at Chrysolite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf's analysis. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf, perhaps an actual mention on the Peridot page is warranted to prevent any cases of WP:RASTONISH. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Chrysolite since it seems to be just as ambiguous as that term, for which it seems to be an alternative or foreign variant. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to the disambiguation page Chrysolite, per Felix QW. Renerpho (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget Both with and without the "e" (and with a "us") in many European languages the terms have have over the last 100 years or so become more specific. But our enquirer may not have found the term in a modern work. Of interest there is nomenclature for the subspecies, chrysolite de Saxe being topaz, chrysolit[h]e du cap being phrenite. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC).
  
• Retarget, no mention of "lith" at the target page so "lite" captures all desired usages. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Geez, a 4th relist, but wow ... the direction of the discussion seemed to change substantially after the most recent relist, so it's worth giving this another go to see if consensus gets clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy

• LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy → Leningrad Cowboys  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy → Leningrad Cowboys  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this "faux Cyrillic redirect" is useless. Even if the faux Cyrillic letters appear in the band's official logo, that's all they are, faux. No serious publication uses this form to refer to the band's name. There are no incoming links from any articles. This also caused a bot to create another redirect "LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy" because the bot thought the faux Cyrillic letters were real. That redirect is even more useless. Delete both. JIP | Talk 22:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep first as a valid stylization of the band's name. It doesn't matter whether a "serious publication" would use it. The band uses it, which makes it prima facie a plausible search term. Delete second as one of many, many incorrect redirects created by Eubot longer ago than some editors have been alive. Eubot is no longer active, nor would such a context-sensitive bot task be approved today. I actually think admins may have used {{db-error}} on Eubot errors in the past? But I could be misremembering. Tavix would know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep first concurrence with Tamzin in toto. Additionally, the insinuation that an improper use of Cyrillic lettering is sufficient reason to delete a redirect would mean that various existing redirects would need to be removed, including: TETЯIS, KoЯn and LIИKIИ PARK, not to mention the redirects for things like Ωmega Mart and GRΣΣK, which while not faux Cyrillic, are certainly faux Greek. Considering the fact that numerous official sources have used these stylings, the argument that no serious publication uses it, even if it wasn't irrelevant, is prima facielly false. Further, the use of faux Cyrillic is so widespread that the same serious publications insinuated above to not use such forms have changed their own stylization, such as what was done to various news organizations covering the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Beyond ALL of that, the fact that there are so many examples where this has been implemented, that while there is no official policy within the Style Manual for it, I'd say we've reached WP:CON, meaning that the redirect is actually defacto policy. Delete Second because that one is useless, and as previously mentioned, was created by a bot that appears to no longer even be active, in which case by all means it should be purged. BUT, the bot didn't think the Cyrillic letters are real, because A) they are real, and B) if the bot "thought" that, it would have interpreted them appropriately, what happened is the bot misinterpreted the Cyrillic as Latin characters, resulting in the horrendous redirect. That being said, the bot's mistaken translation of Cyrillic characters as Latin ones does not make the cyrillic redirect somehow fruit of the poison tree, and the argument that the misinterpretation of a bot is cause to change more than a decades of consensus is, void ex facie as it is, quite simply, ridiculous. If your doctor mistakes your chicken pox for the common cold, you blame the doctor not the chicken pox. Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 1st, Delete 2nd - per above. Note that catching internal links is not the primary purpose of redirects, and zero internal links is not a valid deletion reason. Redirects are primarily a search aide, first and foremost. Fieari (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep LEИIИGЯAD Cowboy per above as a valid stylization of the band's name. Even if this redirect's title isn't plural and/or used by "serious publications," people might still search for the band using the name the way it's written on their logo. Delete LEIIIGIaAD Cowboy per above as an implausible Eubot redirect that should've been booted from the site years earlier. Regards, SONIC678 06:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 1st, Delete 2nd per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Barangay 79

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

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

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

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

User:@Sir MemeGod

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

"Degrassi characters" redirects

• Charcters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Characters of degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Characters of Degrassi → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Degrassi characters → List of Degrassi characters (1987–1992)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Back in 2021, the target page was moved from the last redirect's title to List of Degrassi Junior High & Degrassi High characters (which is worth keeping at the current target since it's accurate and describes exactly what is promised by its title) to avoid confusion with List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi: Next Class characters, but apparently these redirects have stayed at the target for all these months since this move happened. I'm not 100% sure if the current target is the best place to take readers searching any of these terms; but I'm torn between keeping, disambiguating, and deleting; since the target article is the longstanding page of each redirect. I thought I'd bring them to RfD to discuss the best course of action, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Regards, SONIC678 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig they are all plausible but ambiguous search terms with no obvious primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig between the locations of all the character lists, for Kids of Degrassi Street, Jr.High, High, School's Out, NextGen, NextClass ... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Inside Head

• Inside Head → Inside Out (2015 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to be fairly ambiguous: could also refer to something like Head and neck anatomy. Not mentioned at target Cremastra (u — c) 14:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: That's the English translation of インサイド・ヘッド, the movie's title in Japan. I haven't really formed my opinion about this yet, but that movie doesn't have a connection to Japanese, and like the nom says, it can refer to stuff like the proposed target. Regards, SONIC678 16:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak KeepWeak Delete While the connection to the film is a little flimsy, a google search does not return anything meaningful for the exact term in the redirect. There are many other redirects out there that have minor usefulness, and we keep them. If a future editor wants to use this term for something else, he/she can replace the redirect with a disambiguation page, or just replace the page altogether. --rogerd (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • After further consideration, I have decided that this may prevent a future more valid use for the term from being used, so I don't think there is any benefit to keep it. --rogerd (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Remove While all points above are valid, I don't see any good reason to keep the redirect in place. I see no great WP:CON on redirects to titles from other languages, especially ones where the translation language and target language aren't even remotely related (I could see an argument for languages that are both Latinic for example, or even Germanic and Latinic, where there exists substantial enough similarity to justify that someone might be looking for it). We don't even consistently redirect to former, WIP, or alternative titles of a work given by the works creator in the SAME language (The Psychedelic Soldier ≠ Apocalypse Now).Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go

• A-hunting we will go, a-hunting we will go, heigh-o, the derry-o, a-hunting we will go → Yankee Doodle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Despite being implausible, unlikely as a search term, and wholly unmentioned not at the target article, but also unmentioned across all of Wikipedia, the redirect is also incorrect. It should be "heigh ho", not "heigh o". This exact spelling becomes near impossibly unlikely in the grand scheme of things, keeping in mind that all this time we're simply targeting "Yankee Doodle". People looking for the correctly spelled lyric, will not find it here either. No mention of "hunting" at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I just realized: these lyrics aren't even for Yankee Doodle! A-Hunting We Will Go has existed since 2010 so I have ZERO clue how this could have possibly happened, besides expectable carelessness from the mass-redirect creations of unmentioned & unverified lyrics, filled with typos and implausible formatting.

For this page, A-Hunting We Will Go does currently contain lyrics in the article, and the lyrics indeed say "heigh ho". But these are also unsourced and should be removed from the article as well, per WP:NOTLYRICS and not being encyclopedic content. Lyrics can be included on Wikiquote or Lyricfinder if desired, or wherever the appropriate place to put such lyrics, on any site that isn't Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is not a lyric database). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go anyways, despite the impending removal of lyrics; the title of the song IS present in the redirect, and it would definitely be going to the right place if retargeted.

In other news, this was APPARENTLY created from scratch in August of this year by user:Kjell Knudde; however the history indicates that Kjell was merely adding categories to an existing redirect?? I've got no clue. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go. Cremastra (u — c) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to A-Hunting We Will Go per above. If someone searches these lyrics and ends up at the page for a song that doesn't contain them, chances are they might be WP:ASTONISHed at this. It's preferable to lead them to a song that actually contains them to prevent this from happening. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: The lyrics have been removed from the article, because Wikipedia is not a lyric database, furthermore the whole section was unsourced. Also keeping in mind that these are not actually the true lyrics of the song. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, it should be delete nor a specific retarget into A-Hunting We Will Go. There is no match within it's lyrics. Thus, it is include for WP:COSTLY applied. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Icarus58 But, someone typing in these lyrics will still get given the song to which they belong to. Given that the title is the first line, it should be clear why they're being redirected. I do not see how WP:COSTLY applies. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I noted for that — sorry. Please see if this is match with a source: [28] ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Noting: It's not a match, because the song goes "heigh ho", and not "heigh-o" as the redirect uses it. And without a sourced mention at the article, this material, (even if it is "correct" or "incorrect") cannot be reliably verified. And this one is incorrect, so it certainly can't be verified. It is WP:COSTLY because we cannot and should not be expected to maintain unverified lyrics, ESPECIALLY so when they contain obscure errors, as Wikipedia redirects, WP:UNNATURAL. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping

• Pump up the jam, pump it up, while your feet are stumping → Pump Up the Jam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone who is typing this full phrase is almost certainly familiar with the name of the song being "pump up the jam" at a 99% confidence. At 0.1% confidence would anyone expect this song to be TITLED "Pump up the jam pump it up while your feet are stumping". And articles are titled based on their titles. Searching for the whole phrase implies that certain material related to redirect that implies we contain information related to this clearly lyrical search term, when we do not. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:11, 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) 12:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – the true lyric ends with "stomping", not "stumping". jlwoodwa (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I will note that stumpin' is how it's pronounced in the actual song-- or at least it sounds that way to my own ears. That said, it not being the correct lyric does considerably weaken my own Keep vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, exceedingly implausible and useless, especially given that the actual song name is contained as the first part of it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per IP user. WP:LYRICS applies. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Choose life (quote)

• Choose life (quote) → Trainspotting (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this quote at the target article. Confusing redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Remove Acknowledging of course that the U.S. is not the world, Choose life has a very different meaning here, and presumably in much of the rest of the world where abortion is a hot topic. It seems that this redirect is probably in reference to the Choose Life Project, a U.K. based charity surrounding drug use (although the UK does also have a Choose Life anti-abortion group), it feels far too abstract to actually be useful to anyone, as a side note, Choose Life license plates would likely be a far less obscure redirect. Foxtrot620 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Foxtrot620, also the quote is not mentioned at the target article and the redirect has no incoming links from article namespace. JIP | Talk 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete rather than decrease confusion, it increases it. --rogerd (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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 [29] 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 [30]. 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)

2025–26 Formula E World Championship

• 2025–26 Formula E World Championship → Formula E  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing on the target page or google about this season. TOOSOON. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as not mentioned at target. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Antelope horns

• Antelope horns → Asclepias asperula  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It seems to me that the primary meaning of the phrase "Antelope horns" would be the horns of the antelope. BD2412 T 03:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Antelope#Horns per nom. Cremastra (u — c) 13:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any places where there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns? Any piped links that would be made simpler by this change? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that "Antelope" has had 1,872,153 pageviews in the past five years, while "Asclepias asperula" has had 31,121 (and "Antelope horns" has had 140), it is evident that the plant is ridiculously obscure relative to the animal (by a ratio of 60 to 1), which animal happens to be exemplified by its horns. BD2412 T 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Currently this redirect is from a common name for a plant to its scientific name. If a redirect is needed to link to Antelope#Horns the page Antelope horn could be created as a redirect that would naturally disambiguate. Then using [[Antelope horn]]s]] would link to information about the group of animals. While the redirect under discussion is not currently used I will note that it should have been used instead of the common name being piped to the species name on Guadalupe River State Park. The other use of the phrase "antelope horns" that is wikilinked is on the page Taforalt is currently piped to Antelope rather than to the section. As such I am not convinced there is a need for a redirect to Antelope#Horns. It should be left as it is or turned into a disambiguation page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget with hatnote. Your average person is not going to know that there is a plant called 'Antelope horns' and would be WP:SURPRISED by targeting to the plant. Meanwhile, there does not seem to be enough in the way of alternate targets to support an entire disambiguation page. Retarget to the article section on the anatomy of the African bovine; add a hatnote pointed to the plant-- "Antelope horns" redirects here. For the plant named "antelope horns", see Asclepias asperula. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget with hatnote. Google Scholar results suggest that the primary sense of this term, even among scholars, is the animal organ. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Antelope#Horns per above. Adding a hatnote to the plant won't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget to Antelope#Horns (there is an anchor for that already). It would be nice to dedicate a section "Horns" to the horns, so there would be a place for hatnote there. Викидим (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

India as a potential superpower

• India as a potential superpower → Potential superpower#India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would just like to solicit other users' opinions on whether this redirect should be turned back into an article, given how much content it had. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The redirect too. This fork was deleted per this AfD and was created without consensus. Whatever was necessary in that fork was almost covered on the main article of Potential superpower. Rest is not needed given we also have Indian Century. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Whatever was in the redirect before it got turned into one is irrelevant. This redirect is simply a minor variation of the target section header. RfD is not for discussing AfD results, perhaps try WP:Deletion review. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a paradigm example of redirects being cheap. BD2412 T 16:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as plausible search term variant. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect, plausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi-IN

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Th-TH

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Neo-mooris

• Neo-mooris → Moorish sovereign citizens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Neo-moors

• Neo-moors → Moorish sovereign citizens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make this but AFAIK this is a synonym for the target (or the science temple... i forgot). I'll find a source and add it later PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm. There are sources that use this in reference to this topic, but also some other topics. Unsure of what to do here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Amanuwil Binyamin Ya'qub Gharib

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

Çornosturuf

• Çornosturuf → Chornyi Ostriv, Khmelnytskyi Oblast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shows up on some Turkish pages; affinity to target is unclear. Cremastra (u — c) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Kırıvçe

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

Seems to be Turkish-style transliteration? Regardless, unmentioned at target, and searches have not helped elucidate the meaning of this redirect. Cremastra (u — c) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Necko Jenkins

• Necko Jenkins → Nikko Jenkins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created as a "likely misspelling," but Google does not show anyone misspelling it this way. In some Southern U.S. accents "Necko" and "Nikko" might be pronounced similarly, but not in a Great Plains accent. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

October 26

The ancient city

• The ancient city → King's Field IV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is now in conflict with the article about the book "The Ancient City". I propose this redirect is removed and disambiguation is added to the article on the book. Nuclearelement (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget and add a hatnote per nom. Given the number of hatnotes at City#Ancient times (where Ancient city redirects) there is probably scope for a disambiguation page somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Would converting the "City#Ancient times" redirect to a disambiguation article be a good option here? Nuclearelement (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to the book or someplace else more suitable. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate, Ancient City should probably be a DAB and was one so "The ancient city" can go there per WP:DABNAME. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to The Ancient City. Due to WP:SMALLDETAILS, no disambiguation page appears to be required unless it is decided the book is not the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to retarget this redirect to The Ancient City but it looks like more complicated suggestions are being made here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, given that there is also Ancient City (film), and City#Ancient times would not follow from a "The" as readily as the phrase "ancient city". BD2412 T 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I have created Ancient city (disambiguation) for purposes of this discussion. BD2412 T 19:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    I've adjusted the hatnote at City#Ancient times to point to that dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to The Ancient City as this would offer the least amount of confusion. JIP | Talk 08:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Now that we've got Ancient city (disambiguation), I think we should refocus back to this RFD. I originally wanted this redirect deleted, but if that'll cause problems, then I agree to Retarget to The Ancient City Nuclearelement (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Murgh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barney's Magical Musical Adventure

• Barney's Magical Musical Adventure → Barney & Friends#Movies and specials  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Magical", or "Musical Adventure" at the target article. People looking for this individual show would not receive what they were looking for at the target.

The only mentions of "magical musical adventure" on all of Wikipedia are at David Joyner (actor) (which is unusable imo) and Barney (franchise), which is only mentioned once, in a sidebar. I'm not convinced this is the best option either, but at least better than no mentions (which is the status quo).

It might've been possible for me to retarget to Barney (franchise) without RfDing, as a means of getting it off the current target where its not mentioned, but I slightly prefer deletion of this redirect and/or recreation as an individual page, if that's even possible. Pointing as a redirect to Barney (franchise), with its only mention contained in the infobox, is not very ideal for this subject. All of the other Barney DtV home videos in the infobox seem to have their own standalone articles, so perhaps this one has some hope as well? Especially with the history behind this title, (even if it was supposably unreferenced since 2007, until being BLAR'd in early 2024). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently, this was on List of Barney and Friends episodes at one point. Perhaps the list of specials can be restored to that page? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Burnt Food

• Burnt Food → List of The Good Doctor episodes#ep1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Without a lowercase version redirecting somewhere else, a search for "burnt food" in lowercase goes to the TV version, which is a surprising result for someone (like me) hoping to find coverage of actual burnt food. Sdkb ^talk 22:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We have articles for charring, cooking, and combustion, but none discusses the concept of food and the concept of burning together. I am surprised the concept of burning of food does not have an article yet. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Same; there wasn't even an item on Wikidata until I created one. Sdkb ^talk 03:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Michael J. Burns

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Canales semicirculares anterior

• Canales semicirculares anterior → Semicircular canals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No affinity to Spanish, so delete, I think. Duckmather (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Notably, this is not just a Spanish translation, but "a Nomina Anatomica synonym to Terminologia Anatomica or a common used term", as noted in the edit summary. However, this alternate terminology is not mentioned at the subject, and there is no allusion to the Spanish language or way to indicate why the Spanish translation points here, (maybe someone wanted to get to the Spanish Wikipedia article?) so I weakly lean towards deletion on these WP:FORRED grounds. If kept, this should be refined to Semicircular canals#Anterior semicircular canal. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination as WP:FORRED. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cadenas y canales de televisión

• Cadenas y canales de televisión → Television channel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No affinity to Spanish, so delete, probably? Duckmather (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, as the redirect roughly translates to "television channels and channels". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• It's closer to "television networks and channels", but that's academic. Delete per WP:FORRED. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

CSSBuy

• CSSBuy → Freight forwarder  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "CSS" or "Buy" at the target article, much less "CSSBuy", much less any mention on all of Wikipedia (of which there is none). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Google tells me this is a specific freight forwarder, I don't know whether they are notable (30 seconds on Google only told me that the question can't be answered in that short a time) but without a mention anywhere that's not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cruciverbalist

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

No mention of this term at the target article. Is tagged as "an alternate name" and "an alternate language", but I'm doubtful of both of these claims, as the word is in English and has a definition of "someone who makes crossword puzzles". However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT, and with no mention of the definition or relation to the topic, this is not helpful as a redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:R#KEEP 3, They aid searches on certain terms. The term has currency in crossworld. [31] [32] [33] (PS: NOTDICT doesn't really apply; if anything it suggests making a redirect.) (PPS: Agree it shouldn't be tagged as Latin.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I agree this is a plausible search term, but our Crossword article is unhelpful to those who don't know what the word means. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Crop Protection (journal)

• Crop Protection (journal) → International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of such a journal at the target article. People who are looking for information on this journal would not find it at the target article. Tagged as having possibilities, so perhaps this journal could be a standalone page one day, but a blue-link to a page-without-mention is not the way, it seems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The solution here is to mention the journal, not delete the redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The content of the page should shape the existence of the redirects that point to the page, not the other way around. The existence of redirects does not necessarily mean we need to add content to substantiate their targets, although that is often a good solution for inspired users to skirt the need for an RfD. I have no opinion or desire relating to the inclusion of this material. The redirect creator was blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. And the page being discussed here (containing no valuable history; this page is a redirect), can always be recreated at no cost when someone adds material relating to this journal anywhere on Wikipedia. That doesn't have to be this week. Or this month. Or this year. But regardless of what point in time someone wants to discuss this journal on Wikipedia, this redirect will be wholly misleading in its current form, containing zero content for prospective searchers all the while. Redirects without a mention are a perennial problem, and from my searches on Wikipedia there's been no demonstrable evidence at this point in time that this one needs to exist, and can't just be recreated at a suitable date once suitable content has been added. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of that rant, you could simply have done this this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not do that, because I did not think this material should be added. This is not an article about a journal. Deletion IS preferable to me, and is the only reason either of us are speaking here; to not have a potential article about this topic be turned into a redirect towards one big mission statement. WP:REDYES, and "deleting redirects which lie to readers" is valid. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Crean Hill, Ontario

• Crean Hill, Ontario → Walden, Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of a "Crean Hill" at the target article. People using this search term are unaware of what and where this location has anything to do with Walden. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Craig Joint Theater Hospital

• 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)

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)

Roger M. Cooke

• Roger M. Cooke → Resources for the Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No history, no mention of such a person at the target article in the prose. The only aspect where this is mentioned is that Cooke apparently is one of the (many) authors of one source used in the references here. But no indication who this person is or how they are related to this subject. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete in favour of search results, in which the mention at Vine copula#Historical origins is prominent (which probably doesn't justify a redirect on its own). Also, remove dab page mention. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:40, 26 October 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)

Communist Party (Kosovo)

• Communist Party (Kosovo) → List of political parties in Kosovo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "communist" at the target article. A misleading redirect to a target where the party in question is not discussed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to League of Communists of Kosovo. मल्ल (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

CNN Underscored

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

There is no mention or discussion of an "underscored" variant of CNN. No mention of the word "underscore" anywhere at the target. Currently a misleading redirect, as people who would have otherwise wanted the general article for CNN, would've typed in "CNN". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"CNN Underscored" is CNN's affiliate marketing division. They rate and recommend various consumer products and receive a cut of the proceeds if people click through to buy them. See https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored. gnu57 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I did some cursory search on the web and I don't think it is particularly notable. I suggest deletion since a mention is unlikely to be added Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Enslaved Africans

• Enslaved Africans → Atlantic slave trade  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Enslaved Africans" seems too broad to be redirecting to the Altantic slave trade alone. Either seems like it should be redirected to Slavery in Africa, to a disambiguation page or just deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Slavery in Africa but add hatnote to current target. This one is a bit tricky, but I do agree with the nominator that the current target is not the most ideal. Slavery in Africa also isn't a perfect target, becuase "Enslaved Africans" is a very common phrase to find in literature regarding the Atlantic slave trade or slavery in the Americas more broadly (see [34], [35], and [36] for just a few examples). I think it is the preferable one here though as the broadest possible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Slavery in Africa. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Pizzaface

• Pizzaface → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pizza Face → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

currently unmentioned in the target and with primary topichood completely usurped by a pizza tower character with the same name (good for him :3). was about to retarget there and call it a day, but per wikt:pizza face, there might be some other possible target(s). opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate at pizza face and add the wiktionary link there. The TMNT character 'Pizza Face' is mentioned at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 where it is also the title of a TV episode. There are several other topics on Wikipedia available as mentions. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of the discussion at the target and at Pizza Tower.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Fântânele River (Mureș)

• Fântânele River (Mureș) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fantanele River (Mures) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fântânele River (Mureş) → Mureș (river)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was redirected under a verifiability concern years ago. Fântânele River doesn't list it. Can't find it on either OSM or Google maps. Used to also have Kutas-patak redirected to it, but that's a waterway somewhere else. Looks like this was the result of some sort of a confusion. Joy (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There's also the version without diacritics, which I'll be adding here, since I think it should share the same fate. Regards, SONIC678 20:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled another version Fântânele River (Mureş).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think a Romanian/Romanian-speaking editor would be helpful here to determine whether this is actually a thing or not. Probably the result of some confusion with Fântânele, Mureș; the online source indicates that Fântânele is the name of a valley, but I'm not sure whether that translates to it being the name of a river. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have found this river on an old hiking map, where it's called "V. Fîntînele" (old spelling using "î" instead of "â", in full it would be "Valea Fântânele"). It flows into the Mureș at Lunca Bradului. The same river is called "Obcina Ferigelor" on this hiking map, and it is mentioned as such in this listing, page 265 and in this source, page 137. According to the latter source, it is 7 km long and has a basin area of 23 km². This document refers to the river as "pârâul Obcina Ferigilor (pr. Fântânel)". But, "obcină" means "ridge" and "vale" means "valley", so these names could also refer to the wider area the river flows in. Concluding, there is evidence that this river exists, but it doesn't seem very notable. The Mureș (river) article mentions "Obcina Ferigerilor" as a right tributary, so we could add "Fântânel" or "Valea Fântânele" as an alternative name there, or (re)create an article about the river. Markussep ^Talk 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district

• Bhairabi Temple, Boudh district → Boudh district#Purunakatak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Among the temples listed at the article, "Bhairabi" isn't one of them, and the section this redirect points to no longer exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Melonade

• Melonade → Homestar Runner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target; listed in Lucozade#Variants but there is also a more general Wiktionary entry at wikt:melonade. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Retarget to wikt:melonade as the best information currently available on this word. I have doubts it is sufficiently covered in WP:RS to make an article here at this time (but who knows in the future...). Fieari (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unmentioned and WP:REDYES 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No article has any substantive material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• REtarget to melon where melon juice redirects to -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wikt:melonade per Thryduulf Fieari. Enix150 (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Enix150: Thryduulf hasn't participated in this discussion. Jay 💬 17:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to melon, as redirects to Wiktionary are probably best avoided. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or weak retarget to Wiktionary:melonade. I oppose "retarget to Melon" since per the existence of Lemonade and Limeade, this title probably has some WP:REDLINK potential that is not adequately explained at Melon. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Nose-pickers

• Scottish Nose-pickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scottish Nose Pickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Scottish Nosepickers → Scottish National Party  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Little Evidence that this is a title that would be searched for. Only a reference to Nicola Sturgeon Picking her nose can be found using this search term. See no need for a redirect on that basis. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note I've merged these two related nominations that had an identical rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this is a very-long established nickname with lots of independent uses, e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], and plenty of others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf. BarntToust^(Talk) 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note I've added the other redirect I made of a variant of this name. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not mentioned at target/WP:REDYES. I would expect someone searching for this term already knows what it refers to, but is looking for information about its usage specifically -- information we don't have. And on the off chance someone doesn't, they may be left wondering why they were led to the target in the first place. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per 35. Possibly speedy as well. Maybe those sources are good, I don't know. But it is definitely not helpful for regular readers, because the only evidence that they might be at the right place is tucked into an October 2024 discussion in projectspace (this one). So readers are unable to verify any of that, or "easily check that information comes from a reliable source". On top of that, it's G10. No mention of "nose" or "picker" at the target. The example textualized at the WP:G10 policy page clarifies that "mentioned attacks are valid". It's never been the case where the opposite is acceptable (unmentioned attacks). Delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, tag as non-neutral. This is a perjorative name that isn't clearly linked to its target at first glance, but as Thryduulf states has a long history of being used. I disagree with the IP's assertion that someone searching for this topic would 100% be trying to find out more info about what the name comes from-- they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  "they could just as easily be trying to figure out what it refers to". But we have no information to help them determine that, or why it does. Wikipedia is not Google. If an ignorant reader puts in in the search bar, they'll have no idea why they landed where they did, with no information about the phrase they were looking for. It's misleading and a waste of a reader's time. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable action here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The readers would probably notice that the acronyms of both are the same. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, maybe not. And even if they do, they'd have no idea why they were redirected. Is this a common term? Is it a well known thing that someone used once with some encyclopedic history? Is it vandalism? The ignorant reader has no way of knowing, because we have no information about it. Wikipedia is not Google -- it's not our job to tell people what the term refers to without context; it's our job to provide the context. And if we have none, then the redirect shouldn't exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf. Sure, some readers aren't going to realise the implication of this redirect's existence (that this redirect is a term used to refer to the SNP). But if this is deleted, no readers will realise that implication. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

• I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. → HAL 9000  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_19#I'm_sorry_Dave. I'm not convinced that deletion was the right outcome there, but this redirect should suffer the same fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Fortunately we are not bound by consensus so when a previous discussion gets it wrong we are not required to repeat it. This is a very notable quote, indeed it's the most notable quote from the entire work. There are potential arguments that "I'm sorry Dave" could be ambiguous (I've not looked to see if it is in practice), but for the whole quote every single one of the hits on the fist 8 pages of Google for I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that -Wikipedia -Wikiquote (not even the exact phrase) are about the film, about the line from the film, or referencing (almost always explicitly) the line from the film. People are using this redirect (sometimes it's getting multiple times per day) and the target is unambiguous, so deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per Thryduulf. Even if it's not explicitly listed off in the actual articles, this is, as Thryduulf notes, the most notable quote in the entire work, a quote near synonymous with the character of HAL 9000 itself. Removing this redirect or directing it anywhere else would do a huge disservice to the readership. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Lunamann... from April, during the previous discussion. What I'm reading in THIS discussion, based on what has been stated so far, is baseless assertions of "having highest notability" with zero particular sources or evidence behind the claim "it's the most notable quote from the entire work". "Synonymous with the entire character itself", no less!! According to the information listed on our Wikipedia pages, Hal 9000 and its reliable sources, it's not. There are 8-10 quotes at the target that are namedropped, WITH sources and enough presumed importance to be featured in prose, but none are this one, and none of those have redirects.

Is it really the most notable quote from the entire work? Genuinely excellent! This content could improve the encyclopedia. So there MUST be some way to verify this claim from a reliable source? If I were to type this in as a significant quote, for starters I would certainly want to read about the quote SPECIFICALLY, because that's exactly the search term I typed in, but such an article does not exist at this time. Therefore, we'd want to encourage readers to add material which we don't have, per WP:REDLINK. For a standalone article, a structure like Our princess is in another castle! could work? We've definitely done it before. But maybe this quote-topic can be covered on a different page, and not have to be standalone if the sources aren't up to par. If I had to pick a character to end up at, I would personally want to go to an article about "Dave" (because that is the name I purposely typed). I did not type in HAL 9000. If I wanted HAL 9000, I (and anyone who wanted to find HAL 9000) would've typed in "HAL 9000", which I deliberately be avoiding by typing in 9 words, none of which contain "HAL" and none of which contain "9000". The search term is, for all tenses and purposes, a totally separate topic. A quote. Not a character. And nothing exists for it on Wikipedia, it seems.

If this quote is so important as it is claimed here, it seems like it'd be a homerun out-of-the-park slam dunk to have SOMEthing, SOMEwhere, related to this quote. But, to the best of my understanding, we do not, anywhere. We didn't in January. We didn't in April. And nearly a year later, not in October either. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from the history, given that not even Lunamann wanted to save this in April, is that this quote must not be worthwhile! (Obviously this is not true, because the quote IS "important" and likely notable, possibly even reaching standalone notability! But Wikipedia is not trying to "right the wrongs" of a lack of coverage. We can only report on, and redirect based on the material that is contained here on Wikipedia. Not what we want it to contain. This is regardless if it's "important", but not mentioned yet.) The way to indicate that there is a gap in Wikipedia coverage to be filled, is a redlink. This redirect has zero valuable history. It can ALWAYS be recreated once someone feels it necessary to discuss this potentially notable quote on the biggest online encyclopedia. Which will certainly happen eventually, especially so if the "quote is synonymous with the target itself". But doesn't need to happen now. We are in WP:NORUSH to finish it. And in the meantime, people who search for a quote, and don't end up at material directly related to their search term, will certainly be misled, as Wikipedia is not, does not function as, or advertise as a "type in a quote and get the character who said it without any mention of the search term you used because it's not 'important' enough to be covered at the target page you ended up at" service. The content of the article dictates the redirects that should exist. Not the other way around. Recreate the redirect once a sourced mention is added, somewhere on Wikipedia, because there are none right now... besides one.

Alternatively, retarget to Love and Rocket where the quote is discussed, and HAL 9000 is readily linked. But my guess is that people would probably not want that. Welp. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. It's referenced in an 2017 Human-Agent Interaction conference paper, "I'm Sorry, Dave, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Chatbot Perception and Expectations"; an ACMI (museum) article, "2001: A Space Odyssey – 'I'm sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that' "; and a Sound & Vision magazine article, "I’m Sorry Dave, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That". ("I'm sorry Dave" was too ambiguous to survive. That is not the case here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – mention unnecessary for the redirect to answer the reader's most probable question ("where is this from?"). Re REDLINK, I think this is unlikely to be able to survive AfD (as evidenced by its lack of significant discussion in mainspace). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget per FOARP. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless/until mention is added. If this quote is so important then it should be in the article. Without it this redirect is confusing and unhelpful. A7V2 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep with or without mention, although I think a mention is likely warranted given the prominence of the quote in common and academic discourse (particularly related to computers in general, and AI in particular). Fieari (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture#Influence on technology where it actually is mentioned, and probably re-create I'm sorry Dave as a re-direct to the same place. I tend to agree with the keep !voters above about the significance of this phrase and plausibility that it will be searched for, but there is a separate article about the cultural impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with a specific section about its impact on technology, where this redirect is a rather well-known catchphrase. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FOARP's retarget? Pinging @Pppery, Thryduulf, Lunamann, Utopes, Clarityfiend, A7V2, and Fieari:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

RE: FOARP's alternate target: I'm not actually certain. I don't think people will be looking for this info if they search this prompt, however, it's easy to get from here to 2001: A Space Odyssey and/or HAL 9000, so perhaps this could be a good target? I'm going to keep my vote where it is, but I won't be terribly upset if it ends up there instead. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This quote from the character is iconic enough to be a synecdoche of the character, and the identification of references to the quotation in secondary sources cements that. As for whether it needs to be in the body text, I'm persuaded by J947's observation that the redirect even on its own will answer the reader's most probable question ("where is this from?"). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a likely search term, and if the only object is that it's not mentionned in the article, then the solution to that is to mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 27 October 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)

Klm Ryl Dtch Airlines

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't I a stinker? (remaining bundle)

• Ain't I a stinker? → The Abbott and Costello Show  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ain't I a stinker → Bugs Bunny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Stinker" does not appear at the target article for Bugs Bunny. However, it is mentioned at The Abbott and Costello Show and several other articles including List of Saturday TV Funhouse segments, and WikiQuote at q:Hare Force. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel that more people know this phrase from Bugs Bunny than from Abbot and Costello. I it a plausible search term, but I'm unsure whether we should drill down and really determine if there's a WP:PTOPIC, or if we should disambiguate. I don't think deletion is a good idea due to the plausibility of someone searching for this very famous phrase. If a PTOPIC is found, hatnoting may be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it would boil down to "where will readers receive the information most pertinent to their search term and have their questions be answered", and that is not the case at Bugs Bunny with zero mention. Yet the phrase "Ain't I a stinker" has like 6 mentions across Wikipedia, all of which might possibly be valid and could draw the target, but the fine details can be ascertained through this RfD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This phrase is not relevant on the Abbott and Costello TV series page, because it was never used in the series. A better place might be on the A&C radio show page, or the Abbott and Costello bio page. I do think it is a minor phrase that wasn't readily associated with the team.Plummer (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 14:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget both to Bugs Bunny. A Google Books search for the phrase suggests the primary association is with the wascally wabbit. This could easily be added to the article as a documented catchphrase (distantly behind "What's up, doc?" but still associated with the character). BD2412 T 21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I have now added reference to this phrase to the article, citing sources including William J. Jackson, American Tricksters: Thoughts on the Shadow Side of a Culture's Psyche (2014), p. 33: saying of Bugs Bunny's tricksterism, "One of his famous lines is, 'Ain't I a stinker'". BD2412 T 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Utopes, Fieari, and Plummer: - all good here? BD2412 T 20:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yep. Retarget both to Bugs Bunny, per the reference added, google books results, and also my personal subjective feeling that this should be the WP:PTOPIC. If anyone thinks it's necessary, a section hatnote could be added to Abbott and Costello, but while they may have said it I don't think they're known for it. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, retarget to Bugs, and remove entirely from Abbott and Costello.~~~ Plummer (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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 [43], 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: [44]. 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)

Tiff & Tuff (Chara(c)ters)

• Tiff & Tuff (Charaters) → Kirby: Right Back at Ya!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tiff & Tuff (Characters) → Kirby: Right Back at Ya!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects began their history in 2008 as a page about the characters (see the last version before redirection here) until it was turned into a redirect over three days later for not citing any sources and the characters not being notable enough for their own article. Then, almost three years later, the first (misspelled) redirect was moved to the second (correctly spelled) one's title to make an "orthographic correction." I'm not sure the current target in general is the best one for the page, so I suggest we either delete them (especially the misspelled one) or refine them to the "Characters" section (where the characters are mentioned and explained in some detail). Thoughts? Regards, SONIC678 06:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Tiff and Tuff exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:RDAB, considering the capital letters in the disambiguation and the unlikely misspelling in one of them. Not much history at either. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hall Airport

• Hall Airport → Kaufman, Texas#Features  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

2001 attacks

• 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2001 terrorist attacks → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001 per @SeaHaircutSoilReplace. Hasn't this been RfD'd before? The term is too ambiguous to target an article about any particular incident, even if 9/11 is the most historically significant. Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Carguychris This redirect has not been RfD'd before, which I find ridiculous. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, I think it was something similarly worded and vague, like "2001 terror incident". I just recall making an almost identical comment before. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just found 2001 terrorist attacks via WLH, and added it to this proposal. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Carguychris and PARKANYAA: you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#2001 New York attacks (that nomination was withdrawn), although neither of you commented on in that discussion. I too remember something similar to this and that's the only one I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf That was in fact what I was thinking of. I recall another similar one though... but that doesn't really matter I guess haha. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA after some more searching I've found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#2001 incident that Carguychris did participate in. The outcome was to delete because it was too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was the other one! Thanks. I saw that - I rarely vote in RfDs but I lurk a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, that was it. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree with the nomination, these redirects do not assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack in 2001, rather that 9/11 would be the primary topic for these terms. All this is saying is that someone searching "2001 (terrorist) attacks" would 'highly likely' be looking for 9/11 over all other topics. While 2001 also had events like 2001 anthrax attacks and the shoe bomb, all pale in comparison to 9/11. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 9/11 is the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment @Tavix @CFA Even if it was the primary topic, I don't think anyone would search for "2001 attacks" or "2001 terrorist attacks" if they were looking for 9/11. Most likely they'd just search for, well, 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seems pretty plausible to me, actually. Redirects are cheap. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unclear how the "redirects are cheap" claim applies here at all. The issue is where the redirect targets, not the redirect's existence. Saying this redirect is cheap is akin to not having any type of argument of any stance in this specific discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget Someone typing "2001 terrorist attacks" is much more likely to be looking for a list of terrorist attacks that happened in 2001, especially if they don't know beforehand what title we gave it. That's just a very natural way to search for it. Also, readers looking for 9/11 will easily find it at that target page, while the opposite is way less obvious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I made some searches with [45] and [46] other [47] search engines [48] — 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)

Battle of City 17

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Obstipation

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

Term not mentioned nor defined at target. Even though it is similar to "Constipation", it appears to be an entirely different and more severe condition. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

from some quick looking, i haven't found a good enough target for that aside from maybe bowel obstruction (where it's also unmentioned). would soft redirecting to wikt:obstipation work for now? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Quick note that this term "obstipation" is very, very rare compared to acute bowel obstruction (which seems to be the "modern" equivalent term, but that is my impression only and not a reliable source).

The dictionary definitions gave along the lines of "severe + acute constipation", and it even sounds like a medical emergency. Therefore on the basis of those dictionary definitions I changed the link from obstructed defecation which was imo inappropriate (the latter is a chronic condition, not a medical emergency) and also unsourced. Moribundum (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 19:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VB

• Wikipedia:VB → Template:Venice Biennale  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A shortcut redirect from Wikipedia namespace to a navigational template doesn't make much sense. This should probably be retargeted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget as suggested or delete, agree this XNR doesn't make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to the wikiproject, or delete as a 2nd option. Either way, it should not be a WP:XNR. Fieari (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball hasn't noticed it doesn't redirect them, and therefore they don't need it to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Shhhhnotsoloud. Ambiguous towards a random template. If WP Volleyball wants it, they can create it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:35, 14 October 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! 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note Template:Vb, if TM:VB is suggested as a replacement to this shortcut. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

These should be discussed separately, as Template:Vb has quite a bit of transclusions. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I oppose deletion. A shortcut being unused is not a valid reason for deletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete because the WikiProject didn't seem to care about this shortcut before, so not sure why they would now. Might as well free the title for someone who wants to use it for a more visible and constructive purpose. (However, if that purpose ends up being someone from the WikiProject creating this redirect to target the WikiProject, the redirect should be immune to WP:G4.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball as the only sensible target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget, take two
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball per Tavix and others. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sonam Maskar

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Uncle Cosmo

• Uncle Cosmo → Columbo (character)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

still not the biggest columbohead out there, but from a couple days of looking around, i haven't found any relation between this name and columbo (or columbo). is this something from later episodes that just hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet, or...? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Uncle Cosmo was a nickname sometimes used, as is correctly indicated by the "R from nickname" template used in the redirect. Please do your homework prior to making nominations, because this is easily destroying carefully created infrastructure and costs time which could be better spend on improving or adding contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This could've been caught by simply plugging in "Uncle Cosmo" Columbo into Google. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  i did that before, and got one result saying it used by his nephew in one episode (episode 60, to be specific), and never again by anyone else, and that result was in page 2 of 2, in a suspiciously old-wikipedia-mirror-shaped site, unsourced, mentioned in passing, and buried among unrelated uncles named cosmo seemingly related to people seemingly known as "colombo". looking again, it's the same case, but now there are also reports of some "rfd" thing started by someone named "cogsan". no idea who that is, but he sounds like he'd be a total wonk

  i would withdraw based on this, but the fact that there are no sources, reliable or otherwise (google told me there was something around quora, but i didn't find it there) that even imply anything about this (nick)name's existence aside from up to this diff which another site seems to have yoinked by accident, while "frank" and "philip" have a citation each (yes, i know the latter is false), leads me to question if it's worth keeping, as the only mention i found outside of fancruft in the target's edit history was still circular

  if you two found something i didn't, i would appreciate it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hm. Checking myself, you're right-- I'd initially seen the first result being Quora and went, "Okay, this is a known answer.' In reality, it... was not. Whops. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  clearly, his first name is "lieutenant" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else able to find any sign of this anywhere?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ronnie Nyakale I don't think a Quora answer is sufficient to provide evidence for this nickname, especially when it is unmentioned in the target. I couldn't find any other sources either. OTOH, "Uncle Cosmo" is listed as an alternative name for Nyakale in his infobox. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's mentioned, but it's unsourced. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  After doing some digging, it looks like it is the name of his character in the TV show Generations: The Legacy. I've added a sourced mention there, so I now propose targeting that page. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IBP

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn

Back to Gecko

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Picric acid (homeopathic remedy)

• Picric acid (homeopathic remedy) → List of homeopathic preparations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete the existence of the redirect suggests that picric acid, or something called picric acid, is a homeopathic preparation, and no evidence for that is adduced at the target page. Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC) (Further comment: This page was originally an article, but that was back in 2008 — I don't think we need to take it to AfD now, do we?) --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Retarget it and all other homeopathy-related redirects to placeboKeep, readd reference, find and add new source. It seems this very incomplete-looking list used to be a lot longer in the past; around 2019, it went from around 14k bytes to around 3k bytes, with two edits in particular excising the most amount of data, with the reason given being unreliable sources and/or sources that got removed from the Internet. From these older pieces we do find a very helpful search term-- that the name of a homeopathic preparation based on picric acid would be "Picricum acidum", which can be found in other sources-- and can also be found for sale. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good point.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. If there is reliable and notable info on picric acid as a homeopathic remedy (an explosive less stable than the related TNT, I have to add), then it can be added to Picric acid#Uses and this redirect can be retargeted there or recreated to target that. Also, while searching through sources I found this "herbal" cigarette which supposedly includes picric acid at a concentration of 13% by weight. You smoke this... you get a lighter flick it on and light the explosive on fire. Is this even real? People are wild. ― Synpath 15:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  ... but this is a better point, I think. A brief mention here, far down in the article, is less intrusive than the silly-looking hatnote at the top of picric acid, which is what drew my attention to this redirect in the first place. That doesn't exclude covering it at list of homeopathic preparations with a good source. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Enwiki does not mention Picric acid in the context of homeopathy. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ASTRO

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

Delete: Incorrect and confusing redirect that declares this WP:PROJPAGE essay to be a part of the WP:MOS guidelines. (The page's misnaming with "/Manual of Style" instead of "/Style advice" is being addressed separately in an RM.) Deleting this shortcut will be consistent with prior deletions of "MOS:" namespace (formerly pseudo-namespace) shortcuts to wikiproject essays and the like. The potential for mischief with such shortcuts is high, because editors who encounter them "cited" in talk-page arguments are highly likely to trust that they are MoS guidelines with the authority of community consensus acceptance, instead of being pre-WP:PROPOSAL essays of recent coinage by a trivial number of editors with nearly no community input. The advice in the page might even be good, but it is not (yet?) part of MoS and should not masquerade as one. I've created a new WP:ASTROSTYLE shortcut for this page (and it seems to be the only one aside from MOS:ASTRO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is cross-namespace then too. ― Synpath 15:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I created this redirect while misunderstanding the process. The target will be retained as part of WP:AST. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Chaotolerance

• Chaotolerance → Chaotropic agent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "tolerance" or "chaotolerance" at the target article. Seemingly a portmanteau of "chaos tolerance", but without an explanation at the target page, people using this search term would be confused as to what it means or how it relates to the subject, with no description or definition to warrant the redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or soft redirect to wiktionary. The definition is essentially "tolerance to chaotropic agents/conditions," and this page is the most relevant on-wiki result for a search of Chaotolerance. I don't think a user that has need to understand this term (it's very, very niche with something like 80-90 hits on Google Scholar) will be particularly surprised by landing at Chaotropic agent – the key concept in the definition of the word. ― Synpath 14:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a soft redirect to wiktionary in this case, as the only mentions of "chaotolerance" on all of Wikipedia are on the pages for Wallemiomycetes and Wallemia sebi. It would be better if Chaotropic agent spoke about "what makes something chaotolerant" or "what even is chaotolerance", but it does not. However, the wiktionary entry would indeed answer this dictionary-esque question. If that result occurs, I'd also similarly create Chaotolerant in suit, pointing towards Wikt:chaotolerant. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or soft redirect to wiktionary, with a preference towards keeping. WP:ASTONISHment should not be an issue upon landing here... the word itself makes the definition clear upon landing at this article... tolerance for chaotropic agents is chaotolerance. Doesn't take exceptional thought to figure that one out. Fieari (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

ChinaFile

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

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

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

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

Chir'daki

• Chir'daki → List of Star Wars starfighters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "chir" or "daki" at the target article. The page has history. Still is an unhelpful and misleading redirect to a page where the subject is not discussed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Paige Chivers

• Murder of Paige Chivers → Disappearance of Charlene Downes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Paige" or "Chivers" at the target article. The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of murder convictions without a body. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Chlaenius atratulus and Chlaenius azureulus

• Chlaenius atratulus → List of Chlaenius species#Chlaenius species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius azureulus → List of Chlaenius species#Chlaenius species  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Azureulus and atratulus not mentioned at the list of chlaenius species, where they should be red links anyway if they exist, in the absence of dedicated article content. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There are no incoming links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Cozy horror

• Cozy horror → Horror fiction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading – not mentioned at target. Cremastra (u — c) 00:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no mention of "cozy" at the target, which seems to be a qualifying description that is not discussed. Nothing really at List of genres#Horror either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No mention of what it means on it or any similar related article Horror film, etc. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:REDYES. See this article for a definition. It doesn't look like we currently have any information on this, but maybe we should? If so, this redirect should be made red to encourage article creation, or at the very least encourage someone to add the information to another article (in which case the redirect can be recreated at that time). Fieari (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Chlaenius anchomenoides and some

• Chlaenius anchomenoides → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius aterrimus → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius bimaculatus → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius birmanicus → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius buriensis → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Chlaenius callichloris → Chlaenius  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We do not have a dedicated article for these species. People who type in chlaenius callichloris (and others), already know the genus is chlaenius. Not useful as a redirect to the species list, because we have zero dedicated content. Delete per WP:REDYES. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redirects like this are misleading. Cremastra (u — c) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - these should be redlinks, as is standard practice for as-yet nonexistant species articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this is the tip of the iceberg at List of Chlaenius species. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx

• 1HQ3Go3ggs8pFnXuHVHRytPCq5fGG8Hbhx → Silk Road (marketplace)#Later seizures  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an R from merge. The history of this wallet ID is useful to preserve, but as a search term and as a helpful redirect it is neither of these things, especially so as the wallet ID is not mentioned at the subject, so there is zero indication what this string of 34 characters could possibly mean in relationship to the subject. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

October 25

Wikipedia:ZNB

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

ZNB is not the country code for Zambia. And if it was, it still would not be good practice to redirect such a title to portal space. Wikipedia redirects generally go to Wikipedia titles where they apply. And for essentially all of my experience, there are country WikiProjects in WP space that would benefit more from this than a portal ever would. Such as WP:ZM. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this unnecessary and potentially confusing cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a three-letter ISO code for a country, still less one for Zambia (which lacks "N"). Though Zambia is ZMB, Guinea Bissau is just as close at GNB. Not plausible, or a likely mistake. FOARP (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chalmers

• Geoffrey Chalmers → Michael McConnohie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Geoffrey Chalmers – Keep

• Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [49] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers soliciting input. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete if there is no reliable source. May be re-created when source is available. Jay 💬 15:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: semi-involved relist to close the 7 October log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep if unambiguous per previous discussion. J947 ‡ ^edits 04:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Not mentioned at target, plain and simple; there is no basis for this redirect to exist. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• What about the sources provided in the first RFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbeitsamt

• Arbeitsamt → Economy of Germany  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term is never mentioned in the target article. Perhaps it should be retargeted to Arbeitsamt in occupied Poland or be a disambig? It is also not mentioned in de version of the target article, de:Arbeitsamt does not have a wiki article yet (it seems related to the Public employment service) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORRED. This just translates to "unemployment office" or "employment agency" and Wiktionary notes it as "historical, –2004". We don't have any content specifically about these topics in German-speaking countries. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Bundesagentur für Arbeit. "Arbeitsamt" is the name of the official German state employment agency, which doesn't have an article on English Wikipedia (cf Jobcentre, which does) - the closest we have is our article on the government department responsible for these agencies. Tevildo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposed retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 23:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

S-compact space

• S-compact space → Σ-compact space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be a different concept that is not described anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This is not a concept at all. If you look at the history for the S-compact space page, it was created by a bot in 2008, presumably because this bot automatically created such redirects because Σ-compact space also redirects to σ-compact space, and the bot converted the Greek letter to a Latin letter. Note from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/S-compact_space that there are no Wikipedia articles making use of this redirect. It would also be very confusing for anyone to use "S-compact space" with the meaning of "sigma-compact". No mathematician would understand what it means, as it has no meaning. Since "σ-compact space" already has a variety of redirects from many other names that make sense and without using Greek letters for those who have difficulty typing those (like "Sigma-compact space", etc), it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete the redirect "S-compact space". PatrickR2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I believe these redirects are typing aids. It's an error to imagine that someone wanting to access Σ-compact space will necessarily first think of Sigma-compact space. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
  

• Keep [as a typing aid] [Maybe not significant but on the other hand, supporting dab] S-compact is used as a short form of strong locally compact, as if it is a standard notation, in Gompa, Raghu R. “What is ‘Locally Compact’?” Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 9, no. 6 (1992): 390–92. [50] It is used to describe certain bitopologial spaces in an apparently unconnected way here. It also seems to have a different use in fuzzy measure theory. However unless we cover these uses on Wikipedia (we don't as far as I can tell) this is a valid redirect. If we did at this page we should use a hatnote for sigma, otherwise a dab page might be in order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC).

  Note that the article by Raghu is pretty idiosyncratic. Any undergraduate belonging (having belonged?) to the society can publish some writing there with their own notation. That does not make such notation notable. Pi Mu Epsilon Jouornal is not a peer reviewed journal and thus is not a reliable source. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  

  (Apart from the fact that bringing it up would seem to be an argument to retarget to Locally compact space#Formal definition (to which I just redirected strongly locally compact), not to keep.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that bringing up those other cases supports dab or retarget. However I did not consider myself knowledgeable enough to evaluate the strength of that support. For example I found another case of "S-compact space" where S is merely a place-holder, which I could discard. I didn't want to repeat myself, but I have added my motivation for keep to my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC).

  @1234qwer1234qwer4 Maybe a little off topic here, but why did you create a redirect from strongly locally compact, just based on the existence of an article in an undergraduate journal using that terminology? It is not because a random person introduced that terminology in a random journal that it should belong in Wikipedia. Additions to Wikipedia, at least for mathematics, should be based on notable facts. How do you justify this terminology is "notable"? Leaving this in wikipedia is also encouraging people to start using this non-notable terminology :-( PatrickR2 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PatrickR2, I based my redirect on the inclusion (not added by me) of the phrase in the Locally compact space article (as well as a web search confirming the usage of this phrase – I barely ever create redirects just based on something singular). The article, in turn, cites Steen & Seebach's Counterexamples in Topology, which is convincing enough to me to leave it there. I did not realise that article also cited the Pi Mu Epsilon article until now; it likely shouldn't, but it appears to be only used as a source for the logical relations and not any terminology. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  You keep creating these links "just in case". This is a misguided approach. If and when someone needs to link to 'locally compact" from "strongly locally compact", they can create the redirect at that time. It helps no one to create all these redirects if no one is going to use them. This is just gnome work gone overboard. Sorry for the rant, but it's not the first time ... PatrickR2 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  
  

• Delete per nom. I've found at least two more, different "S-compact"s just looking through the arXiv, all fairly obscure, and none of which seem to have any existing coverage on Wikipedia (that I can find, at least). Thus any target would be misleading, including substituting "S" for sigma. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it is a Eubot (talk · contribs) creation, Eubot made tonnes of these stupid incorrect Latin-to-Greek letter redirects -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  In the majority of cases Eubot ASCII-fications are plausible. This one isn't only because it conflicts with the notation for something else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Usurper King

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

There have been plenty of real historical figures described as usurper kings, including in some Wikipedia articles. This redirect is therefore too ambiguous to target to this character. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Usurper King is unambiguously Zant or at the very least the main topic, as a quick search confirms. If you can find another case where someone is called Usurper King in running text in 20th or 21st century English, then maybe we need a disambiguation page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC).
  
• Delete per nom; many many real kings have been labeled as usurpers over the centuries. The existence of this redirect is actively harmful, as it impedes searching within Wikipedia, the result of which reveals the phrase in wide use, so wide and general that even a DAB page would probably be too unwieldy to be helpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep (or disambig) per Rich Farmbrough. None of the other uses found by the search use this a name or title for anybody, simply a description, they would be appropriate to include on a list of people described as "usurper king" or similarly titled list but only that. Deletion of this redirect would hinder readers finding the content about the character specifically named "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now per above. GHits are mostly about Zelda. There's a book that calls Henry Bolingbroke the Usurper King but I think someone more knowledgeable about royalty to confirm if it's an actual notable nickname. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  When I add "Henry" to the search term I do get a lot of hits for that English King, some of which use it as a sort of title, so I'd support adding a hatnote there as Zelda is the primary topic overall. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of usurpers, as lots of Kings have been called usurper in the history, and my feeling is that this list would take primacy outside of the internet (which is biased towards current culture). At the very least, I would suggest this list be hatnoted at whatever target is chosen. Yes, Henry Bolingbroke is on this list, but googling "kings who have been called usurpers" got me an instant results listing William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor immediately, so clearly historians have quite a few usurper kings in mind when they hear the term. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is a difference between describing a king as a usurper and calling someone "Usurper King". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete When I think "Usurper King", my mind would never go to Zant and I'm even a big fan of Twilight Princess. This is simply too vague to be targeted here. The IP is correct that it will disrupt legitimate searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. not even an old tiktok meme like great king of evil (though i'd nominate that one too, as the meme invariably includes his name). off the top of my head, the wasp king (as in the guy from bug fables) also fits the bill cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or retarget to List of usurpers per Fieari -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Usurper, following the same principle as Fieari but I see no reason to prefer the list to the article about the concept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

N3rd

• N3rd → N3RD Street  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably ought to be a dab page as can conceivably refer to White N3rd of LuvBug or N3RD Street (which really ought to be at N3rd Street). Am I missing something? Launchballer 11:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi i am not sure how this eneded up being a redirect from n3rd street, my bad! It should be it's own standalone musician page for N3rd (he changed his name from White N3rd and yes is a part of Luv Bug who have their own wiki page already) Tommonovisio (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi is it possible to assist me please, so that the N3rd page can exist but we fix the issue where it became a redirect? @Launchballer Tommonovisio (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Tommonovisio:. I can advise that I redirected N3rd back to LuvBug as none of its claims were backed up by reliable sources; after removing them, the article did not assert why he was important or significant. If you can provide sources to back up your claims, feel free to try again, but consider starting in draftspace (i.e. Draft:N3RD).--Launchballer 00:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will try to find references to verify the accolades/claims! Tricky thing is that he mostly writes tunes for other people which have had success, more so than his own releases.. Tommonovisio (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Nerd (disambiguation) and itemize there. The street and the performer can be listed a stylizations of "nerd" (the street is pronounced that way, even though it originates as North Third ) ; it is also '1337'-5p33k spelling of nerd -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or retarget to Nerd (disambiguation)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to the dab per the ip editor. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep with a hatnote to LuvBug if you want. The street is pretty clearly primary here (since it actually has its own page), and there's only WP:ONEOTHER possible target, so this is the ideal setup. No one searching 'n3rd' specifically is going to be looking for any other extant uses of the term. A second hatnote to the dab page would probably be overkill, but still preferable to redirecting there outright. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, this is a little more complicated than I first realized...I missed some of the history and the repeated recreation/deletion of White N3rd. But I still think the street is primary here. And with only two possible targets, one primary, redirecting to the big dab page would be very unhelpful. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Isometry (mathematics)

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

Since the primary topic Isometry is already a mathematical topic, I don't think this should be a redirect to the disambiguation page (which also seems to consist of a lot of WP:PTMs). (Note that there is also Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation); not sure how much precedent there is for such redirects.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Does Isometry cover all of the topics on the disambiguation page? If so, I would agree that there is no need for the latter. I am not fluent enough in mathematics to say whether it is. BD2412 T 00:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics as I agree with BD2412 and also lack the mathematical knowledge to answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to isometry. This is disambiguation page abuse. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete looking at WhatLinksHere there are no pages that link to it, page views are typical 0 and never above 2, so I don't really see the page serves any purpose other than cause confusion. --Salix alba (talk): 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect Isometry (mathematics) to Isometry and change the title Isometry (disambiguation) into a redirect to Isometric. Content currently at Isometry (disambiguation) should be merged to Isometry and put into a section about examples, including some explanatory context (i.e. this should not just be a plain list of article titles); if that's too much work for someone right away, these could conceivably be added to Isometry § See also. Isometry (mathematics) (disambiguation) is a completely absurd title and should be deleted –jacobolus (t) 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Given the current state of the isometry article i think the contents of the disambiguation page should be selectively merged into the lede to this article (in particular it is baffling that there is no mention of Euclidean isometries in the lede there). jraimbau (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Quran Afghanistan

• Quran Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Quran in Afghanistan → World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very general term; this Quran doesn't come up in the entire first page of google results. I'm not seeing a primary topic here. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Likewise Quran in Afghanistan . 19:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)

I've added that to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as classic WP:XY. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not an XY situation at all, as the redirect only refers to a single topic. It may or may not be vague or ambiguous, but it isn't XY. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as too ambiguous; there are probably hundreds of Qurans in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as primary topic. Which other Afghani Qurans are discussed on Wikipedia? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Searches for "Quran in Afghanistan" return mostly the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, followed by some assorted social media slosh. My leaning is delete because this ambiguous, but I'm willing to try drafting a DAB page. Cremastra (u — c) 14:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Done at Quran in Afghanistan. Cremastra (u — c) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambig per Cremastra's draft. Jay 💬 07:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on disambig?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguate per Cremastra's draft, with deletion as a second choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Snapseed 2.22.412829873

• Snapseed 2.22.412829873 → Snapseed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It would make sense to have a redirect for a particularly important software version, but that version (and its importance) would need to be mentioned in the target page. WP:NOTCHANGELOG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It also would likely want to go to a section header / anchor, instead of simply Snapseed. In any case, delete as per WP:RETURNTORED; there may be important info on this topic, but it's not here, and a redlink is the best way to convey that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello nice people ;)... i made it probably when i saw EXIF and see Software used, so i click and reroute to what we had (the article) and probaly that is it. Of course i wont bother if this is changed. Normally i use reroute for cameras in EXIF (EXIF is "cameras fingerprint"). Reroute=redirect --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as {{R from EXIF}} per PetarM. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Spacelike vector

• Spacelike vector → Minkowski space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timelike vector → Minkowski space#Causal structure  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Lightlike → Minkowski space  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Light-like → Spacetime#Spacetime interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Spacelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Space-like → Spacetime#Space-like interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Timelike → Spacetime#Spacetime interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Time-like → Spacetime#Time-like interval  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should point at the same target, but it seems like Causal structure is the most appropriate option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget all to causal structure. — The Anome (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget "Space-like"/etc "time-like"/etc "light-like"/etc to spacetime, where this is explained. These forms with "vector" attached should point to causal structure -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:45, 3 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) 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone endorse the IP editor's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Tick tock tick tock tick tock

• Tick tock tick tock tick tock → 4 Minutes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock → 4 Minutes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure these are correctly targeted. Perhaps Tick tock would be a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not keep this... lyric? Simply guessing because I have zero clue what this is. As it so happens, there is no context for this redirect's title at the target page, and if I was looking for clock noises I would probably want something related to that? Or at least, somewhere where it receives a mention on Wikipedia so that I know I've made it to the right place. There is no information at tick tock about a thrice-repetition, so I think I lean towards deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. confusing and ambiguous, could just as easily refer to a track from pizza tower, antonblast, wario land 4, tick tock clock in super mario 64, the tick tock dab and a lot of stuff under it... really, nothing seems to have any strong affinity for repeating it exactly 3 times cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as too generic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Farage riots

• Farage riots → 2024 United Kingdom riots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Negative redirect not mentioned in the target article. A quick Google search doesn't seem to show that is a common term. Borderline speedy deletion candidate. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• My quick google search showed that this is very much a term that has been used in reliable sources [51][52][53][54] and sources that may or may not be reliable (I've not looked in detail) [55][56][57][58] (and also a use in The London Economic titled "Farage Riots trend as Reform UK kick off conference" the filter won't let me link to). Many of the uses in both sets are quoting Nigel Farage complaining about others using the term, some of them attribute the term to him. I'm not sure whether a mention of the term at either the rioting article or Nigel Farage's article is due, but it's not a suggestion that can be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the due diligence, but I won't withdraw my nomination unless it is mentioned in the article... non-neutral redirects without sources seems like a BLP violation, doesn't it? -1ctinus📝🗨 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Newsthump is a satirical website, but the first four sources seem reliable (the Instagram link being a broadcast interview on LBC radio). I've also heard this phrase being used on podcasts and in the media, and the stats[59] seem to show people are searching for it, I think it's a keep. Orange sticker (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good day. I created this redirect not out of agreement with the term, but rather because I had seen the name used to refer to these riots frequently at the time on social medias and on some reliable (and less reliable) news sites, as Thryduulf found. The term is certainly biased, I do admit that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies around redirects. My rationale was simply to help readers who may know these riots as the Farage Riots to get to the appropriate article.

Anyway, I understand your reason for proposing deletion. I personally do not have enough knowledge on the subject of the article to integrate mention of this nickname in a well written manner. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for editing! Mittzy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target or to Nigel Farage. Notified of this discussion at the two pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, still unmentioned. We're in WP:BLP territory here, so this needs to be cited to a reliable source. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RSURPRISE due to still being unmentioned in the target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to go add a mention on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, no need to add a mention. If someone wants to do so, at ANY point in time within the next 5 months to 5 years, just recreate the redirect when that happens. It continues to be misleading in the meantime. Zero valuable history here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Texvc

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

Legacy cruft does not warrant a double soft redirect from mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget if a mention is added. The page was moved (without redirect) to project space in 2010 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texvc reached no consensus. The redirect was recreated "since Meta has many links to this page, and I don't have access to a bot to correct Meta". The redirect gets over 400 hits a year with only a handful of days with zero visits, and I can find no evidence of anything else with this name so it's clearly providing value to those using it. I don't know how to filter out all the manpages, package lists, forum questions and programming snippets, etc. to assess whether this is notable enough for a mention somewhere, but someone who does know how to do that should do that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Since there is no page in projectspace, it is a redirect to an offsite location, this is therefore a redirect to an offsite location, and not the proper use of a redirect. The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary. Per Thryduulf's stats, WP:REDLINK to allow creation of an article, should it prove notable. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The only proper offsite location redirect in articlespace is Wiktionary this is incorrect. While Wiktionary is the most common target of soft redirects in the mainspace it is not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: unambiguous. Cremastra (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Mainspace -> Project namespace -> MediaWiki page = at least one WP:XNR too many. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why? In what way is this harming anybody or anything? Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's too many redirections initially starting in a namespace not related to its final target. Such a title being in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (the redirect's target) makes sense, but not from the article namespace. That, and the acronym seems like it may be a subject which has either WP:REDYES potential as either a standalone article or a subtopic to add into TeX or AMS-LaTeX per the very text on the target of Wikipedia:Texvc. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Even with the proposals to retarget below (before this timestamp), I still believe that deletion is more helpful in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• There seems to be no consensus to delete, but this double redirect is messy. Soft retarget to mediawikiwiki:texvc. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, target interferes with searching for mainspace targets such as Texvalley. Not an encyclopedic article, and distracts real searches for real articles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Also bundle TeXvc with this. Jay 💬 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Soft redirect per TechnoSquirrel69, which would resolve the double redirect issue. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is all over the place - any more support for TechnoSquirrel69's compromise suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Asilvering: bundle with TeXvc if we're here? Granted, it's been a while for this discussion so adding a new title might be dubious this late in the process, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the two redirects should have the same outcome. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you're probably right, but since we can't even decide on an outcome, I hesitate to make it even the tiniest bit more complicated... -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Valid! No worries, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Also on a different note, I disagree with soft redirecting to mediawikiwiki space and still prefer deletion. The mainspace search term continues to interfere with mainspace searching, which should be our highest priority to keep clean. We do not have any encyclopedic information regarding "texvc" in mainspace, and there's no need to keep a mainspace soft-cross-project-redirect for obsolete legacy cruft, when it's one character off of "texva" and likely mainspace material. We already have WP:Texvc. We don't need another, and we don't need it in mainspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete to avoid confusing cross-namespace double redirects. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Symbolism (arts)

• Symbolism (arts) → Symbolism (movement)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Symbolism (art) → Symbolism (movement)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Symbolism in art → Symbolism (movement)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The most common use of symbolism in association with the arts is when a concrete element within a visual, literary, or other work of art is used to represent an abstract idea. Currently, the landing place for that type of symbolism seems to simply be Symbol (15 October UPDATE: I've now made a new landing page for this exact concept: Artistic symbol). "Symbolism" as a specific 19th-century social movement is a much more narrow and obscure usage. Similarly worded redirects (namely Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art) also ought to be redirected accordingly. Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wolfdog I'm not certain I understand your nomination. Are you saying that Symbolism (arts) is targetting the correct place, but Symbolism (art) and Symbolism in art should be retargetted to match? Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time using RFD, so excuse my inexperience but, no, I'm saying it's targeting the wrong place. It's currently targeting Symbolism (movement). Wolfdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the target should be the current target of the redirect. I'll fix it and add the other redirects you mentioned to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Ok duh, haha, thanks. Should I clear out our above discussion? Wolfdog (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No it's useful context. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete As an incorrect disambiguation for where it's currently pointing. For the record, I agree with the move (though I believe (art movement) would have been a superior disambiguation to avoid confusion with Movement (music)) and believe that the concept of symbolism within art is notable, but should be at artistic symbolism. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 5 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) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget all to Symbol per nom. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep all, or set up a disam. (then) Just delete, per Ham. Retarget all to the new Artistic symbol. Symbol will be no use at all to the vast majority of readers - all about semiotics and map symbols. Yes, it would be nice to have artistic symbolism, but it seems that we don't (yet). Meanwhile this is going to be what many readers are looking for. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Symbolism is already a disambiguation page, and while these could be retargeted there, I don't see what that would achieve. The dab page and these redirects begin with the same word, so the redirects wouldn't help anyone typing "symbolism"/"Symbolism" into the search bar find the specific meaning of the term they're looking for (unlike, say, if we had that Artistic symbolism article, with Symbolism in art redirecting to it). The redirect Symbolism (arts) only exists as it was the previous title of the article Symbolism (movement), and that former title was far too ambiguous to be of any help – it could refer to either of the meanings noted in the nomination. Ham II (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Now that Artistic symbol has been created, I still think Symbolism (arts) and Symbolism (art) should be deleted as they're too ambiguous. Symbolism in art, by contrast, is another way of saying "artistic symbolism" and would not really be used to refer to the 19th-century movement, so that should redirect to the new article. Ham II (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nominator's note: I've taken into consideration the notion that others and myself have pondered that Wikipedia is perhaps simply lacking in an article on artistic symbols/symbolism, so I've started as stub here. I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Wolfdog (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget all three to the newly created Artistic symbol, which already has a hatnote to Symbolism (movement). I certainly can't see any reason to delete any of these. A7V2 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

India women's national futsal team

• India women's national futsal team → India national futsal team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target is for the men's team with no mention of the women's team. Should be left as a redirect to encourage creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Futsal Association of India: seems more suitable. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - not mentioned at current target or Futsal Association of India. Also per WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Zelda 2016

• Zelda 2016 → The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Breath of the Wild did not release in 2016, it released in 2017. Also, Twilight Princess HD, another Zelda game, did come out in 2016! However, I think this is an unlikely term to refer to either game, so I think we should just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Could refer to anything on the Zelda disambiguation page which occurred in 2016. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral - the game was scheduled/estimated to be released in 2016 for quite some time during its development, and I dont think anyone would realistically refer to a then-decade old port as "Zelda 2016", so I don't really agree with the nomination. That said, I also don't really think, in this day and age, that it's likely for someone not know the name Breath of the Wild, but know to search by its initially planned release year, so I'm not really sure if it's realistic function either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment According to imdb there is a 2016 film named "Zelda" but it's not listed on the Zelda (disambiguation) page so I'm not sure if we have content, it also seems to be a common way of referring to a set of trading cards (e.g. [60]) released that year but again I'm uncertain if we have content. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Japanese opera

• Japanese opera → Theatre of Japan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Opera of Japan → Theatre of Japan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Added 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC) -- Tavix ^(talk).)

Suggest deletion: the target article does not mention opera. The topic of Japanese opera is likely a notable one and this should be red link per WP:RED _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Noh. "Japanese opera" is a phrase used in that article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Both Noh and the arguably more "operatic" Kabuki could plausibly be called "Japanese opera", and often have been: "Kabuki is Japan's opera. Dramatic storylines featuring sword-fights, ghosts, and love affairs are brought to life by gorgeously clothed performers." Theatre of Japan explains this well enough. A look through google suggests Japanese opera could only ever be a disam page, although there are some modern Western-style operas. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguate to Musical forms of theatre in Japan and its principal traditional forms Noh and Kabuki. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete As-is, this redirect is incredibly confusing: it brings the unsuspecting reader to a page that says nothing about opera. That said, what did the searcher expect to find? An opera company or theater in Japan? An opera written by a Japanese composer? A native Japanese opera-like theater genre? Garbage in, garbage out, we should not answer an open-ended question with a random response or even a collection of these. Викидим (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, what they would have expected to find is presumably something fitting in Category:Opera by country. So maybe garbage out, but definitely not garbage in. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that this interpretation is the most plausible. Alas, we do not have a text similar to French Opera. Викидим (talk) 20:35, 1 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) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I honestly expect that someone typing this into search is looking for Kabuki; I think the correct "answer" is Noh; and I think an "Opera by country"-type result would be the one expected by most wikipedia editors, but we don't have it. So I come down to "let people use the search engine". -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  But look at what the search engine currently gives (after this redirect, of course): [61] Cremastra — talk — c 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• enwiki search results show plenty of entries for Japanese opera singers, composers and operas. Kurofune (opera) says it is regarded as the first Japanese opera. There is no single article that conveys information on the term, but it's ideal to have this as an article or an article section. Delete. Jay 💬 16:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per above to encourage creation. In this instance, an effective dab page would probably morph into a BCA that would share some similarities an article on this topic. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To bundle Opera of Japan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2007-06-17 (June 17, 2007)

• 2007-06-17 (June 17, 2007) → June 17  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redundant disambiguation. Cremastra (u — c) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

delete (remove from existence) per nom (nominator). also in two (2) different (unequal) formats (ymd and mdy), which hurts (inflicts pain on) me cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (Per nom, delete). Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Awkward title, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about 17 June 2007 to merit its own article. JIP | Talk 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (obliterate) per nom (nominator). QuicoleJR (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Yoshi series bosses

• List of Yoshi series bosses → List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Yoshi Bosses → List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No boss characters appearing in the Yoshi series (other than Bowser) are mentioned on this list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

delete per nom. pay no mind the first one's history, there's no sauce there cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - unlikely search term for content unlikely to stay in any article due to WP:GAMECRUFT concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Mrinal Chauhan

• Mrinal Chauhan → Archery in India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No point in this redirect, there is no coverage about him in this page. should be deleted until an actual article is made. Sports2021 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as no mention. Chauhan has one gold medal in Sulaymaniyah 2022 Asia Cup leg 2 in

Iraq.[62] Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. They are mentioned as a competitor/medallist in multiple articles but none have enough content to anchor a redirect and none are obviously better than any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

List of deputy speakers of the Goa Legislative Assembly

• List of deputy speakers of the Goa Legislative Assembly → Goa Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly → Gujarat Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Haryana Legislative Assembly → Haryana Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly → Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly → Jharkhand Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly → Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Manipur Legislative Assembly → Manipur Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly → Nagaland Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly → Puducherry Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly → Rajasthan Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of deputy speakers of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly → Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No list of deputy speakers at any of the targets. Similar open RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#List of leaders of the opposition in the Goa Legislative Assembly. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all: Per nom. They're misleading redirects if there's not actually a list at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hoppy the Frog

• Hoppy the Frog → Pepe the Frog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a similar but unrelated meme to the target. Not mentioned there either. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2028 World Athletics Indoor Championships

• 2028 World Athletics Indoor Championships → World Athletics Indoor Championships  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No relevant information or mention of the 2028 event at the target, misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Future Formula One World Championships

• 2028 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2029 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2030 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2031 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2032 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2033 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2034 Formula One World Championship → Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The only relevant information at the target is that some of the grands prix are contracted through x year at Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix. As it stands, anybody searching for this will find a lack of relevant information about that season's championship, hence, the redirects are misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Pointless article creations indeed. Maybe a warning for the creator too, since I'm guessing it was the same person, to prevent this time-wasting exercise in the future. Seasider53 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I don't believe a warning would be necessary at this point in time. I believe the editor is experienced enough that, if this nomination results in deletion, to not needlessly recreate the redirects. Sometimes a deletion is enough, and I don't think we need to take it any farther at this point in time. Also, to be clear, are you making a general comment, or voting for deletion in this case? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I support their deletion. Seasider53 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete all completely unhelpful and frankly useless redirect. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. A7V2 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all as WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Future Indian Premier League seasons

• 2026 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2027 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2028 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2029 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• 2030 Indian Premier League → Indian Premier League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no relevant information listed at the target, delete as misleading and WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep 2026 only - the next following season, and Delete all others as WP:TOOSOON. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 2026 and delete the others per Vestrian. 2026 is useful for navbox navigation, and has received 2641 pageviews over the last 30 days. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all way too soon and not mentioned at target. Even 2026 season has no information at the target article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete all per Joseph2302. I'm unsure why 2026 would be kept as there's nothing about 2026 at the target. Readers being mislead by a bluelink in a navbox is a reason to delete, not a reason to keep. A7V2 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

CSSHQ

• CSSHQ → Chinese reusable experimental spacecraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion, please see here for reasons. In short the abbreviation is original research and is not used in official sources. I have cleaned all links to this redirect, but it should be deleted to avoid being treated as a valid alternative name. 103.66.132.62 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - not being used in official sources is completely irrelevant (to the title of the article, let alone redirects to it). From a google search it is very clear that this is used to refer to this craft, even if incorrectly (it seems a lot of articles have been edited since being indexed by google to remove "CSSHQ", but many still do such as [63] and [64]. Therefore it seems reasonably enough that someone might search for it in this way. If there's ambiguity that can be dealt with but if not I don't see a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per A7V2. Evidently used in some sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 29 October 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)

Eirik Suhrke

• Eirik Suhrke → Ridiculous Fishing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently links to composer Eirik Suhrke's name lead to the article for the game Ridiculous Fishing. This has created confusion on some talk pages as he is credited with working on multiple games and his mention on the Ridiculous Fishing article is confined to one sentence saying he was the composer for the game. Given the lack of coverage on the man himself and the extensive list of notable works he's been involved with it seems it would be best to delete the redirect, given it points to an article that contains just as much info on him as that of any other game he's worked on. XeCyranium (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

April 4, 1974

• April 4, 1974 → 1974 Super Outbreak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am going to re-list this at redirects for discussion because I had created this redirect in error. The correct date was supposed to be April 3, 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It had previously been closed as no consensus. This probably met speedy deletion criteria but I had sent ahead and RfD’d it instead because a similar discussion was ongoing at the time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing the deletion of the error redirect. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative; I would favor retargeting to April 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note the previous RfD was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 3#March 31, 2023, which closed as no consensus. The redirect cannot therefore be speedily deleted under criteria G6 or G7. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note 2: this would be a technical deletion with no actual content being removed, which is an exception to the above-stated rule. The redirect may be speedily deleted since it was created in error. Additionally, nobody was in favour of keeping this particular redirect in the previous discussion; the creator's note—mentioned at least three times during that discussion, to the effect that it was a mistake that should be deleted—seemed to pass completely unnoticed. So delete. P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Any redirect that has survived a previous deletion discussion, regardless of why, is explicitly ineligible for most speedy deletion criteria, including G7 and very nearly all G6. The comments in the previous RfD favoured retargetting not deletion. Content would be removed here so it is not an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is clearly covered as "an exception to the norm that a page surviving its most recent deletion discussion". And because this was created as a redirect, there was never any content to save. It was created by mistake; the author has explicitly said that multiple times. This is a technical deletion of a redirect that serves no useful purpose, so there is no reason to hold it up. P Aculeius (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  We know it was created by mistake, that's irrelevant now that other editors recommended something other than deletion. Redirects do not meet the exemption to G6 as the redirect will be lost. If you disagree with this start a discussion at WT:CSD to change the policy, but unless and until that gains consensus this is not speedily deletable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Read the policy. It clearly states that technical deletions where no content will be lost are exceptions. The reason being that there is no conceivable reason to hold up deletion. I don't need to change anything; that's what it says, as I've already explained twice. The idea that the exception can't be speedily deleted because "the redirect will be lost" is utter nonsense, because under that reading nothing could ever be speedily deleted, and the language about exceptions wouldn't apply to anything! Why are we holding up deletion of a mistake that should never have existed? P Aculeius (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have read the policy, multiple times, and it clearly states that where content will be lost the exception does not apply. The content being discussed here is a redirect, which will be lost. The exception applies to temporary deletions and things like round-robin moves.

  Why are we holding up deletion of a mistake that should never have existed? because the consensus of the previous discussion was that it should not be deleted. One editor does not get to override consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  A redirect is not content; it is a title with no content, and this has never been anything except for a redirect. The concept of exceptions would be meaningless if the mere existence of a title were content that needed to be shielded from deletion. There was no consensus that this redirect should be kept; apart from the author requesting that it be deleted as a mistake, there was no discussion of this redirect at all. It was completely ignored in that discussion, and a lack of discussion shows no consensus of all. Please stop obstructing a mere technical deletion of a mistake that has never had any justification for existing. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I refuse to engage with you any further as you are clearly not listening to anything I say. Thryduulf (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well still; I had created this redirect in error; and because it survived the previous RfD; that threw speedy deletion out the window; so I relisted it here. The correct redirect for the super outbreak is April 3, 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand why the redirect is an error, the article says the outbreak was April 3-4, 1974. List of tornadoes in the 1974 Super Outbreak#April 4 event would seem to confirm that, no? (Note: this is explicitly not an endorsement of Thryduulf's interpretation of CSD.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Because the April 4th part was mainly carried over from the night of April 3rd (which was the date I had intended to use). Most if not all of the tornadoes on April 4 were in the wee hours of the morning. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  There were a few outliers; but the good majority of the April 4th twisters were in the early morning hours. See why I said the redirect was an error? I had intended to use the date of the violent F5 tornadoes (eg. The Xenia tornado); rather than the date when the outbreak was winding down. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, I still don't see why you said that the redirect was an error. Even if most of the April 4th tornadoes were in the "wee hours of the morning", it's still April 4th... The list includes a couple deadly F3's, so it's not like they weren't violent. That said, if you really want the redirect deleted I won't stand in your way because I do respect author's wishes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  My rationale is that April 3 was the main outbreak day; and I had intended to create the redirect for the main day. If it’s truly worth having a redirect; then I’m all for keeping it or changing the target. But it would probably only be a matter of time before GeorgeMemulous or someone else RfD’d it again. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Tavix, if you’re bound and determined to keep this. As a distant second; I might favor retargeting to April 1974. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm amenable to that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to April 1974. We shouldn't redirect dates to events except in exceptional cases like January 6, 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak retarget; the outbreak has long-term significance and might be the primary topic. However, I do remain leery of targeting redirects to a single event. My preference is retargeting to the correct section of April 1974. It should definitely not be deleted. See the arguments set out at WP:RDATE. Cremastra (u — c)
• Retarget per [[User:LaundryPizza03 - We shouldn't be targeting dates to things that potentially happened on the day in a world where many things will have happened on that day, unless there is a plausible reason to believe people lookign for that date will want to see that specific event. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Will (sociology)

• Will (sociology) → Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "will" does not even appear on the page, and it's not obvious what it's referring to. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ferdinand Tönnies#Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, where it is explained. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Tönnies was all about voluntarism; that explains it. Cf. Also: Voluntarism (philosophy), though I think this is not, in fact, the ideal target. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Will (disambiguation page) since the disambiguator makes me believe this redirect refers to Will and testament, but the discussion above hints that there are multiple possibilities. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per User:Steel1943. Multiple potential meanings, let's go for the highest level. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2025 AFC U-20 Asian Cup squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2025 Africa Cup of Nations squads

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

June 3, 2007

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 24

Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition

• Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition → meta:Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Weird non-namespace; this should very likely be deleted. That aside: the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). Thus, see this deletion discussion; if this is deemed worthy to exist as is, then that template will need to be restored. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as non-ambiguous and useful cross wiki redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete It's not our responsibility to clean up the WMF's sloppiness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  We're volunteers; we don't have to do anything. We don't have to pitch in to help WMF improve administrator tools, but taking action to obstruct that project seems quite counterproductive. In this case, if we disclaim responsibility for anything and take no action, the redirect stays in place and the WMF project continues unimpeded. -- Beland (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. What the heck is wrong with you rampant deletionists. I created that redirect because somebody posted on my talk page with a link to it, so I imagine they posted the same wrong link to lots of other talk pages. In other words, the redirect is helpful and fixes an issue for multiple people. (Personal attack removed) If you want to be helpful, go through all those talk pages and fix the links, although by this point a lot of people will likely have already clicked the wrong link and been redirected correctly due to my intervention. — Timwi (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you imagined they posted the same wrong link to lots of other talk pages, did you check if they even did? I see four user talk links in its whatlinkshere. One of them is to their own, one of them is to yours (RFD notice), one of them is to an ip who disruptively edited the page, and the last... I have no idea, accidental link to wikipedia instead of meta I would assume. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  They actually did. They used links to Special:MyLanguage which aren't tracked by WhatLinksHere. And yes, I know that. And I'm a "rampant deletionist" and proud of it. But it's still not our job to compromise mainspace to clean up the WMF's sloppiness. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

delete. resulted from a malformed link in a template (Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, as probably opposed to meta:Special:MyLanguage/Research:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition, seeing as the second link was wmf:Special:MyLanguage/Legal:Administrator Experiences 2024 Survey Privacy Statement), so it's easier to just fix it and call it a day. would also recommend notifying bgerdemann cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

on second thought, would it even be worth fixing the links? the only instances that weren't intentional are on timwi and uozurumba's talk pages

to make things a little worse, the error seems to have spread to other languages' equivalents of the template, which is... not totally garnular, if i'm being perfectly honest, but that's most likely a problem for the other wikis cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep unless inbound links are updated. This redirect made it possible for me to arrive on the correct page after reading a message left on my talk page. I'm sure many others are in the same situation. -- Beland (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  does this translate to "be bold and do the thing"? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  That depends on what "the thing" is. If you mean, should you go around and fix all the links to bypass this redirect, I would have no objection, but it would take less volunteer time to simply leave the redirect in place. -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's more than 500 talk pages that'll need to be fixed, so I'm scared enough to not do this. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  that's 2402 links to their talk page to my count, give or take miscellaneous things probably related to this rfd. here i was thinking it was just the 7 links to the redirect. is there a bot or script that can handle this, or should we just take a little under 2400 red links? because it seems someone really dun goofed here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I could replace all of them with AWB, but it's 2400 links... Aaron Liu (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  wow that's probably pretty plausible, i'm sure it wouldn't involve manually doing a lot of stuff just to list what should be done and where it shouldn't be done. honestly i'm not even sure there's a solution to this that wouldn't involve frying a pc or two

  if it's not as much of a hassle as i'm betting it would be, i could probably try to get permission for it and do it myself cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It can be not much of a hassle if we want it to, but that would require not supervising the edits (after a test run ofc) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  got it, time to learn how to do awb stuff and then engage in some block-risking shenanigans >:3

  for legal reasons, that's a joke, i'll try to not go overboard, if only for my pc's sake cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ykw? I already have the rights, so I'll do it when I get home (if nobody else in this discussion objects) Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  d*ng, so close~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Needs a bot flag, which I've requested at BotRequestsForApproval. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorted out by DreamRimmer. No more consequential links to this redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  that must have taken a while, filled up some watchlists, and bloated some edit counts. i see no more reason to keep now~ cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the cleanup! Happy to have this deleted now. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: I'm sure many others are in the same situation. There are exactly zero redirects to meta in the mainspace besides this one. That is what makes this one in particular problematic; it will force us to restore a template and maintain a redirect to a place where we have determined that it is not appropriate to redirect to within the mainspace. The links should be fixed, yes. But not as a pre-condition to deleting this. This redirect is actively harmful because it creates a standing problem and template maitenance work for us that we would not otherwise have. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it harmful? We could just ignore it. -- Beland (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

i'd say that it's just wrong and afoul of my obsessive compulsions on logical organization of the wiki, but thinking about it, this does seem like a good situation for IAR... i just feel like it's more "tidy" if we clean up all the links and delete this redirect, but if there's no consensus for the former, i can accept that there is no consensus for the latter Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Restoring and maintaining a template for one mistake far outweighs the benefit this being extant provides. Ignoring it and breaking a carefully cultivated system of organization is even worse. We could just ignore it can be said about literally anything that arises. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for now as harmless. Can be deleted in a year if desired. C F A 💬 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  a little late for that, to be honest. the harm's already been done and undone cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Reasons for keeping are no longer relevant, since the incoming links have been fixed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2035 Rugby World Cup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Delete.

Democracy Index

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

2035 Cricket World Cup

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nortwest Airways

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Nortwest Airways

North Hanningfield

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

buccal organ(s)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#buccal organ(s)

Exclusion (film)

• Exclusion (film) → Deepa Mehta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect with no important reason to exist. This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exclusion (film) (2nd nomination), in which one person suggested a redirect while two people voted for straight deletion -- but it represents a film that was never made or released at all, and "exists" only as a script development project that she announced 20 years ago but then abandoned due to casting issues before ever shooting even one frame. Which means that it isn't mentioned in Mehta's article at all to provide a reader with any context for why it redirects there, and Mehta's article is already long and detailed enough as it is, without delving into undue trivia about unrealized projects, that there would be no value in adding any mention of it to her article -- and even if we did add a mention of it to her article, as a film that never happened there's extremely little chance that anybody would ever be searching for it by title anyway. So there's just no point in maintaining it as a redirect if the target article doesn't have any content about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Added a paragraph so that this is now present in the target article. Received a lot of attention and, although unrealized, is a significant moment in her career (2005-2010 or later) as many reliable sources show in various languages over years, so that chances readers will look it up are rather high, I would say.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  (I took the liberty to add the specific section #Career to the current redirect target]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep since the film is now mentioned at target. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Tesonet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Tesonet

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of leaders of the opposition in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American Mongoloid

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Indian lore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

North American people

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Real G's move in silence like lasagna

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

11ss-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 23

Diddler and The Diddler

• Diddler → Cheating  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Diddler → Sean Combs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The first redirect was created by a new user in 2015. Unsurprisingly, the topic isn't covered in cheating. The second term is an informal term for Sean Combs. Hence, I'm asking to delete them. Tavantius (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, classic {{r from avoided double redirect}}. Diddler => cheater => cheating. Cremastra (u — c) 00:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Term has very unfortunate and known implications towards children and nobody ever uses this term for anyone above age in general vernacular. This is a SALT candidate for sure. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean. Could also just... retarget to pedophilia. Most everyone who uses the term is referring to that, anyways, might as well take 'em to where they expect to go. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• disambiguate per the two uses described above, and a see also to Diddle (disambiguation) ; and also the uses Diddler (trolleybus) operated by the London United Tramways, Didier Casnati (stagename "The Diddler"), Jeremy Diddler, P Diddler from P Diddler And The Fearsome Foursome, The Diddler from Bluntman and Chronic, The Diddler from Megamaths, Diddler from Pirates (1986 film), Diddler from Most Extreme Elimination Challenge, Diddler from Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight, "The Diddler" song from Ideas+drafts+loops, "Diddler on the Roof" at Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2017–18, "Diddler" as shown at Riddler in other media, "The Diddler" novel by P.G. O'Dea -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • NOTE disambig drafted for evaluation below the RfD header on the redirect -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The Diddler redirect should be added to this RfD -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @65.92.246.77: Done. Tavantius (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambiguation of Diddler is clearly justified by the draft page. The Diddler may need to be its own DAB page, since we don't target redirects to DAB pages. It just needs to include the subset of Diddler targets that specifically have the article (seven by my count). There's no mention, referenced or otherwise, of Sean Combs being known as The Diddler at the time of my writing this. ― Synpath 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • We do target DAB pages with redirects, WP:RTODAB, but this kind of variation isn't mentioned in the examples. ― Synpath 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    • WP:THE would suggest that "The X"/"A X"/"An X" and "X" should be combined because of how Wikipedia treats titles with "The"/"A"/"An" and whether our guidelines find the "The"/"A"/"An" significant or not, which would be different from how people encounter it in the real world. Such as the example given of "The Journey to the West"/"The White House" uses the preferred form "Journey to the West"/"White House", thus separating out a "The Diddler" would be counter-productive, unless the page grows so large that navigability would suggest a split be made. The Doctor (disambiguation) leads to Doctor (disambiguation) showing a usage of the combined disambiguation page for the forms "The Doctor" and "Doctor". As does Nightmare (disambiguation) which combines "(A /The )[Kn/N]ight(-/ /)[m/M]are(s)" forms. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, no need for a separate DAB page (struck). I was thinking it was a little silly when I wrote it, but didn't check further after reading WP:RTODAB (confirmation bias strikes again). Going back again I see you're right and WP:DABNAME covers this under point five. ― Synpath 23:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

intriguingly, the redirect was created by @FunkMonk, a veteran user with over 100 thousand edits. Tavantius (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Which one? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• A quick Google search should give the answer, it's a common nickname related to the allegations:[65][66][67][68][69] FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Disambig Diddler based on the draft and retarget The Diddler there, where there are multiple fictional characters named exactly that mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Tapestries MUCK

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Tapestries MUCK

Naoki Tanisaki

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

King Roland

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Draft:Chinese Spyware

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Delete per criterion G10.

John Atoms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#John Atoms

Srishti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Srishti

Protect Scarlet

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ansem

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

weird case, bordering on nonsensical. read at your own risk, this is the most simple and clean way i can possibly put it. "ansem" refers to two characters in kingdom hearts. one is a nerd who likes cosplaying as a mummy, listed here, and the other is a xehanort who stole the name because boys will be boys i guess. the xehanort seems to be the primary topic (if only because he popped up first and is hotter), but not by much, and kh discourse pretty often disambiguates things by referring to the latter as "ansem, (the) seeker of darkness" (or sod) and the former as "ansem the wise". this title has previously been used for redirects for both ansems and a dab for... both ansems (plus two people who were mistaken for an ansem for a few seconds each). opinions on... really, anything? cogsan _{(χ-BLADE!) (ouchie ouch)} 17:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and then add Hatnote to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Ansem the Wise. Xenahort is probably the primary topic as he is a main antagonist. Ansem the Wise seems to be more of a side character/ plot twist. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  the assessment of ansem (ansem, not ansem) is... not wrong, and i don't know if i love or hate that fact cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and add a hatnote to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Ansem the Wise - per Lenticel, also Ansem, Seeker of Darkness was created first, predating Ansem the Wise's introduction by 2 years (and the name by nearly 4 years). (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• REtarget to Characters of Kingdom Hearts where both are mentioned; add a hatnote for Ansem Smart (アンセム・スマート) who appears in Let This Grieving Soul Retire! -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and add hatnote or retarget to list of KH characters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as the previous relist. Notified of this discussion at the proposed target as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and add a hatnote I honestly have nothing to add that others haven't stated already considering that the solution to this seems rather self-explanatory. If there had to a specific redirect target however, I'd probably maintain the redirect to Xenahort as he's evidently the main antagonist and the character that Ansem is commonly associated with. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 04:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment any hatnote can now address Ansem (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

retarget to ansem (disambiguation) per the ip. nice job, may kingdom hearts shower you with darkness and confusing timey-wimey stuff cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and hatnote to Ansem (disambiguation) with the understanding that Xehanort is still the primary target, and the dab page should be modified to reflect that. Jay 💬 15:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Adjustment personality disorder

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Substituted

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 22

Bonnie Pointer (album) (disambiguation)

• Bonnie Pointer (album) (disambiguation) → Bonnie Pointer#Albums  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this "double disambiguation" makes for a useful redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - To the contrary, there are two albums named Bonnie Pointer, which need to be disambiguated, and they are disambiguated here. Fieari (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as useless; implausible as a search term, and not needed for linking. There are standard ways of disambiguating this, like (1978 album) vs (1979 album). And (disambiguation) redirects are there to support intentional links to disambiguation pages, but there is no such page here, only a section in the bio article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Slightly weak keep per Fieari, WP:CHEAP, and my arguments at a certain mass nomination that took place last year. The target may not exactly be a disambiguation page, but it gives essentially the same function promised by the redirect's title (showing the two different albums "Bonnie Pointer (album)" could refer to). As for the double disambiguation, it doesn't really hurt things, and it's potentially helpful to searchers. Regards, SONIC678 06:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete after creating Bonnie Pointer (disambiguation) as a disambiguation page to perform the same functionality, and retarget Bonnie Pointer (album) there as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, even better! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support creating dab per Steel. Web-julio (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete its existed since January and has always been a rediret, it was created because Bonnie Pointer (album) was a DAB but is no longer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: there's a similar redirect. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. If this is deleted, how can we search for the album disambiguation? Unless Bonnie Pointer (album) is retargeted to the DAB.Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Bonnie Pointer (album) already targets the same place as the redirect under discussion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oops I didn't check, I assumed there was a real dab. Web-julio (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Fieari. Why is this even controversial? Anyone using this redirect will be taken to exactly what they are looking for, anyone not using this redirect is not impacted in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as harmless. C F A 💬 14:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Swancore

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Disney

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Firstly

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Firstly

Tenorite (typeface)

• Tenorite (typeface) → Microsoft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, meaning it's a somewhat misleading redirect for someone searching for the term expecting to find information on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Potentially retarget to Aptos (typeface)#History, which DOES have information on Tenorite-- what it is, where it came from, and its ultimate fate (in that it was passed over for the role of successor to Calibri in favor of the Bierstadt/Aptos font). I could also, for the record, see a Deletion as per WP:REDLINK; that said, I'm not sure Tenorite is notable on its own in any context other than the fact that it was a potential successor to Calibri and lost to Aptos.
  (Edit as per 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC): refined retarget location to match suggestion for the other three fonts) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Enwiki has nothing substative about this typeface. I have seperately nominated Grandview (typeface), Seaford (typeface) and Skeena (typeface) that are also mentioned at Aptos (typeface). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ...see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Grandview (typeface) and others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Grandview (typeface) and others closed with an unambiguous retarget. This redirect, which probably should've been bundled with them, should be retargeted to match. I will note that I have, indeed, already voted in this discussion, so this comment should not count as a vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per Lunamann and previous discussion. I disagree with the assessment that the information we have is "nothing substantive". We do have information on the subject of this search. It may not be much, but we do have it. We should give it to the user when asked for it. Fieari (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget per above. Web-julio (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget per the parallel discussion, but do not refine to the History section, as the Availability section is also useful. Jay 💬 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I will note that the Availability section is directly underneath the History section, and is, at least on my screen, onscreen when you use the Aptos (typeface)#History link. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

2028 CONCACAF Futsal Championship

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Site-specific Comedy Opera

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Site-specific Comedy Opera

QSO J0100-2708

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Félix Trinidad vs. Ray Lovato

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PKS 0451-28

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#PKS 0451-28

Bussy Anand

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ain't no party like a diddy party

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

How many of us have them

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#How many of us have them

Kahako

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: refine

October 20

Crapulinksy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Invest 90L

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Decco Bishop

• Decco Bishop → List of Fair City characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No entry at the target page, only appears within a reference. Nothing really encyclopedic about this person. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Incorrect that the character appears only within a reference. Decco is mentioned as Samantha Bishop's father, and some relation with Xavier Bishop. However, a better target would be Fair City#Social realism, related to life in prison. Jay 💬 16:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jay: Thanks for the tip on the mention; imo that's still WP:SURPRISEing though (at the Fair City subsection), especially if the material changes and the mention disappears, then we'll be left with an unhelpful redirect while that occurs. If people are searching for a character, I'd think they'd expect to end up at a list of characters. This still feels niche enough to delete as the character appears to be exceedingly minor from what I'm seeing. Can always be recreated if there's an entry that gets created later. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Utopes. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Vaca Dam

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mollejon Dam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 29#Mollejon Dam

Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force)

• Adrian Shephard (Half-life, Opposing force) → Characters of the Half-Life series#Adrian Shephard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguation was written incorrectly. The correct name is Half-Life: Opposing Force, not Half-life, Opposing force. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep - appears to have been the title of the former article Adrian Shephard for around 3 years. Harmless, unambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Excluding this discussion, there are 17 Wikipedia pages that link to this redirect.[70] Renerpho (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Said pages are either pages that alert that this redirect was sent to RFD, pages that transclude the former, or RFD/pages that transclude it. Alongside this, incoming links are not a valid reason to keep a redirect since they can just be replaced. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Keep Comment Incoming links can (and should) be changed; but when a redirect has existed for years (particularly if it once was an article title), we should expect external pages to link to it. The redirect is useful for those cases, and deleting it would break those external URLs. Renerpho (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm turning the accidental double vote into a comment. I don't know what I was thinking! Renerpho (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Incorrect format, however keep per A7V2. Jay 💬 15:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch into a new adventure!

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

3.1415926535…

• 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 → Pi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This has been created a few months ago. It is just the maximum number of digits that Wikipedia happens to allow for a page title. This is not a reasonable search term, and I would argue it fails rule #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE: being a novel or obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. The edit summary for its creation, which is "255 (the max) number of characters. Lol.", also makes me wonder if this was a joke edit (this user has had something of an "obsession" with the 255 character limit, compare this example). Renerpho (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not notify the creator of this redirect, because they were banned indefinitely a week after creating it, for sock puppetry. I notified 2003 LN6 as the only other user who has edited it. I have also mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia records#New longest redirect title, which is where I originally became aware of it. I believe that should cover everyone who may have an interest in this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  An overview of previous discussions of this question (up to 2018) can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 10#Redirects to pi. Since then, there has also been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.141592653589.... Relevant arguments may also be found there. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Harmless, goes exactly where it should point. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not a reasonable search term, created by a sock. Not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I argued at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8 § The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won that in a case where the full title would exceed 255 characters, "I think it's reasonable to say that any plausible truncation of the full title is a valid search term". This is a bit different because the full length of the string in question is, well, infinite, and I wouldn't support keeping redirects for each of the 251 possible truncations past 3.14. But it seems reasonable to allow a redirect for the longest possible truncation supported by MediaWiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 08:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Plausible" is the crucial word here, and you have not explained why a number of 255 digits in particular is reasonable to keep. That it happens to be the maximum allowed by MediaWiki doesn't make it a plausible search term. Renerpho (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, not a plausible search term. Graham87 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, do y'all really think it'd be plausible for someone to type this entire string in to search for Pi when they literally only need to plug in "Pi" or "3.14"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Amending vote: I'd like to note that the idea brought up later to salt is a good one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep Some readers may stumble on a very long series of digits and not realize it is pi, so they would search it up, truncating as necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And where does "truncating as necessary" at exactly 255 digits come in? Truncating at 256 will result in an error, and truncating at 254 leads to a redirect that doesn't exist. Renerpho (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - not a useful redirect title. Jay 💬 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep unambiguous and cheap. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a sequence of digits no one will type into any kind of search engine. --Викидим (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not for typing, it's for copy-and-pasing. If you paste 255+ digits of pi into Wikipedia, it would truncate to this redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK this is not how the search engines work. If one types more that this exact number of digits, search engines will not truncate the token to our 256 characters and will not point to our article (try Google). If the search is done inside Wikipedia, the long prompt will actually work and elicit a Pi suggestion without this redirect (the redirect will actually be confusing as it will distract attention for the actual article). Викидим (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Tamzin. Longest technically possible version of a number that is infinite. This is especially relavent because it is a non-repeating number that it is not uncommon to memorize many digits out in popular math culture. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for too long to look at the digits. What is the point of adding these huge numbers of digits, expecting the audience to search the number of Pi in an alternative way by those digits they memorize? If they would like to search for this mathematical constant, can't they just type "Pi" instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Tamzin, Pppery, Tavix, et al. and my arguments at a similar discussion that took place in March 2021. It's unambiguous, harmless, and potentially helpful to people searching for pi regardless of how many digits they type in. Like Tamzin argues above me, this is a plausible truncation of the full number pi (which has thousands, millions, possibly even billions of digits), just like all the other pi-digit redirects I cited in that discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only way to use this redirect AFAIK is to memorize hundreds of digits of pi and actually type (or paste) an exact number of these digits into the search engine. All modern engines would try to autocomplete the prompt (the one in Wikipedia after 3.141592 is typed will identify just the Pi and this strange redirect, so it would be great to hear a description of the scenario, where a genius who memorized all these digits (1) does not know that they belong to pi and (2) is oblivious to the suggestion of the search engine. Викидим (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Harmless, accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep technically correct redirect. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from nominator: To those arguing for keep, are you saying we should have a redirect from all the other possible lengths? Do you recognize that this goes against most previous discussions involving redirects to truncated versions of pi? We have some, like all up to 3.14159265358979323846264338, but most others -- including some like 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, which is actually mentioned in another article and could be a useful search term, but has been deleted per R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect -- are missing. See also this old deletion discussion, and this one. I'm sure there are others; both of these have resulted in the deletion of multiple similar redirects for the same reason, and are given as examples.

If that argument doesn't hold then we should have 255 different redirects, one from each possible truncation, plus a note on the policy page that such redirects are considered useful per community discussion. Renerpho (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: It's actually all up to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.

(It was also nominated for deletion, but it was kept due to the 32-digit version being useful for the floating point reason that you mentioned. I guess the extra 0 was too much.

Not sure if there's a similar use case for 255 digits.) ApexParagon (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, 3.14159265358979323846264338327 doesn't exist since 2011, and 3.1415926535897932384626433832 was deleted in 2015. Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The latter is of course different from the others, because it was an article, not a redirect. It was deleted under A7 (Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), which is a reason I wouldn't have thought about. One could argue whether it should have been turned into a redirect at the time. I would say no, for the same reasons to delete the other one(s), but you could. Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that because we don't delete a redirect of a certain character, we should therefore create others of the same character, or even encourage, or even not discourage such creations. With articles these three lines are so close that for most people and most purposes they merge into one. Redirects are different because they can be harmless, they don't advertise their presence like articles, and they are very cheap in all resources, especially editor resources (unless they get nommed for deletion). All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Keep per Tamzin. Not all truncations are plausible search terms, but this one is because it will catch every one using both it and any longer titles. It will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people using slightly shorter tuncations to the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as implausible and per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 22#3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706. It's clear that nobody would reasonably type this in for anything other than novelty (I am not convinced by the "copy paste" argument, more on that below) and these types of titles cause more trouble and discussion than its worth, all for reaching a two-character article. We wouldn't permit e (number) or square root of 3 to have these types of titles, and all of these digits are not discussed at Pi either, making the full length of this title an undiscussed subject at the target page. We don't have any material on Wikipedia about 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844-(arbitrary space)-6095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456. This number doesn't appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Conversely, we have an article on the mathematical constant, and that constant has this value at two hundred and fifty-five significant figures. By extension, this redirect is misleading because all of these digits included in the search term are not listed at the target, so people who want to read about all of the digits they typed in, wouldn't be able to. Tests to copy-pasting into the search bar do not work for me, as the search bar does not accept anything longer than 255, gives a MediaWiki error and/or "no results matching the query". But Google takes more than 255 characters and actually HAS all of the digits listed on various pi sites. so if "someone sees it without context", Google seems the way to go. A Wikipedia redirect for not 254, not 256, but exactly 255 digits of unmentioned material, does not seem useful or helpful, nor realistic for reading the Wikipedia article about Pi. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Utopes. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - it's obviously the right target and it's a plausible redirect (someone who sees pi written down this way and copies as much as wikipedia allows in the search box). Stop and consider "realistically, if a user typed this into a search box and pressed enter, where should they go?" Do the delete voters seriously think that a "0 search results" page is a better target for this than Pi? BugGhost🦗👻 23:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument, because a "0 search results" is not what's in question. Have you actually tried it? If a user copy/pastes 254 digits, the redirect won't help them, but the autocomplete gives them Pi even if we delete the redirect (they always get autocompleted to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which is not in question). And if they copy/paste 256 or more (which they absolutely can do), they'll also get an autocomplete for Pi -- unless they actually press search, in which case they get an error message. In neither of those cases, the redirect is of any help. Renerpho (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A correction (I admit I wasn't careful enough when I tested this myself): If you search for between 256 and 300 digits, you'll just not find anything (neither the current redirect, nor Pi). It is only when you enter 301 or more digits that you get the error message. Compare H:S vs. WP:TITLELENGTH. Renerpho (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - This redirect is not just this redirect, it's this AND EVERYTHING LONGER. It's plausible, as they could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect. Unambiguously accurate target. Harmless. WP:CHEAP. For the record, I would not mind if literally every amount of digits between this and 3.14 was also a redirect, but that is another discussion. Fieari (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  "They could paste in any larger number of digits and still get this redirect" -- that is not true. Pasting in anything longer and clicking "search" results in an error, with or without this redirect. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  And for completeness, using a smaller number of digits (say, 254) isn't helped by this redirect either. Clicking "search" doesn't find the article, but Wikipedia's auto-completion will suggest 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751, which leads them to the correct target. The redirect in question is only useful if users paste in that exact number of digits. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Renerpho, this redirect is a handful of bytes in size, and it is obviously going to the right place. The fact it is "only useful" if the user types in something non-standard is completely fine, that is the very point of a redirect. By my count, you've made 10 comments over 23 edits on this RFD - it may be beneficial to take a step back, the outcome of this is not really a big deal in the wider scheme of things. BugGhost🦗👻 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  The comment Renerpho was responding to states this redirect works for 255 characters and "EVERYTHING LONGER [sic]"; capitalization not mine. The strength from the !vote seems to be derived from (>255) functionality. Renerpho then says that it's not actually the case, and that the redirect only functions at 255 digits exactly, or (=255). (Indeed, I've come to the same conclusion from my tests). You then say that's "completely fine", seeming to agree with the (=255) status, a wholly different state of mind from what Fieari stated in their !keep. Where is the goalpole? Is this being !kept for encapsulating everything beyond >255, or exactly =255? Because I was led to believe the former, as the only reason it could be seen as exceptional and not meet a fiery fate alongside the rest of the overly long "exact digit matches", such as this (deleted) (=28) and this (deleted) (=35) and this (example of reasonable length) (=12) and this (speedy deleted) (=208) and this (speedy deleted) (=29) and this (deleted) (=98). We deleted these because digits of pi aren't listed on the page. This indicated "consensus to limit" these, but no rule beyond the existing outlier of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. It's cannot be "obviously going to the right place" if obnoxiously long pi redirects have been discussed ad nauseum and historically deleted at 100% certainty @RfD every single year since 2011.{{cn}} Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Utopes: Consensus can shift, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Right now, a small majority of votes is in favour of keep, and claiming consensus to delete it looks illusory at this point. I feel like this really opens Pandora's box though. If we keep this one then we should think carefully about how we limit redirects like this in the future. There are some serious votes here, staying unchallenged by most other keep voters, for creating redirects to literally every possible truncation. That would be a huge shift in policy. But even if we only allow the redirect with 255 digits as a special exception (because it's considered useful for some reason, even if based on a misconception of how the search function works), why only for Pi? What about any other notable real number? Renerpho (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Renerpho: I'm not sure what you mean if you're responding to me, I'm !voting delete. I totally agree with where you're coming from. Creating a redirect for every single amount of digits for specifically only pi is not reasonable or practical imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Utopes: I did intend to respond to you. The argument that this was historically deleted at 100% certainty isn't really relevant if the consensus has changed since. I am trying to understand the consequences of what we're doing here, and if Bugghost is right that I was/am overreacting. I stepped away for three days, and what's happening looks as wrong now as it did when I left. I don't plan to make many further comments in this discussion. BugGhost is right that this isn't worth a big hoo-haa either way. Still, I'm trying to understand where we're coming from with the serious arguments for keep (that's not a question to you, Utopes, just something I'm asking myself). Renerpho (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree consensus can change. It was just interesting because it seems like people who are !keeping have not actually tried typing more than 255 digits (it doesn't work). So the only way this works is exactly 255 digits. But we deleted exactly 98 digits and many others, historically. So if the assumption is that we are keeping this because "exactly 255 digits is plausible", my question for !keepers is "what makes exactly 255 digits more plausible than exactly 98 digits", which was deleted. Because the fact that MediaWiki prevents things more than 255, is purely coincidence and not something that a casual reader could possibly consider when beginning their quest of typing 255 numbers and then stopping immediately. And then do we do this for every number with repeating decimals? 0.999? 1.00000 and 255 zeroes? Because 1.0 redirects to 1, and that's a whole number. For the last 14 years it seems that any amount of decimals beyond 30 is viewed as utterly implausible. But consensus can change! So I'm curious exactly what became different, where two years ago =98 digits (no more no less) was unfathomable but =255 digits (no more no less) is a-okay. Oh well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please let me know the search engine that you tried with a larger number of digits. I tried quite a few, and did not get the results described by you. Викидим (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Utopes and others. Come on people, this is exactly the sort of useless stuff that WP:PANDORA is suited for. And for all you keepers, why Pi? Why not Chronology of computation of π or Approximations of π instead? Wouldn't someone pasting in so many digits be more likely interested in the computational aspects of generating those digits and not a general article on the number itself? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Those targets would WP:ASTONISH. If a user searches a decimal version of pi (no matter the quantity of digits) then Pi should be target; we shouldn't guess that they would prefer a more niche article. BugGhost🦗👻 07:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, nothing should be the target, because no one is going to search for exactly 255 digits, as others have already pointed out. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree with @Utopes and say delete and salt on the basis that this redirect is excessively and unreasonably large. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for previous reasons. It would be more costly in terms of bandwidth to delete the redirect, as there is a very small chance someone might actually use it. Not problematic, as an opposition to WP:COSTLY. 2003 LN6 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. While 255 characters may be the limit, I find it implausible that someone is going to type all 255 characters (or even copy and paste 255 characters; where would they even get 255 characters from? I would argue for keep if the search bar limit was 255 characters, but that's not the case). Procyon117 (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the search bar limit, anyway? (It's 300, not 255; 255 I think is the limit for the length of article titles.) Renerpho (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep absolutely no policy reason to delete. It is by no means novel or obscure. It's a very cheap way of getting people to the right place, compared with the cost of having a discussion about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

• Delete that's too implausible redirect and numbers are too long for the 255 digits so far per Utopes and other supporters. So, these would be applied as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 02:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 19:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Redirects are cheap but this is straight up implausible. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt too long implausible and which may confusing an infinite number of 255 digits so far per Utopes mentioned earlier? IMO, this would be applied for deletion as WP:COSTLY, WP:PANDORA and WP:RFD#D8. ✴️IcarusThe Astrologer✴️ 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the double vote thing I'd also like to point out that WP:PANDORA should not be used, as per WP:GETBACKINTHERE. This redirect has plenty of plausibility issues without Pandora, trust me. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and struck this as a double vote. However, please don't tell people not to invoke PANDORA. I, and many others, find it a quite cogent and valuable essay. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should be telling other people not to use it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's a marked difference between simply telling people that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and giving someone (what I believe to be) a well-written, detailed description of what PANDORA does wrong and why it should be avoided in RfD discussions. I do recommend reading WP:GETBACKINTHERE for said detailed explanation, I've put quite a bit of work into it ^^ 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have read it, and it's frankly quite terrible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...Well, I can't improve it if you won't tell me what you don't like about it, lol. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lunamann: Wouldn't it be better to have a centralized discussion about this (on the essay's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion), rather than bringing it up on every RfD that mentions WP:PANDORA?[71] 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)

Alpha Omega Mu

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Oman women's national under-17 football team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Harshveer Sekhon

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Moot.

I'm easy to find

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Liberal Democratic Hotline Team

A Novo

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Murder of Bouba and Kiki

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

Α-Methylmescaline

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

IRAS 13349+1428

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#IRAS 13349+1428

October 17

Typhoon Katrina

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Turn Off the Lights extension

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nerubian

• Nerubian → Gameplay of World of Warcraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Mentioned once in passing at Mummy (undead) and at World of Warcraft: The War Within but neither of those have enough substance to support a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Could probably be added to List of fictional arthropods if reasonable sourcing exists. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete not mentioned at the target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Was mentioned at Races and factions of Warcraft, prior to the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and factions of Warcraft, and a 15 July 2020 edit "Beginning a purge of fancruft/gamecruft - mostly unsourced or irrelevant/non-notable races. Not every creature is important." – wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to World of Warcraft: The War Within. I believe ...army of nerubians, an ancient race of humanoid spiders previously thought to be near extinct, who begin kidnapping numerous civilians... is enough to establish what they are. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's better than any other proposed target so far, but I still feel like to gives the wrong conclusion that nerubians are exclusive to The War Within when they've in fact been around since at least Warcraft III. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More options came up after the 2nd relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Crazy doing a 4th relist for this, but ... there seems to not be consensus supporting the current status quo, and I don't see a WP:BARTENDER close fixing this since stances are all over the place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Not a plausible search term, not mentioned at target page. Having a redirect for every single unit in a game is a classic WP:PANDORA situation. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Soundtack for guitar hero world tour

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

List of Monster Hunter monsters

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sound stag

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

R v R (Rape: marital exemption)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Clash of Clans Town Hall 10

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List over Swedens Municipalities

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Cackala

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#Cackala

9jeJbdVl2jI

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Ebony Eyez

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Razah

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Grenada women's national under-17 football team

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Himanshi Gawande

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Council of Narbonne (1017)

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Meenakshi Rohilla

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Redirect replaced with an article

Tighten

• Tighten → Megamind#Cast  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 16 § Tighten – no consensus

let's try this again... closed before with no consensus, with votes torn between... everything, really. opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

for the record, my vote will be to retarget to tight cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. EurekaLott and Presidentman in the last discussion explained in detail why this is the best option and, unless something very significant has changed in the last 2 months (and I haven't spotted anything) then everything they said still applies. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging those who commented in the recent discussion: @Duckmather, Red-tailed hawk, Eureka Lott, Presidentman, BugGhost, Pppery, Godsy, BD2412, and Steel1943:. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bugghost: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Redirecting a dictionary word to the misspelling of a film character's name is downright wrong and astonishing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  you'd be surprised to know that that's not actually a misspelling. i mean, it is a mishearing of "titan", but that's kind of the entire point, and he's referred to as "tighten" in the credits lmao cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  should clarify that this isn't necessarily a keep vote, it's just "don't delete as a typo" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate. Per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects (emphases mine). This word is neither commonly wikified (indeed, there are no mainspace links that point to it), nor has it been repeatedly recreated. But because it might reasonably be a search term for multiple items on Wikipedia, and none seem like an easy primary topic, a dab page should suffice. My view has not changed since the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per my reasoning at the prior discussion. As Thryduulf notes, nothing appears to have changed here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I suggest adding a {{Wiktionary hatnote}} at the very least. Seems rather WP:RASTONISHing though. By the way, I also checked whether tightening exists, but apparently we only have The Tightening. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per last discussion. Nothing has changed since last time. Would be fine with a hatnote at Megamind#Cast to Tight (or wherever else) if someone feels this is genuinely ambiguous or a likely search, but have no real strong feelings. BugGhost🦗👻 17:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I acknowledge I was pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Vote" added at the (current) end of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 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) 21:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in with a Delete vote, although I'm okay with both the idea of retargeting or hatnoting to Tight. Either way, this shouldn't stay as-is, for the extremely simple fact that anyone looking for the extremely common English verb would be heavily astonished to find themselves here-- I struggle to think of a way that Megamind, the movie, is more notable than the English language word that it references as a joke. If we stay at Megamind, it needs a hatnote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to tight as a conjugation of that word. Tighten might be the correct name of the character, but I'm pretty confident that the character is not the WP:PTOPIC, even if it is an exact match. It's a minor character, vs a common word. I would not object adding the character to the DAB... other conjugations of the word are already there anyway. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree with you that Tight is (possibly) the correct target and Megamind#Cast definitely is not, I do need to point out that Tighten is the main villain of the movie, not a minor character. Just a minor nitpick in a post I otherwise wholeheartedly agree with. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Tight, and include the character on the disambiguation page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:17, 11 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

eh? seems like the consensus was to retarget this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not. You can't just ignore previous !votes when a discussion is relisted. Right now this is clearly "no consensus", probably leaning towards a WP:NCRET disambiguate closure. C F A 💬 14:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, way I see it, this is headed straight for a WP:BARTENDER close. We don't have a consensus on where to go, but the Keep and Merely Hatnote votes are a quite small minority compared to Disambiguate, Retarget, and Delete combined (in sum total, the "We Can't Stay Here" vote) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

you know what? yeah, let's do all of those, at the same time. nothing is more evil than mildly confusing readers

for legal reasons, i do not actually endorse doing this, nor do i know how it would work cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Make a disambig page on another page, retarget to the disambig page, and then, after a day, delete both. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Tight as the current target is surprising. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Do not keep. Other than not being okay with the current status quo per my stance in the previous discussion, I'm no longer a blanket "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Do not keep. The DAB page does not really discuss anything connected to the idea of tightening, and I don't think that target will be helpful to the reader. "Tighten" is not a conjugation of "tight" because "tight" is not a verb. I grudgingly accept that a wikt retarget is not acceptable in this case, which leaves my distant second preference to be the DAB page, much as I agree with Steel1943 on the usefulness of that page. At bare minimum, a hatnote to the DAB and/or to wikt should be added at the target. I disagree with the argument that since an SSRT is inappropriate and the DAB page is no good, we should keep it at its current baffling target. When faced with a current target that is not the PTOPIC (and search results are pretty damning) the best course of action to help the reader is to delete, instead of plumping with a bad target because it's the lesser of two weevils. Cremastra (u — c) 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Either:

  Delete. Thanks to the existence of Tighten (character), this shows the current target as the first result, but will be less confusing to readers who aren't looking for the film character. Slightly preferable on balance to keeping IMO, when combined with the fact that the search engine will adapt if the situation w.r.t. this redirect changes.

  Retarget to tightness. Few things at tight can be tightened. Tightness is much better in that respect. This requires a hatnote / see also link to the current target (that admittedly might look a little stranger at tightness than at tight).

• Those two options are the most amenable to me. Either way, there definitely isn't the fuel for a new dab page. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - This is the classic example of where we might once have had an article before the clean up of fiction, but instead have a redirect the creator of which did not apparently consider is in reality a commonly used word with numerous different meanings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Perhaps keep with hatnote? Compare Twice, which does not refer to stuff happening two times but a K-pop group, as discussed in this RM and this MRV. The MRV also brings up Thrice, which includes such a hatnote. In principle, though, I'd rather disambiguate it, pointing it to Tight as a sort of {{R from related word}}, so if that happens, I'm fine, too. I feel that a full deletion would be unhelpful overall. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep with hatnote per Brainulator9. If there are no other encyclopedic topics that aren't just dicdefs, then leaving it with a pointer is probably fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maintain status quo (Keep) as a procedure per Presidentman, so as to not encourage quick renominations hoping for a different result from a different crowd. The renomination rationale had to be convincing and I didn't find it so. Jay 💬 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

List of swears

• List of swears → Profanity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list at the target; we shouldn't suggest readers that we do. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment lists have been deleted multiple times, including following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of profanities (2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of swear words (2007), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sexual slurs (2006) and (at these and other titles) many times speedily under multiple criteria (usually A3, G3, and/or G4). The deleted content at this title was just a bulleted list of the Seven dirty words with literally no other content. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is actually scope for some sort of list of lists here, as many of the articles in Category:Profanity and it's subcategories do contain lists (e.g. Four letter word, Italian profanity, Bhojpuri profanity, Mandarin Chinese profanity (almost entirely lists), and Wiktionary has other categories and lists (e.g. wikt:Glossary of Romanian profanity, wikt:Appendix:English censored words, wikt:Category:English vulgarities, wikt:Category:English swear words, wikt:Appendix:Fictional English curse words). We also have Lists of pejorative terms for people, Minced oaths in media, Scunthorpe problem which related lists/articles containing lists but not a suitable target for the redirect. The number of times the various titles have been recreated strongly suggests this is something people are looking for here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIC and similar consensus and discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Redirects to Profanity, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Dagnabbit, and several discussions listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4. There's just not consensus for this. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
• I'm honestly surprised this isn't a fucking article, but delete per nom. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  If it was, then the title would be wrong and/or would have to be speedy deleted as an article that duplicates another article's topic. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• DABify, or possibly create a list of lists. I think this is a valid thing someone would search for, and we already have the information they are looking for, it just needs to be properly compiled to send them all the lists of profanity that we do in fact already have. Fieari (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since no actual list exists. Why bother with a redirect? Wolfdog (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's not quite true, no list exists at this title but many more specific lists do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No list exists (even assuming the use of "swear" as a noun here is correct). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 6 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) 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While I'd normally recommend deletion... would it be a bad idea to simply redirect to Seven Dirty Words? It's not a list of literally all English-language profanity, but it is at least a list of some profanity. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That would not be a good redirect, as that list is significantly narrower than the search term - for example it omits all non-English swear words (of which we have multiple lists). Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is why I still advocate for creating a list of lists... since we do have all those lists. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree there is scope for some sort of list of lists, and nothing in this RfD prevents an editor from creating one, but the title of that list of lists wouldn't be "List of swears". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• DABify per Fieari. It's a very plausible search term, and there is relevant content. Deleting seems harmful to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• A list of words is the job of a dictionary. Soft redir to wikt:Category:English swear words. —Cryptic 06:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Swearing is not restricted to English, and we have lots of directly relevant encyclopaedic content. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - We don't have a list of swear-words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To be honest, this also seems like an implausible search-term. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Note: We don't have a single list of swear words. We have multiple lists of swear words, in multiple languages. We're not a dictionary, but we do, in fact, have this content. Fieari (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - it has been almost a month, and no one has attempted a draft. Any editor may recreate the page as a disambig. Jay 💬 19:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, confusing and misleading redirect as the target is not a list of swears. Contains zero valuable history; can always be recreated or disambiguated when a suitable target arises. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Alicia Douvall

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Will (sociology)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#Will (sociology)

Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208)

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

Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Valdemar Scheel Hansteen

April 4, 1974

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 25#April 4, 1974

June 23, 2016

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 12

National Sports Administration

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Erie Von Detten

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 30#Erie Von Detten

Bot policy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Image use

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

No original research

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Deletion policy

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Banning policy

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

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• While it's true that this was created as cross-namespace (to Wikipedia:Banning policy), banning is in namespace 0. Not that this seems like a particularly useful retarget; "policy" only makes sense in relation to just three of the entries on that dab page. —Cryptic 20:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Whoops. Not sure how I missed this. C F A 💬 21:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the redirect to the Banning disambiguation page is apt, but I don't have a better suggestion. Ban (law) comes closest with its lead sentence, A ban is a formal or informal prohibition[1] of something., but the article is about legally-enacted prohibitions (as indicated by the name). A policy is generally used to describe guidance that an authority is enacting on its own discretion. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think Banning is better than any of the alternatives anyone has come up with so far, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ban is incrementally better, I think. (And conveniently already has a hatnote to Wikipedia:Banning policy.) —Cryptic 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think that "banning policy" is more generic than restricting Internet access. It can refer to prohibited behaviour in a place open to the public, for example. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  that is a bad target. Banning is not restricted to the internet. People get banned from shopping centers, amusement parks, casinos. It would be encyclopedic to examine banning in casinos -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "banning policy" is not restricted to the internet. Delete as too vague; we don't have a broad-topic article on banning. My second preference is to retarget to Ban. Cremastra (u — c) 19:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Cremastra. The un-XNR retarget was an WP:ATD compromise, and is not the best. We don't have to make another ill-fitting compromise, to a target not having info on the specific "policy", and this being a recently created redirect. Jay 💬 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Jay, seems like a redirect that wouldn't stand on its own, ignoring the XNR history. Legoktm (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocking policy

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

Recently-created cross-namespace redirect. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• I support deleting this redirect. Pages in mainspace are primarily for the benefit of the general readership. "Blocking policy" is not a term familiar to the general public as being related to English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Retarget to Block (Internet). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Although that might be a common usage today, I think Access control is a better target to cover the broader concept of a policy to block access. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Fine with me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  Though this can clearly indicate block allocation policy... -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this unnecessary and confusing Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirect. "Blocking" has several ambiguous contexts. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete not a Wikipedia specific term as other websites have blocking and there are potentially other forms of blocking that could have policies however it could be useful to new users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:XNR too much navel gazing. "Blocking" is just so ambiguous this is not useful. Block allocation, Banning, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Retarget to Access control per Isaacl and Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Blocking makes the most sense to me if we retarget, but really, I don't know what we'd gain by having a redirect from here to there. Not going to help with searches, not going to help find more specific content. Access control would be a surprising place to land at if you're looking for one of the other senses of the phrase. —Cryptic 06:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Wesk retarget as potentially useful but I'm also fine with deletion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Retarget to where? There are multiple suggestions. Jay 💬 10:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Block (Internet). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I think this is the same as banning policy, people are trying to retcon targets for a weird redirect that shouldn't have been created in the first place. None of the suggestions are great really, I agree with 65.92, it's too ambiguous. Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Username policy

• Username policy → Wikipedia:Username policy  (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)

No legal threats

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Days

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Scottish Nose-pickers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26#Scottish Nose-pickers

2032 Copa América

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Dietary biology of the of the Nile crocodile

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Joining the of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe to the Moscow Patriarchate

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

JD "the Couch" Vance

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Couch sex

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Having sex with couch

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

K'gari (local council), Queensland

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

List of speakers of the of the Wisconsin State Assembly

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

American American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6.